Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9291768" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>Why do you say my approach of <em>not making everything work the same way</em> limits things. I can do anything you can and things you can't/</p><p></p><p>Fine. Then do it. Make your AEDU thief that works in the same way and still appeals in the same way as the thief.</p><p></p><p>Oh wait. <em>You can't</em>. Because AEDU is a <em>good</em> paradigm but it's not the <em>only</em> paradigm.</p><p></p><p>Well, yes. It's obvious. You do not understand the thief, you don't know how it works, and because you don't get the appeal you have decided that it must be bad.</p><p></p><p>The exact wording is "When you make a melee basic attack you <strong>can</strong> use Dexterity instead of Strength..." Yes, it's optional. And</p><p></p><p>It is sub-optimal. But really the only things that need Dex are the initiative roll and the Stealth and Thievery skills. That's sub-optimal but not <em>that</em> sub-optimal.</p><p></p><p>I'm arguing that <em>one-size-fits-all is bad.</em> That having some classes share more than others opens up the design space. And open up what you can and not what you can't.</p><p></p><p>Yes - but that doesn't mean they can't be mobile. <em>The barbarian is a striker.</em> The archery ranger is not a barbarian; of course the range is narrower.</p><p></p><p>The Essentials Rangers aren't AEDU. The Berserker is AEDU - but is a hybrid Defender/Striker, breaking that part of the system. And the Skald? You were complaining that it was absolutely terrible that the base rogue couldn't use the thief's tricks - but the base bard can't use the Skald's At Wills (because they don't have a Skald's aura and are more stances than attacks).</p><p></p><p>I have <em>never</em> heard them praised. They are fine - in the sense that they exist; I've never seen anyone interested in playing one because they are extruded D&D product, just a new version of the wizard that doesn't add anything to the game by the presence.</p><p></p><p>Their issues are due to scraping the bottom of the barrel because they don't really have either either good thematic niches or good mechanics. The longer you go on and the more supplements you have to produce the more you scrape the bottom of the barrel.</p><p></p><p>The Necromancer <em>was</em> an AEDU subclass. It was a subclass of mage (in heroes of shadow) - and mages were AEDU. And you're literally asking for extruded fantasy product here. You never absolutely exhaust the space - but the deeper you go the worse the ratio of gold to half-assed page filler is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 9291768, member: 87792"] Why do you say my approach of [I]not making everything work the same way[/I] limits things. I can do anything you can and things you can't/ Fine. Then do it. Make your AEDU thief that works in the same way and still appeals in the same way as the thief. Oh wait. [I]You can't[/I]. Because AEDU is a [I]good[/I] paradigm but it's not the [I]only[/I] paradigm. Well, yes. It's obvious. You do not understand the thief, you don't know how it works, and because you don't get the appeal you have decided that it must be bad. The exact wording is "When you make a melee basic attack you [B]can[/B] use Dexterity instead of Strength..." Yes, it's optional. And It is sub-optimal. But really the only things that need Dex are the initiative roll and the Stealth and Thievery skills. That's sub-optimal but not [I]that[/I] sub-optimal. I'm arguing that [I]one-size-fits-all is bad.[/I] That having some classes share more than others opens up the design space. And open up what you can and not what you can't. Yes - but that doesn't mean they can't be mobile. [I]The barbarian is a striker.[/I] The archery ranger is not a barbarian; of course the range is narrower. The Essentials Rangers aren't AEDU. The Berserker is AEDU - but is a hybrid Defender/Striker, breaking that part of the system. And the Skald? You were complaining that it was absolutely terrible that the base rogue couldn't use the thief's tricks - but the base bard can't use the Skald's At Wills (because they don't have a Skald's aura and are more stances than attacks). I have [I]never[/I] heard them praised. They are fine - in the sense that they exist; I've never seen anyone interested in playing one because they are extruded D&D product, just a new version of the wizard that doesn't add anything to the game by the presence. Their issues are due to scraping the bottom of the barrel because they don't really have either either good thematic niches or good mechanics. The longer you go on and the more supplements you have to produce the more you scrape the bottom of the barrel. The Necromancer [I]was[/I] an AEDU subclass. It was a subclass of mage (in heroes of shadow) - and mages were AEDU. And you're literally asking for extruded fantasy product here. You never absolutely exhaust the space - but the deeper you go the worse the ratio of gold to half-assed page filler is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity
Top