Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9354187" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I think this is the fundamental problem in a nutshell. Some basic gameplay assumptions about things like how hard is it to recharge expended resources or even what basic gameplay patterns are normal have become (or honestly always were) quite varied. In that situation, having multiple avenues to achieving success (one where you can always accomplish a task, another where it is a limited resource) are going to be variable in which is optimal.&nbsp; That the situation exists should not be surprising. D&amp;D, as the hegemon game system, has tried to open up the playstyle as much as possible. However, it hasn't necessarily tried to tie up any possible contradictions or general imbalances. Excepting of course 4e (which, regardless of how you feel about the implementation, generally was addressing various complaints various people had had with D&amp;D for quite some time). I believe we're looking at an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal" target="_blank">A Modest Proposal</a>-style hyperbolic suggestion to make a point. It's just not landing for everyone. Personally, if I were actually looking to solve the issue, Knock is not a bad place to look. Instead of relying on the limited spell slots (but assumed success) vs skill failure change to balance magical- and skill-based solutions, they actually made the options (and their repercussions/reasonable uses/etc.) legitimately different. Knock now does not work for stealth-based dungeon-crawling (presumably the kind you would want to be doing as a rogue anyways). If there were more spells which replicate martial abilities that had similar nuances, the situation would likely be better (/the decision between options more interesting).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 9354187, member: 6799660"] I think this is the fundamental problem in a nutshell. Some basic gameplay assumptions about things like how hard is it to recharge expended resources or even what basic gameplay patterns are normal have become (or honestly always were) quite varied. In that situation, having multiple avenues to achieving success (one where you can always accomplish a task, another where it is a limited resource) [I]are[/I] [I]going[/I] to be variable in which is optimal. That the situation exists should not be surprising. D&D, as the hegemon game system, has tried to open up the playstyle as much as possible. However, it hasn't necessarily tried to tie up any possible contradictions or general imbalances. Excepting of course 4e (which, regardless of how you feel about the implementation, generally was addressing various complaints various people had had with D&D for quite some time). I believe we're looking at an [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal'][I]A Modest Proposal[/I][/URL]-style hyperbolic suggestion to make a point. It's just not landing for everyone. Personally, if I were actually looking to solve the issue, [I]Knock[/I] is not a bad place to look. Instead of relying on the limited spell slots (but assumed success) vs skill failure change to balance magical- and skill-based solutions, they actually made the options (and their repercussions/reasonable uses/etc.) legitimately different. Knock now does not work for stealth-based dungeon-crawling (presumably the kind you would want to be doing as a rogue anyways). If there were more spells which replicate martial abilities that had similar nuances, the situation would likely be better (/the decision between options more interesting). [/QUOTE]

Verification