5E UA and depth of complexity - Page 17
Closed Thread
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 179
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfcrusher View Post
    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.

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by pming View Post
    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
    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.
    XP Corpsetaker, The-Magic-Sword gave XP for this post

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    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.
    It's alright Tony.

    When I read about people offering "just do it yourself" it's most often merely a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss and denigrate valid concerns. Since they never have the intention of doing any game design themselves, they don't have to care about grossly underestimating the complexity and difficulty level - the whole point is to sound reasonable while actually just shooting down ideas they themselves dislike without having to say just that.
    Laugh Valetudo laughed with this post

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Cap'n Kobold View Post
    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?
    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".

    (Please feel free to clarify your question if I misunderstood)

    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.)
    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).

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Cap'n Kobold View Post
    Could lead to more problems though.
    Yes, but that's a poor excuse for not even trying

    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.
    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)

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post
    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.
    Perhaps I need to tell you how a forum works.

    If I start a thread asking people for their ideas on "depth on complexity" rules additions, having a Sacrosanct derail the topic by posting Top Three Reasons This Won't Happen (or some such) is wholly unwelcome, and I politely ask you to go away. Perhaps start a new thread?
    XP Corpsetaker gave XP for this post

  7. #167
    removed
    Last edited by CapnZapp; Sunday, 29th January, 2017 at 11:50 AM.

  8. #168
    Member
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,487
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Elfcrusher


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnZapp View Post
    That's a really dismissive response. Please assume people posting in 5E threads are 5E players.
    That's an odd response.

  9. #169
    Member
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,487
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Elfcrusher


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnZapp View Post
    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.
    You and others keep repeating this assertion, but without ever acknowledging that they (we) do have concerns that changes would affect our games. That "just don't use the parts you don't like" isn't a solution for us that we like. No matter how many times we explain our concerns, you ignore or dismiss them and insist we are just being selfish.

    Ironically, your next post talks about
    thinly veiled attempt to dismiss and denigrate valid concerns.
    and
    the whole point is to sound reasonable while actually just shooting down ideas they themselves dislike without having to say just that.
    Hmmm....
    Last edited by Elfcrusher; Sunday, 29th January, 2017 at 03:08 PM.
    XP AaronOfBarbaria gave XP for this post

  10. #170
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    City of the Dead
    Posts
    1,110
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews
    KickstarterD&DForgotten RealmsGoodman GamesEN World EN5iderGygax Memorial FundThe Perturbed Dragon

    Block Corpsetaker


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Parmandur View Post
    @mearls 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.
    No he didn't and the proof of burden is on you since you made the claim. I remember the surveys and all they talked about was a smaller release schedule which can be anything when you are starting from the assumptions of the 3rd and 4th edition releases.

Closed Thread
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415161718 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Depth of Felk Mor?
    By Zardnaar in forum D&D 5th Edition News, Rules, Homebrews, and House Rules
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, 13th February, 2016, 09:27 PM
  2. [ุone Games] Just Add depth!
    By Master01 in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Wednesday, 21st June, 2006, 09:21 AM
  3. An in depth look at Dragonmarks
    By Whisper72 in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, 23rd July, 2004, 11:11 PM
  4. In depth character building
    By Ferret in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Saturday, 25th May, 2002, 02:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •