Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5836080" data-attributes="member: 87792">BryonD;Argue against what you want to.  Take the most uncharitable reading you possibly can of Mearls' statement.  I stand by what my own statements were.  3.X is a broken game.  This does not mean you can not have fun with it.  You can have fun with splatbook-heavy RIFTS and run campaigns in it.  And mechanically that game is broken sideways.  I have explained this, and that I know this and that I have been able to explain this demonstrates that it is highly improbable I meant what I said the way you took it, especially when there are other valid readings.  Now if you had accepted my clarification I would have apologised for overstating my case.  But you seem determined to stand by your reading that is neither the only way of reading what I have written nor what I actually meant.Mathematically and mechanically the Monk is The Load.  This doesn't mean that with DM tuning he will always work out that way.  It is possible to tune a game so that a Commoner will outshine a mage.  This in no way means that a Commoner would be other than The Load in a party of PCs.  It would be using Rule 0 to fix problems.  "Tuning."  A.k.a. Favouritism.  3E at least has the decency not to present Commoner as a PC class, but every single argument you have made about the viability of the monk could apply to a well played commoner supported by DM tuning.Do you really think that this would make the Commoner class other than The Load?  This does not, contrary to your assertion, deny that your game exists.  Any more than pointing out that Rifts is mechanically broken sideways denies that people have fun with that game.  It merely shows that you are a good enough DM to overcome flaws in the system.  I have said this repeatedly and meant it every time.  Yet you persist in your reading that is dubious from the text you quote and explicitely denied by my FATAL and RIFTS comparisons.But I'm done.  You are taking me as uncharitably as you seem to be able to.  And deciding what my arguments are so you can have them to argue against.  When I point out what I mean you claim that I should have to stick with your reading of my original words.  Which is singularly uncharitable to the point that after I've explained what I've meant and how it is in line with what I actually said, your version of my position, although it may have initially been a fair reading, has long been a straw man.  And I simply can't be bothered to engage with you further.Oh, and as for 4e taking the burden off you for adapting, this is a significant overstatement.  It doesn't force you to adapt.  But to adapt is human nature.  I don't know any DMs who haven't adapted 4e on campaigns after (or even durging) their first one.  It simply allows you to not have to adapt when you are busy learning the basic stuff like managing a table.  It's something you do (and just about everyone tries) - but not something you are forced to in the sink or swim school of teaching.</blockquote>

Verification