Recent content by EzekielRaiden

You keep saying this as though you can't do both things. More importantly, the question was about min-maxing. Min-maxing for defense is a perfectly valid approach. That there might be other options doesn't mean this one isn't also min-maxing.

A 1-level Fighter dip is excellent for anyone aiming for a caster-martial mixed character: Bladesinger Wizard, Pact of the Blade Warlock, etc.--doubly so in 5.5e, where it gives you both a style feat and weapon masteries, on top of the Con save proficiency it already gave. Other than that...

Awesome! You can exploit that 'til Kingdom come, moving around the battlefield with impunity, and using all your spells for powerful utility effects rather than wasting them on combat stuff you never need to do. Doing a blade ward and a mirror image near the start of combat is plenty of benefit...

I'm not the one arguing that financial success is the one and only standard that ever matters.

Bladesingers make better tanks than actual defense-specialized Fighters. Of course, it's even better if you start Fighter and then MC to Wizard for the remaining 19 levels. Shield for days, amongst other defensive benefits--and the 5.5e version of blade ward is an amazing tanking option. Start...

So, if you know, in your heart of hearts, that a particular design is actually bad--as in it will, objectively, result in problems at real tables, you KNOW that it will cause problems down the line--but you also know that it will sell super well for the next five years prior to folks getting...

And I have seen enough complaints now that I don't actually think 5e will last. It had a good run. Folks have seen the cracks now, though, and they're growing tired of the ways that their preferences got majorly, majorly compromised on/about. Obviously the 4e fans felt that right out the gate...

Your preferences, from everything I've seen, are: 2nd edition 5th edition 3rd edition/Basic (not sure relative ranking there OD&D/1e (again, not sure relative ranking) 2nd is far and away your favorite of the bunch though, if I've understood your preferences correctly. Like if we were putting...

It's only non-representative when it doesn't support you though. As soon as it does, it's super representative. That's part of the problem here. Like genuinely. The survey data isn't representative. Ever. That's why I'm calling for actual well-designed surveys, which take into account biases...

Indeed, the edition everyone accuses of requiring "lockstep" fights or the like says, explicitly, multiple times, in multiple places, "DO NOT exclusively run combats exactly matching the party's level, because that would be boring." But, as I've said previously, responses to a game often have...

An undiplomatic, but fairly accurate and very pithy, summary. PF1e is much the same way. When all are trying to address the same set of problems, one should expect the solutions to look similar, but not identical.

If what I said made you or others feel that way, then I apologize. That was a crappy thing for me to do. I still do think that it is quite possible for folks to hold beliefs about what is "correct" in design or execution which are built on a flawed foundation. Both because I've experienced that...

I agree that you cannot design by committee. But having someone on staff who, y'know, is actually a professional at designing surveys for data-gathering...would probably be more useful than the flagrant push-polling we saw from "D&D Next". Do you remember the poll--I no longer remember what...

Do remember that calling 4e "some other game" is, for a lot of us fans, straight-up fighting words. "Your game is awesome but it doesn't belong in MY D&D" is not a particularly friendly or positive attitude to take--it is gamer NIMBY.

Well, I mean, I cited the example in part because it effectively is a (mild) sacrifice, but it also functionally costs nothing, and yet also adds almost nothing either. Dante (the half-hellhound in question) only shows up very late. If folks were inclined to experiment just because they felt...