D&D 5E (2014) "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Guest 85555]

Really?

yes.

 

[Guest 85555]

Really?

You see people spend several pages complaining about 3e mechanics without doing even a few minutes of fact checking? Because we've seen that pretty solidly in this thread.

I mean, look at the following myths that have come out:

i am sure some incorrect things have been stated. In any discussion like this, that is bound to happen (i see people get stuff about 1e, 2E and 3E wrong all the time in these sort of debates). But a lot of your observatinos below have less to do with being wrong and more to do with people characterizing the mechanic in critical terms--- folks describing the mechanic as "mind control" because it feels like mind control to them (not because they believe it is actual mindcontrol). It also has to do with the nature of internet debates when people are communicating quickly and not always thinking through their wording. Many of the other things you desribe (is it luring versus am I controling movement, or how significant it is to have a few martial powers that affect of character's movement) is a matter of perspective---regardless of how the power is flavored). Most of the critics here have played 4E, have read the books, and I even pulled out the book and re-read the sections we were discussing. More importantly, nothing you say here shows people are affraid of the new (any more than me seeing someone say something possibly incorrect about 2E shows a fear of the old).

 

[Garthanos]

So when Bedrockgames says "i have been following these discussions since they began and i think there is plenty of bad faith on both sides.", why does Hussar seem to question that? I mean, Bedrockgames just said that people argue in bad faith on both sides. I still don't get the what the purpose of the reply was. As always, play what you like

The distinction was specified in line one, he was pointing out the bad faith arguments are one sided. (with improper criticizing of 3e being virtually non-existent)

Really?
You see people spend several pages complaining about 3e mechanics without doing even a few minutes of fact checking? Because we've seen that pretty solidly in this thread.

Or at least that is how I interpret it.

 

[Iosue]

If you can do that in under half a second we need to talk about arming our police with bows.

You can do that in under half a second.

 

[Guest 85555]

The distinction was specified in line one, he was pointing out the bad faith arguments are one sided. (with improper criticizing of 3e being virtually non-existent

As I pointed out, there are plenty of factually incorrect and unfair attacks on 3e, 2e, and 1e. At the moment though, the topic is a 4E power, so you are not likely to see much talk of previous editions. The bad faith on the other side comes through things like just default assuming we dont like 4E because we are affraid of the new, or dismissing our opinions because you dont share our reaction to a particular mechanic. Much of what hussar cited there were pretty much just subjective assesments (does cagi feel like luring or control of movement, is it anbig deal that cagi and a few other powers exist in the game or not, etc). I have said over and over again, you dont have to agree with me. If you find cagi believable, that is a perfectly valid opinion to have. Bt my opinion that it breaks my own immersion is also valid.

 

[Garthanos]

You can do that in under half a second.

Exactly half a second
cool 3 arrows drawn simultaneously fired sequentially in exact 1.5 seconds.. an athletic person who was half a second (15 feet away) running at full speed would result in a tie

So if you had your arrows pre-drawn, using a very short draw and were awesome something I think I will grant skilled archer heros but not the orcs (and I am going to grant Lars)

That reminds me of the bouncing an arrow around corners trick too.

 

[Garthanos]

If you find cagi believable, that is a perfectly valid opinion to have.

I find it a case of reality being called unrealistic which was why I pointed out the invitation/false openings .. and I also see practical simplifications being dissed on.

As I said you want a deception as a deception vs the DM, play rock paper scissors still a simplification obviously but npcs being influenced in straight forward ways works as influencing the DM (like the Mark) ... where as deceptions and tricks are intrinsically disproportionate that is the point of them and why they need restrictions like the fool me once shame on you method.

 

[Guest 85555]

I find it a case of reality being called unrealistic.. and practical simplifications because its a game.

Then I dont know what to say, except my sense of what is believable and works for game purposes is different form your's and we just have to agree to disagree. I mean I can accept that cagi is believable to you if you say it is. I can also accept if my solution isnt believable to you, though it might be for me. This is a pretty subjective thing. If you can't give me my subjective assessment of what constitutes believable, there really isnt much place for discussion.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

As I pointed out, there are plenty of factually incorrect and unfair attacks on 3e, 2e, and 1e.

Getting back to the original thread topic, the only criticisms I recall seeing in this thread were largely of 3.x and the caster imbalance issues. This is something that is neither factually incorrect, nor particularly unfair, as caster power was kind of the main topic here, which was nicely derailed into opinion-based criticism of 4e instead.

At the moment though, the topic is a 4E power, so you are not likely to see much talk of previous editions.

That was kind of the point of derailing the conversation, wasn't it?

The bad faith on the other side comes through things like just default assuming we dont like 4E because we are affraid of the new, or dismissing our opinions because you dont share our reaction to a particular mechanic.

Pretty similar to the way in which the legitimate criticisms of 3.x caster issues went? Dismissed because "I don't have the issue at MY table, so you must be Doing Something Wrong."

Much of what hussar cited there were pretty much just subjective assesments (does cagi feel like luring or control of movement, is it anbig deal that cagi and a few other powers exist in the game or not, etc). I have said over and over again, you dont have to agree with me. If you find cagi believable, that is a perfectly valid opinion to have. Bt my opinion that it breaks my own immersion is also valid.

Likewise, you don't have to agree that LFQW issues are problematic for you (or anyone else in this thread who claims it isn't a problem), so that means our opinions should be valid, too, right? Rather than pooh-poohed, dismissed as "bad GMing" or Doing It Wrong... because that never happened in this thread for 800 or so posts. Right.

You don't like CAGI. You have reasons. Fine. Flogging this particular dead horse is beyond pointless. Both camps are firmly entrenched, and not likely to change anytime soon. Can we either get back to the original topic of this thread, or close it please?

 

[Garthanos]

Why cant we delete posts?