Admissions from Inside WotC about Things We Already Knew

[Iaimeki]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthre ... 378[br][br]

There's an interesting and highly off-topic point I'd like to bring up regarding that. I have an uncle, Jon Pickens, who worked at TSR and WotC during the late 80's, 90's, and until just after 3.0 was released. I've asked him about play balance in 3.x several times, and he's got a great deal to say about it. The part of this that concerns us at this moment is this:

WOTC playtested D&D under their own preconcieved notions about what D&D should be. A fighter SHOULD run up and hit things. A cleric SHOULD stay in the back and heal, unless the fighter goes down, and a Wizard SHOULD primarily be a blaster. They did this because that's how they had been playing for years. The same thing happened with the DM: when the BBEG got run at by the fighter, who starting whaling on him with a sharp object, the BBEG did not immediately Dimension Door away and ignore the fighter - the DM ran the encounter in a particular style that predicated this from happening. The "balance" in D&D 3.x is only supposed to work when the players take on the party roles that the WotC playtesters assigned them. In short, if you don't play the game the way the playtesters did...it's not ever going to balance! They didn't playtest for Batman, or Pun-Pun, or CoDzilla. The ideas behind an arcane caster (and I quote uncle Jon on this) "Why would anyone NOT want to do lots of hitpoints of damage? That's what mages are for."

Of course, this is just some random person on the Internet claiming that their uncle was a playtester at WotC, so it's pretty much the definition of hearsay. However, if true, it goes a long way to explaining all things we'd already figured out looking at the places where the rules break.

http://p086.ezboard.com/Opinions-on-hom ... pic[br][br]

More generally, spellcasters are stronger than nonspellcasters, and your "any-ability" rule is going to tend to help spellcasters. But the spellcasters don't really start pulling out in front until around 5th level.

From the horse's mouth. It really doesn't get much clearer than this, folks.

[MrWaeseL]

They played D&D like any random PC RPG? That explains a lot.

Also, at the cleric's role being 'combat healing'.

[rapanui]

They're gearing up to give the public an excuse to buy D&D 4.

[PhoneLobster]

They're gearing up to give the public an excuse to buy D&D 4.

Well you did see that thread that appeared on the WOTC boards by some guy saying some local d20 translation/third party whatever where he was were shutting down their d20 stuff based on knowledge that 4 was going to be released or announced 2008.

I mean I saw it and I'm never over there so you guys must have.

Reliable or not I say its a sign that the various 2008 predictions for announcements/release made by most of us on the 4 ed prediction thread are remarkably prescient.

[Voss]

Their own products have pretty much shown the lack of interest in the current product line that heralds a new edition. Random new sub-systems (with the Tome of Battle defiling what little remained of the fighter's dignity). Obvious half-arsed efforts. Incarnum? Tome of Magic? Did anyone actually look at the mechanics to see if they worked? Entire books that have *maybe* a handful of rules/feats/classes that hold any value whatsoever. I *love* the factotum. Situationally better than every other class at almost anything they can do... plus unfettered access to the wish economy. Thats the product of minds that simple don't care any more.

The Tweet quote is hilarious. Particularly since he's overestimating nonspellcasters by several levels.