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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5812537" data-attributes="member: 996">Or whether the system is any good, which is kinda the point.  A good enough DM can make up for system deficiencies.  A bad enough one can ruin any game, no matter how good.  The vast majority of DMs between those two extremes benefit from non-sucky systems, though. I absolutely agree that it was a good idea to get good DMs to run the playtest, and, yes, that's their goal.  Not a good goal for the longer term future of the game or the hobby it spawned in all likelihood, but 'long term' when you're a corporate subsidiary is next quarter.  Can't blame 'em at all.Nod, and I have a pessimistic bias on much the same basis. Sure, you can do that.  Though...(Well, first, with the Rogue scouting sans roll and the barb auto-smashing doors, 'incompetence' was /clearly/ the wrong word.  At least we're not back to the theif with a 20% move silently trying to scout.)...with all the retro-nostalgia aiming at the old-school, there's a legitimate concern that the game will only be balanced over the long haul, weeks spent twiddling your thumbs because you're not a diplomat balanced by weeks of the diplomat plinking with a crossbow because he's just not a combat character; vast godlike power at high level balanced by fragility at low.  That sort of thing.  With 3e and 4e having clear systems for starting above 1st, and low 'punishment' levels can end up skipped.So low levels need to still feel like heroic fantasy, so they get played, at all.They've so used those up as names of classes, sub-classes, Kits, builds and PrCs though.</blockquote>

Verification