D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[mamba]

So we're back to "the rules suck, so I just ignore them and do whatever seems right without any actual rules". Just bloody wonderful. Amazing that people think this is work worthy of paying for.

no, I am not excusing it, I am countering your idea that the players fighting for some advantage is actually giving them one.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

And no one has yet actually explained why I should pay for rules I know, consciously, are badly made.

I’m not saying you should if the spirit of change is not your thing. Also, what is bad for you isn’t bad for everyone. If you don’t like it, don’t want to change it, then don’t buy it. I can imagine anyone is arguing you should buy something you don’t like. Not even sure why you brought that up.

 

[Remathilis]

Whereas for me that would be the genuine worst thing. Because now any poor decisions made 30, 40, 50 years ago are albatrosses around the game's neck.

One man's poor decision is another's bedrock foundation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So now we need to listen to fan response, but only when Lanefan thinks it's the correct fan response?

I am being a little harsh here, but this points to something that has frustrated me for a very long time. People have long (long long long long) justified hating on certain things, you know of what I speak, because of survey data showing X was unpopular, Y was too different, Z didn't go far enough, whatever. Now that people are souring on things 5e has done, given they know that it was ”design by (extremely poorly conducted) surveys”—a thing which was never a problem when those surveys were fresh, mind—oh, NOW challenging design by survey is all the rage. NOW it's time to point out that the designers need to declare what is so some of the time. Now it's appropriate for folks to argue that what polls well is not entirely the same as what actually plays well, that what looks nice on a page is not necessarily the same as what has nice gameplay effects, that what feels like good design often has no special relationship to what is functionally good design.

It's just irritating to have made that argument for, quite literally, almost 15 years, and only now—when it is convenient to others to get what they want—is this argument acceptable.

Why would people support that argument when it doesn't get them what they want?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I’m not saying you should if the spirit of change is not your thing. Also, what is bad for you isn’t bad for everyone. If you don’t like it, don’t want to change it, then don’t buy it. I can imagine anyone is arguing you should buy something you don’t like. Not even sure why you brought that up.

That's not what I said.

You specifically spoke of rules that don't work and need to be replaced by the user, because that's what needed to be done before. Literally have another active thread right now where that's the topic under discussion.

That people wanted the old school rules to suck, because that made it easier to replace them with rules that didn't, so bad rules were somehow good rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Gotta keep them in the "less than what even regular athletes can achieve" gulag somehow.

For goodness' sake, it's a fantasy game. Why are only those who went to magic colleges allowed to be fantastical?

They've gotta learn those magic powers somehow, otherwise diagetically acquire them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They've gotta learn those magic powers somehow, otherwise diagetically acquire them.

Because writing "wizard" or "sorcerer" is so diegetic.

 

[Lanefan]

Concentration
I do think WOTC inclusion of this mechanic is good. It helps to trim down so much of the bloat of buffs that was the hallmark of mid to high level 3e play especially. But...the mechanic is TOO restrictive.

The problem is the mechanic tries to solve two problems at once.

1) We want to ensure certain buffs are not stacked on top of each other.
2) We want an interruption mechanic so that certain powerful spells can be "stopped" through damage or other effects.

Two things here:

1. Why not instead just get rid of a lot of those buffs entirely? Or, have it that no more than two buffs can be applied to any one target; if a third is applied, the earlier-cast of the existing two is immediately lost.

2. IMO nearly all spells other than malleable illusions should be fire and forget, with set durations.

As to your points about 11th+ level, I agree pretty much completely.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Given the nasty things I was, and continue to be, told about my own preferences as a result of this?

Grace has its limits.

IDK, I have heard you say that repeatedly, but that it not the sense I have gotten from the people you corresponded with. It seems to me that you tend be the more aggressive and confrontational. But I can’t claim to have followed you posting or have a full picture of the conversations you have.

I can just say I find you apparent (and I use that word intentionally) attitude abrasive. I am probably wrong and your tone is probably derived from a response to unfavorable interactions in your past, but you kind of come across like a bully some times. Since I am guessing you’re not and that is not your intention, I suggest you might look at those you post you more generously.

Easy said than done I know (particularly when you feel attacked).

 

[Faolyn]

But why does a game with those characteristics have to be called D&D, made by the D&D people?

Why does a game where you can have elf thieves instead of just playing Elf, the class, have to be called D&D and be made by the D&D people?

Why does a game that has no level or class restrictions for elves, so you can have 20th-level elf paladins, have to be called D&D and be made by the D&D people?

Why does a game that no longer tracks weapon speed factors and track casting time in round segments have to be called D&D and be made by the D&D people?

Why does a game that no doesn't have prestige classes and has more than three saving throws have to be called D&D and be made by the D&D people?

Games change. As I mentioned elsewhere, except for 1e --> 2e, every edition has been different, even radically so, than the previous one. And this is a thread about a hypothetical new edition, not a half edition or old-but-cleaned-up edition.