Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8379404" data-attributes="member: 6901101">It is a type of game design. I think all editions of D&amp;D have been designed well, even 4e.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; But they are different, so they bring different things to the table.And correct, the half-orc wizard is overlooked. That is why it is &quot;against type.&quot; People can expound on how the gnome is a better wizard, but that is what I find debatable. But as I have stated, I think I am in the minority.Since D&amp;D is a group game, and can't be played solo, I see that as the primary mode of learning - from a group. This is especially true for new players. I mean, here is a question - how many new players come into a group having read the PHB? As for experienced players, how many times have you played in a campaign and another player did something and you were like: &quot;Cool! How does that work?&quot; I mean, if a campaign takes a year on average, technically you have really only experienced seven or eight characters to their full potential. So it makes sense you don't know all the subtleties of all race/class combos. Is it good game design. I think since it is a group game, it is an unavoidable game design. 100% agree. The game culture does say that. And that is what I don't understand. It is only a poor choice is you only look at the +1. That's it. It disregards all the other things a half-orc can bring to the table, including the roleplaying aspect. That first question is a great one. I never thought of it that way, from a marketing standpoint. It seems to hold weight in my opinion. The second question, and the reference to what 5e does well (I remember the thread) is something for the masses to decide. I think 5e has done a phenomenal job. But, that is just my opinion. That is one of the options I proposed. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I am not against it. I just think if you change something so foundational, you should be writing a new edition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scott Christian, post: 8379404, member: 6901101"] It is a type of game design. I think all editions of D&D have been designed well, even 4e. ;) But they are different, so they bring different things to the table. And correct, the half-orc wizard is overlooked. That is why it is "against type." People can expound on how the gnome is a better wizard, but that is what I find debatable. But as I have stated, I think I am in the minority. Since D&D is a group game, and can't be played solo, I see that as the primary mode of learning - from a group. This is especially true for new players. I mean, here is a question - how many new players come into a group having read the PHB? As for experienced players, how many times have you played in a campaign and another player did something and you were like: "Cool! How does that work?" I mean, if a campaign takes a year on average, technically you have really only experienced seven or eight characters to their full potential. So it makes sense you don't know all the subtleties of all race/class combos. Is it good game design. I think since it is a group game, it is an unavoidable game design. 100% agree. The game culture does say that. And that is what I don't understand. It is only a poor choice is you only look at the +1. That's it. It disregards all the other things a half-orc can bring to the table, including the roleplaying aspect. That first question is a great one. I never thought of it that way, from a marketing standpoint. It seems to hold weight in my opinion. The second question, and the reference to what 5e does well (I remember the thread) is something for the masses to decide. I think 5e has done a phenomenal job. But, that is just my opinion. That is one of the options I proposed. ;) I am not against it. I just think if you change something so foundational, you should be writing a new edition. [/QUOTE]

Verification