Search results

Yep and what's interesting is if you suggested taking away any spells at all or reorganising them people get incredibly upset, even over trash tier spells . But if WotC actually just does it, without discussion, people mostly just accept it! There are people who would write a 2500 word essay on...

Yeah - the issue is their attack bonus and damage will mean they're basically a non-threat though past like, level 8 or 9 or so. I feel like we should have enemies like that for all levels. Maybe I could just use 14 hp versions of higher level enemies.

You can't have it both ways. Either things need to be consistent, have a basis, and be possible to explain within the setting or that isn't the case. Demanding explanations re: one characters abilities but not the other is just illustrating a weird double standard. D&D's arcane magic presents...

That's not weird, I support that strongly!

I don't think that tracks at all. I don't think, based on the history of RPG design, there's any reason to think people who started with system X will merely always make incremental changes to system X. In fact, I think those people are among those most likely to make revolutionary changes...

I mean it is a contradiction, on the other hand, it is how they said they designed and balanced 5E 2014. They went on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it. "Oh we didn't assume PCs would have magical items when we did the math for X so they will just make PCs stronger! No we didn't...

??? Why the heck would all else be equal? That's a nonsensical opinion because learning that trick isn't free. It's as hard or difficult as a game or setting makes it. If you takes you 20 years of practice to learn it, but someone can be an expert warrior in 3, well, who is more powerful? I...

Replace them with a Warrior class that can be armoured or unarmoured and armed or unarmed (primarily via subclasses), and uses Focus or a similar resource to perform extraordinary feats (small f). Also you can't? Someone should call up the Genie Paladin and tell him.

When exactly did you start playing though? From previous discussions, the vast majority of people on ENworld seem to have started in the 10-14 age range. Seems a bit weird to complain about aiming to sell games to that age group on that basis. Also you don't have to do the first two points to...

Because it lets you do things you couldn't otherwise do, duh. That's how magic works in tons and tons of fantasy settings. Being able to say, turn into a sparrow is an incredible trick that can get you crazy places or out of bad situations, but does it make you "more powerful" in some general...

I will be astonished if 6E is backwards compatible. It does mean they have to wait longer to do a new edition, but still not very long from now.

I mean your entire argument collapses because you used this word, especially about magic, which is arbitrarily powerful. It's as powerful as the game says it is. It doesn't ever, ever have a "realistic" level of power. Magic in 4E isn't "less realistic" than 1E or 5E, say.

??? So it as cool when you were 12 but is "a sad commentary" when you're like, what, 60?

That was from a very different era and when people didn't know what the hell they were talking about. The actual 5E rules are, for once, closer to reality here.

They couldn't delete them in 5.5, they had said they would retain backwards compatibility. A point you've made a few times is how dangerous insisting on backwards compatibility is to design. I strongly suspect they would have made them into a new class if they hadn't promised that. I don't see...

They shouldn't be pulling from most of those either whilst retaining the name or concept of "Monk". The whole concept is profoundly screwed up. It's a class desperate in need of a new concept, different chassis, different default abilities. It really should have no elements of monasticism...

D&D has never been "medieval fantasy", so it can scarcely "no longer apply", I would argue. I mean, what setting is that true in? Forgotten Realms varies from stone-age to near-industrial, but the "main areas" are basically 1500s/1600s in tech except for guns (and even those are like...

I don't think they're that dumb lol.

No. That's completely nonsensical. There's a reason games start set to "Normal", not "ULTRA VIOLENCE" or "Nightmare". It makes the game much harder to balance if the default assumption is max difficulty. That, unlike some things, is not an opinion. That's a demonstrable fact that's been...

No, it's not. You've put the cart before the horse. Monks are colonisers on stolen land lol. Monks should not exist. They only exist because some utter oaf in the 1970s was a hyperfan of a very specific series of novels (not even kung fu flicks in general - someone here identified the specific...