1 to 6 damage? Really?

[Mast3rR0b]

Please, really, please, we DO NOT want this. This is D&D, D&D!

We are proud of our dices, and we want them!

Why making the description numb and misleading? The one we had was almost perfect. Where's the problem understanding the meaning of 1d6?

I am pretty sure it was even written in some notes for new players, maybe in the compendium, so why?

Again, please don't do this.

[Melyc'inya]

I'm kind of surprised nobody has mentioned how similar the "dumbed down" damage range is to First Edition. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...umni/20070302a

Hilarious, certainly, but it makes my brain lag bothering trying to figure out what dice damage is at first glance of spells and such, since my brain starts working on that before I get to the bottom, where the dice notation is. Heck, I just made a sorceror a bit ago for the sole purpose of seeing what the new level one sonic spell was like, and didn't realize that it wouldn't do any damage until I was level 2! There's no indication of that besides the max damage listed at being effective at level 10 (a total "DUH" in retrospect, but still...lack of clarity in the description there). Thank goodness that was just a test, and I wasn't a new player, 'cause having to rely on my staff for damage and having no damaging spells (as I had Sonic Blast and Shield) would have made me a sadface sorceror.

But back on topic, the dice notation should DEFINITELY be at the TOP of the description, with a "noob-friendly" notation as an extra note at the bottom, and as something that can be turned off somewhere in the Options for those who understand what "2d8+2" means just fine.

[Borror0]

By the way, here are a few things that could use a reminder text:

• All conditions (explaining what it does)
• All abilities (explaining the basic of what it grants)
• Everything with a bonus type (explaining stacking)
• Dodge and Exceptional bonuses (explaining how it stacks)
• Hate/aggro (explaining what it is, a bit)
• DC (what it does)
• Possibly other stuff in that list I didn't think of

Let me add a few more to that list:

• Damage Reduction
• Critical multiplier
• Threat range
• Active blocking
• Confirmation roll
• Glancing blow
• Grazing Hits
• Natural 20

[Dendrix]

I do like the colour in the description of the damage.

I very much dislike the change to the text for several reasons detailed below.
1) This makes the whole item more wordy and harder to read, not clearer.
2) You now have redundant information, this introduces the possibility of inconsistencies between the two.
3) 3D6 defines the minimum, maximum and the damage distribution, 3-18 is less accurate as it only defines minimum and maximum.
4) The use of xDy is a very D&D feel, changing to wordy descriptions takes away this link and negatively impacts my D&D gameing experience.

[Steiner-Davion]

I'll elaborate a little bit on this passage.

In Magic The Gathering, there are some keywords used in place of the full explanation of the attribute or ability. Keywords have three functions: they ease communication by giving a single word to communicate the ability, instead of a phrase; they reduce the amount of words on a card for that ability, leaving room for more abilities which, in turn, expends the design space; and they make more complex cards easier to read to veteran players.

Of course, there is a drawback to keywords: it's harder for new players to understand a card.

That is why the cards in core sets - the sets aimed at new players - have reminder texts for each keyword. The goal is that "that way new players will get to learn what all the basic Magic abilities (like flying, first strike, fear, and vigilance) actually do. Hopefully, by the time they move up to expert level sets they won't be confused when they run into a keyword like 'defender' and everybody just winds up happier than they have been." Additionally, when a new keyword is introduced in a block, commons have a reminder text for that keyword but rares cards might not.

This is the model DDO should be copying, at it achieves the best of both world.

In DDO, the abilities deserving a reminder text should be:

1. All feats that have a requirement that can be achieved before BAB 6.
2. Level 3 spells and lower.
3. All items whose ML is lower than 6.
4. All skills.
5. All enhancements below level 6.
6. Anything that the player is unlikely to have read about before that moment, even if it is high level.

By following these guidelines, it should cover most of the gameplay experience while not harassing veterans with stuff they already know like what a d6 or what being paralyzed mean. The problem of keywords making the game hard to learn is real, but so is wordiness.

By the way, here are a few things that could use a reminder text:

• All conditions (explaining what it does)
• All abilities (explaining the basic of what it grants)
• Everything with a bonus type (explaining stacking)
• Dodge and Exceptional bonuses (explaining how it stacks)
• Hate/aggro (explaining what it is, a bit)
• DC (what it does)
• Possibly other stuff in that list I didn't think of

QFT
/signed

[Steiner-Davion]

I'm sorry but you're wrong about this picture, next to damage it does have the die.

In regards to the Dream Edge, he was refering to the text description for Maiming, not the base weapon damage.

[Lorz]

Meh, if it makes it easier. I still miss THAC0.

We still here.....oh you didn't the guild

[BangsLiekWhoa]

Why not leave 1d6 in the description and put the "1 to 6" in the footnote?

[talyor]

Why not leave it XdX but hyperlink it so that it opens up the compendium to an explanation to how DICE work?

[elraido]

Is Kargon coming back? Is that why they are dumbing things down? Actually, even he could understand what 1d6 means. Why don't you guys just change the name from D&D to WOW version 1.5. Cause that is exactly the way this game is going....and most people who played the game played it to get away from WOW and it simplistic BS.

[Braegan]

Sooo...

this dilutes the D&D element, provides a bigger wall of text, and is inaccurate. All in all sounds like fail to me.

[Missing_Minds]

They DGAF. They're trying to pull in non D&D folks so they have to put it in terms that are easier for them to understand.

That reminds me of the time I went to Lowes and told the guy I needed 10 yards of rope.

him: "uh... we only sell it by feet".

me: "Ok."

me: waiting.... waiting... still waiting...

me: "That's.. 30 feet?"

him: "Oh..." starts cutting.

This change while not game breaking, really irritates me.

[Cam_Neely]

not much to add, but I agree. Last I checked when i logged on it was to D&D online, not WoW, if its not broke dont try to fix it

[BangsLiekWhoa]

Better yet: do like ArenaNet did in Guild Wars and offer an option in the UI to pick the kind of descriptions you like. Then everyone can have the style they like and not be bothered by the other.

[HallowedOne]

This is a ridiculous, RIDICULOUS change. There are TONS of descriptions that needs some more clearing, Borrow0 has HUGE thread with them, and you change something that not only was clear enough but also removes one of the key aspects of D&D!

Who suggested this, the same guy who put extra bank slot for 1k TP?

[Solmage]

Why not leave it XdX but hyperlink it so that it opens up the compendium to an explanation to how DICE work?

Gods, yes please.

Leave our descriptions alone.

[Steiner-Davion]

88 posts of PURE NEGATIVE feedback on this change. Please take the NOT SO SUBTLE HINT!

[Ystradmynach]

Terrible change, nobody considered that it makes more sense to explain at some point what d(n) means rather than accommodate a new player's ignorance by not referring to the dice that make up the backbone of this game in the first place.

[sarcasm]Shhh, don't tell anyone this is an MMO is based on D&D. Wait, I guess that means you will have to change the name next. How about "Hole and scaley thingy on the intertubes" for the new name of DDO.[/sarcasm]

Sarcasm aside, at least give players the option of having the old text instead, it will at least save those who know how to use the option panels from having to read those abominable descriptions. In fact, I am going to have to just remove descriptions all together as an option if this goes live.

The irony of all this is that the effort put into making descriptions less accurate, more wordy and insulting to RPGers could have been better spent teaching newbies how to use the social panel or that like bonuses don't stack, to name just a couple of many things new players apparently never learn about from a tutorial.

And this is coming from someone who has not been vocal about any of the other nerfs coming this way, to which I am patient enough to wait to see how it effects the game. But this is so obviously the wrong way to do this that I have to say something about it.

[Temko]

91 posts of PURE NEGATIVE feedback on this change. Please take the NOT SO SUBTLE HINT!

^.^

[FrozenDonkeyWheel]

if that is real then i am totally against it. DDO is based on D&D

I'd like to amend that and say... DDO is based on D&D 3.5, which is loosely based on D&D.

learning what 3d6 means is not a difficult task and should weed out the people with subhuman intelligence.

That however I totally agree with. d6, d8, etc..., has always been a part of D&D. If they drop those, and we start looting greens, blues, and purples from dungeons.... I'm out.