Search results

Trying to fit an Avenger into a Fighter (or Paladin) is even less reasonable than trying to fit in Warlord, because they're doing fundamentally different things. The Avenger, from 4e, revealed an under-served archetype, that has both historical precedent (the actual Hashshashin, for example, or...

Have you ever thought that, perhaps, you have the cart before the horse? Because the high levels--other than 4e--have always been lazily and badly designed. Even 4e wasn't ideal, it has pain points, it's just a lot better about it. Maybe people stop because they don't like playing rules that...

Woah now. You've just made a lightyear sized leap, jumping to conclusions like that. I've never--not once--said that that should be a thing. That's your assumptions coming into play. The Fighter absolutely should also have nice things for them. The Rogue getting sneak attack damage...

Okay, but the opinion repeatedly put forward is that the rules were actually bad. As in, they literally didn't work, could not be made to work, and that the fact that that was true was somehow a boon. I dispute this. ...why would anyone ever look "for all the answers in the rules"? Written...

No, you misunderstand me. I mean no reduction in player counts. The "negative change" is "fewer people playing the game". I see all the time folks bitterly swearing off ever playing a game if X thing happens. And then X thing happens...and there isn't a sudden player exodus. If anything...

I'm not the one calling for change. I'm assuming things will stay as they are. "No, things MUST change" is clearly the argument that requires support--even if that change is "things need to go back to what they were immediately before the current state of affairs."

Whereas I don't think it's undeniable, but I do think it is a slight but clear lean. And, frankly, I think that's what the buying public wants. We've had something like 20 years of unrelenting cynicism in media. Game of Thrones and all that. People have grown a little weary of realpolitik being...

My problem is, "fit neatly into existing class archetypes" has two versions: 1. You're only adding a teeny tiny tweak to what this is, so a build/subclass/whatever is more than sufficient 2. You're adding a TON, but it could conceivably fit into something else. Shaman and Alchemist are great...

Supplements is fine; I don't expect a bazillion PHB classes.

And the roles generally followed a pattern based on their power source. Martial characters were good to great at dealing damage, regardless of their primary role. Divine characters were supportive and party friendly, thus leaning Leader. Arcane characters had lots of control, AoE, and movement...

Arrays default, point buy a default option, dice an alternative with the note "your results may produce chargers that are particularly weak or particularly strong, use at your own risk" or the like. All arrays should something you could achieve via point buy, or ever so slightly better but only...

Dragonborn. Assuming it wasn't a pure joke, then this would I guess come out of a "well if one half of the title can be a player character, why not the other half huh?" Which is silly enough that I feel pretty confident it was a joke. Hence why I said if we take it seriously.

Believe me, I've seen this behavior pattern in plenty of other places, it ain't unique to D&D. "IF THIS IS GONE I QUIT!!!" 4000 upvotes. Playercount when the official system changes: no negative change.

We should not design something based on the predicate, "Oh, nobody ever actually plays this, so it doesn't matter if it's badly-made!" Yeeees... Such as, I dunno, oscillating power variation...or converging power variation... Because, as stated, it is bad design to take as an assumption...

We have a spell list inherited from a time when there were only two or maaaaybe three ways to be Someone Who Flings Supernatural Stuff....that is now being forced to be the spell list for a world where there are half-a-dozen such ways, all of them mutually self-reinforcing and entrenching.

Yep. People act like genericization is a cost-free change. It isn't. It's actually a very costly change. That doesn't mean we have to make a hyperspecific class for every concept....but it does mean that it is NOT guaranteed that "less is more". It, in fact, means that less is--to the shock of...

They very nearly are, it requires almost no investment to reach that. Actually investing in it makes them utterly terrifying: it's straight-up "eat actual Striker-like damage if you ignore the mark, or flail uselessly against a massive wall if you heed it." Yes....so....you see how your own...

Oh, no, not popular at all. Only had enough influence to affect one of the most widely played video games of all time. Pull the other one, Zard. I'm quite well aware that 3e is what made Druid ridiculously, stupidly powerful.

But that's not what it is. Using completely made-up numbers: One thing starts at 10 and grows to 30. The other starts at 1, and grows so that between (say) 4 and 8, the two are pretty close together (intersecting at 6, where both are 16), only to then shoot off to 3000 by level 20. Yes, during...

Nope! Because that, itself, was an evolution out of what had happened in late 2e. Your assertion of a sharp discontinuity doesn't hold.