Unpopular opinions go here

[overgeeked]

If playing a game causes someone so much anger that they have to post in discussions of the game about how much they dislike the game, then maybe they shouldn’t play the game or even engage in those discussions but instead they should play something else instead that makes them happy and then post about that! That makes for far better reading on the forum.

But then WotC won’t make money selling a bland game to everyone. D&D is for everyone who spends money on it. Doesn’t matter that there are thousands of better games out there that would do what they want better. All must worship the ampersand.

 

[Reynard]

If playing a game causes someone so much anger that they have to post in discussions of the game about how much they dislike the game, then maybe they shouldn’t play the game or even engage in those discussions but instead they should play something else instead that makes them happy and then post about that! That makes for far better reading on the forum.

Numbers of views and replies would seem to suggest otherwise.

 

[Aldarc]

Numbers of views and replies would seem to suggest otherwise.

I don't think such things tell an accurate story.

 

[Guest 7042500]

i assumed they were referring to this.

Which is properly called "jazerant". Also, Wikipedia is useful only to get sources to consult.

Also, the word " chainmail" is also a Victorian neologism.

Unfortunately, Claude Blair's "European Armor" has never been reprinted, because it's still the foundational text.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think such things tell an accurate story.

They certainly tell A story tho.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Which is properly called "jazerant".

i mean. ok. tell that to the other guy.

 

[Hussar]

That kind of runs contrary to what D&D is, though. D&D over the decades has branded itself as a game that changes. From the optional classes, items, rules, new mechanics, etc. in the Dragon magazines, to supplements that bring in those things, to profoundly changed editions, D&D is a game that embraces change.

But only when you approve of the changes. Otherwise it’s a big nope.

 

[payn]

D6 Star Wars, not that good.

 

[Maxperson]

But only when you approve of the changes. Otherwise it’s a big nope.

Not only is that not true for me, but it's not true for the people who liked my posts when I told you flat out that I was okay with that sort of thing. Why would you say that I need to approve such additions to the game when I said I'm happy to see people get new stuff, even if I don't like it?

 

[Hussar]

Not only is that not true for me, but it's not true for the people who liked my posts when I told you flat out that I was okay with that sort of thing. Why would you say that I need to approve such additions to the game when I said I'm happy to see people get new stuff, even if I don't like it?

But you aren't happy. You are contradicting yourself. You flat out said that the only way you would be happy is if someone got a mythic fighter that wasn't a fighter. The only way to add in a sort of mythic capability to different classes is to create new classes. The existing classes must not be changed.

So, which is it? Can I have a mythic fighter - an optional add on that starts at about 11th level and adds a number of elements to the base fighter chasis? Or must I be forced to either go with 3pp (cf the warlord) or hope that WotC will actually create a new class?

Considering the HUGE amount of push back every suggestion of changing the fighter gets - including your own insistence that a fighter must never be changed because you like the flavor - I'm thinking that perhaps your position isn't quite as broad as your claiming.