Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ravnodaus" data-source="post: 7611816" data-attributes="member: 6997560">I actually agree too, but if they're going to add as much abstraction as they already have, they should finish the job. 5e feels like splitting the lane on a two way street. Right now you get abstraction baked in but still stuck with specifics that are free-floating, without context, and aren't tied to anything that makes the slightest bit of sense.I guess that's just my general 5e criticism, that it uses a lot of fuzzy-abstract logic that fails to make sense if you ever stop to think about what's happening. It isn't just in the economy side of things, it is pervasive with this edition. Random example: Adamantine armor makes crit hits not crit you. Seems, fine.. except, does that mean that critical hits are always weapon strikes against your armor? Wait.. why would an adamantine chain shirt stop a maul hit to your face from critting you? It all breaks down if you try to look at it in anything other than weird abstraction.I guess it is fine in some areas but the economic side is where it is absolutely the worst. It really feels like someone was sleeping on the job instead of writing a functional magic item system and are now trying to political talk us into believing they're even giving us a system. I just think that if we are stuck being in abstraction-land, we should have a proper abstraction based system so we can just ignore the ridiculous farcical issues that the current half-baked system is constantly generating. But if I was steering the vehicle, I'd swerve us back into the realism lane, where everything has well thought out pricing and we had multiple guidelines for high/low fantasy item distribution curves as well as high/low power games within that framework. So yeah, totally agree with you.</blockquote>

Verification