NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 3975945" data-attributes="member: 10095">Good riddance!Confirmations, actually.Sneak attack isn't the problem. The fact that it's a good part of what the rogue is given, yet isn't useful against many of the creatures you'll face, leaving the rogue to be little help during those fights.Again, here's an issue of people having a legitimate problem with a particular aspect, and you just handwave it all as "BAD!" for your argument.Uh, what? 4e Halflings are just 3e Halflings given their own terrain. Unless you're talking about hobbit-style halflings, in which case, maybe you should go back to 2000 and argue their case then, instead of waiting 8 years and blaming 4e for the changes.It's been demonstrated on this board that gnomes are the least popular race, along with half-orcs. Why put something in a book for legacy issues if barely anyone plays it, when you can replace it with character types people play more often (tieflings, and dragon-dudes of some kind)? Nah, that would be paying too much attention to how people play the game, rather than adhering to tradition because it's blasphemy to change things established in the 1970s.An adventure game doesn't need gods of everything, just appropriate gods for the game. Sure, if you want to be a worldbuilder and have a non-adventurer-favored god of agriculture, that's fine, just like you can be super detailed on all the different currencies available in your setting. Doesn't mean the core game should do that, especially when trying to attract new players.I AM DUDE OF FIRE LIVING ON PLANE OF INFINITE FIRE WHOSE ONLY PURPOSE IS TO BE SUMMONED INTO DUNGEONS! AAARGH! Yeah... that was real fun... inspired, too. However can we live without elemental beings that have no motivation whatsoever, aside from being summoned and killing <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />?This change is explained perfectly well in R&C.Yeah, the whole concept of "system mastery" screwed up classes, because anyone with a degree of system mastery recognizes that bard and monk are substandard choices compared to other classes.Noone said saving throws were unfun. We said they were wonky because in all cases where you have attacks, the attacker rolls... except spells. 3e claimed to be going for consistent mechanics, but it only went half-way because of sacred cows.Ever think that so many alternate systems were created by companies in 3.X because of lack of satisfaction with some core systems? Gee... that would... make sense.Being able to effectively change the system to make it more fun.</blockquote>

Verification