Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8820764" data-attributes="member: 93670">If some people completely agree in that they don't find undead or beasts or fiends &quot;an interesting part of the game&quot; should wotc design 6e to omit those creatures too?&nbsp; What if they don't find fighters or wizards or clerics &quot;a particularly interesting aspect of gameplay&quot;?&nbsp; At what point is chasing simplicity go too far?It's not hard when you move from focusing exclusively on the &quot;I don't like it, nobody can &amp; it can't be done&quot; end of the pool &amp; start looking at things that worked in past editions.&nbsp; Plate reduces speed &amp; penalties to certain skills but gives high ac.&nbsp; Chain with some dex gives moderate to good AC&nbsp; but a minor penalty to some or all of the same skills&nbsp;&nbsp; Leather plus (lots) of dex gives&nbsp; low to moderate AC but few if any penalties to skills.&nbsp; Any of them can have some chance of causing spells to fail when cast while wearing it that is inversely proportional to the AC it gives while various classes &amp; subclasses like EK &amp; AT might give small cumulative reductions to that chance at regular intervals to avoid being an agonizing repelling EB type dip feature for what are otherwise pure casters.&nbsp; Specific armors could even give a reduction or increase in specific damage types taken like some of the 4e armors did.... Of course doing that well depends in some degree on admitting that relying on (dis)advantage as the first last &amp; only option is an application of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument" target="_blank">maslow's hammer</a> that fails to provide the precision &amp; finesse needed for many areas of design*.* There are quite a few of them already, these would fit right in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8820764, member: 93670"] If some people completely agree in that they don't find undead or beasts or fiends "an interesting part of the game" should wotc design 6e to omit those creatures too? What if they don't find fighters or wizards or clerics "a particularly interesting aspect of gameplay"? At what point is chasing simplicity go too far? It's not hard when you move from focusing exclusively on the "I don't like it, nobody can & it can't be done" end of the pool & start looking at things that worked in past editions. Plate reduces speed & penalties to certain skills but gives high ac. Chain with some dex gives moderate to good AC but a minor penalty to some or all of the same skills Leather plus (lots) of dex gives low to moderate AC but few if any penalties to skills. Any of them can have some chance of causing spells to fail when cast while wearing it that is inversely proportional to the AC it gives while various classes & subclasses like EK & AT might give small cumulative reductions to that chance at regular intervals to avoid being an agonizing repelling EB type dip feature for what are otherwise pure casters. Specific armors could even give a reduction or increase in specific damage types taken like some of the 4e armors did.... Of course doing that well depends in some degree on admitting that relying on (dis)advantage as the first last & only option is an application of [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument']maslow's hammer[/URL] that fails to provide the precision & finesse needed for many areas of design*. * There are quite a few of them already, these would fit right in. [/QUOTE]

Verification