Hussar
Legend
But, Bill91, that's my point. When talking about skills advancing with character levels, we can say, "Hey, I don't like this. It doesn't make sense to me. Here's how I can make it make sense for me." And skills advance based on what the character did in game.
Fantastic.
But, when the same argument is applied to powers, we hit this wall of "Hell no!" Nothing can be done. The mechanics are dissociated and nothing can change that, apparently. Even when ten different ways of associating the mechanics are pointed out, none of them are ever acceptable.
I think the main difference is, back in the day, you had the choice of fix D&D or find a totally new system. Now, the choice is, fix edition X or simply choose edition Y. Which is fine as far as it goes. But, it still remains intellectually dishonest at its heart to blame the notion of dissociation. It's not the dissociation that's the problem, or it would be a problem for the other things as well. It's a problem that the person simply doesn't like a given mechanic and feels some sort of need to justify that dislike in the face of other people who are not having an issue.
Look, if AEDU really bothers you that much, there's 3e right there. Or Pathfinder if that floats your boat. But, I find it laughable when Next comes along, putting dissociated mechanics onto the fighter right at the outset and no one complains and everyone goes, "Yay WOTC for listening to fans!" and then the same people turn around and pooh pooh 4e for having dissociated mechanics attached to fighters.
It's not the dissociation that's the issue. It's that they don't like how fighters look like wizards. Fair enough. I can get behind that. I might not agree, but, at least I can understand. But, pretending that it's an issue that is so vague and undefined and very, very specifically applied when it suits the person, is not helping anything.
Fantastic.
But, when the same argument is applied to powers, we hit this wall of "Hell no!" Nothing can be done. The mechanics are dissociated and nothing can change that, apparently. Even when ten different ways of associating the mechanics are pointed out, none of them are ever acceptable.
I think the main difference is, back in the day, you had the choice of fix D&D or find a totally new system. Now, the choice is, fix edition X or simply choose edition Y. Which is fine as far as it goes. But, it still remains intellectually dishonest at its heart to blame the notion of dissociation. It's not the dissociation that's the problem, or it would be a problem for the other things as well. It's a problem that the person simply doesn't like a given mechanic and feels some sort of need to justify that dislike in the face of other people who are not having an issue.
Look, if AEDU really bothers you that much, there's 3e right there. Or Pathfinder if that floats your boat. But, I find it laughable when Next comes along, putting dissociated mechanics onto the fighter right at the outset and no one complains and everyone goes, "Yay WOTC for listening to fans!" and then the same people turn around and pooh pooh 4e for having dissociated mechanics attached to fighters.
It's not the dissociation that's the issue. It's that they don't like how fighters look like wizards. Fair enough. I can get behind that. I might not agree, but, at least I can understand. But, pretending that it's an issue that is so vague and undefined and very, very specifically applied when it suits the person, is not helping anything.