CapnZapp
Legend
That's a really dismissive response. Please assume people posting in 5E threads are 5E players.You've got it already! There's 3.5, 4e, Pathfinder, etc. etc. etc...
That's a really dismissive response. Please assume people posting in 5E threads are 5E players.You've got it already! There's 3.5, 4e, Pathfinder, etc. etc. etc...
No, you don't get to have the opinion "to get what I want I need to actively deny others what they want - I'm not satisfied merely by my personal D&D collection being crunch-light, I need the game to actively not cater to other parts of the customer base, only to people like me".Hiya!
Then make it yourself for those that want it and leave the game crunch-light for those who don't.
Bye-ya!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
It's alright Tony.I don't know how easy you think game design is - I know I /like/ tinkering and have been doing so almost as long as I've been gaming, but I don't kid myself I'm that good at it - or how much time you think people have, or how much duplication of effort to achieve inconsistent results it takes for you to notice the inefficiency, but let's just consider the relative ease and convenience of the two 'just' options here.
I'm not entirely sure this is fair to you.... but my honest reflex response is "if he needs to ask, he must have missed the entire point of the discussion".Now, when you say 'competitive', what do you actually mean?
What are they competing against and where have you set the bar that you define what is competitive, and what isn't by?
If I've already played a Totem Bear Barbarian, it is much less tempting to play a Berserk Barbarian, since it is so obviously inferior in every (mechanical) way (including hogging the bonus action I'd much rather use for Polearm Mastery or some such).As in building on top of an existing character? (Which subclasses will generally be less useful for). Or building new characters? (Which they work pretty well for.)
Yes, but that's a poor excuse for not even tryingCould lead to more problems though.
I might have been unclear - I am the DM (but I'm not solely looking at this from a DM's POV obviously, since my concern concerns people in the position of playing their third or fourth character)From what I can tell, you give the impression that you and the rest of your party is running rings around your DM due to a hefty system mastery disparity. More options for characters is only going to have the potential for exacerbating the situation to an even worse extent.
Perhaps I need to tell you how a forum works.I have twice now directly addressed exactly why you won't see what you are wanting to see. So maybe you just might want to actually read them and educate yourself on how a business works.
That's a really dismissive response. Please assume people posting in 5E threads are 5E players.
No, you don't get to have the opinion "to get what I want I need to actively deny others what they want - I'm not satisfied merely by my personal D&D collection being crunch-light, I need the game to actively not cater to other parts of the customer base, only to people like me".
Not without being called out on it for its unreasonable and uncharitable qualities, at least.
andthinly veiled attempt to dismiss and denigrate valid concerns.
the whole point is to sound reasonable while actually just shooting down ideas they themselves dislike without having to say just that.
[MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has stated that their market research showed that, and they seem extremely happy with the results. The burden of proof that they are wrong, to the tune of 100,000 buyers per book, is on you.