Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7546617" data-attributes="member: 6704184">You still seem to think that anyone in this thread thinks 5e is a bad game, or that any of us are asking for a book of errata. This is a thread about how some of us would enjoy a UA about optional rules that change or patch certain parts of the rules that many groups run into problems with, or simply would prefer for an implied assumption to be more like another edition in this one single facet of the game. Nobody is sittin here upset that TWF requires a bonus action to work. The people who don't like that mechanic are just talking about how it would be cool if Mike Mearls explored his idea to make it part of the Attack Action instead, and do some playtesting and see if it screws with anything in an unexpected way, if it feels right, if it makes dual wielding on certain classes too good, etc, and then when he's got something he likes for his own 5e games, put it in a UA article. Like, you seem to have a completely nonsensical view of what people want, and keep making up nonsense about people &quot;demanding&quot; things of the design team. I mean, if you're having fun, good for you, but you're doing so by being dishonest about what other people are saying, which is pretty weird and rude.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7546617, member: 6704184"] You still seem to think that anyone in this thread thinks 5e is a bad game, or that any of us are asking for a book of errata. This is a thread about how some of us would enjoy a UA about optional rules that change or patch certain parts of the rules that many groups run into problems with, or simply would prefer for an implied assumption to be more like another edition in this one single facet of the game. Nobody is sittin here upset that TWF requires a bonus action to work. The people who don't like that mechanic are just talking about how it would be cool if Mike Mearls explored his idea to make it part of the Attack Action instead, and do some playtesting and see if it screws with anything in an unexpected way, if it feels right, if it makes dual wielding on certain classes too good, etc, and then when he's got something he likes for his own 5e games, put it in a UA article. Like, you seem to have a completely nonsensical view of what people want, and keep making up nonsense about people "demanding" things of the design team. I mean, if you're having fun, good for you, but you're doing so by being dishonest about what other people are saying, which is pretty weird and rude. [/QUOTE]

Verification