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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 4338855" data-attributes="member: 3929">In Post 33 I explained why I can accept Rage as a 1/day kind of power. It was an in-game rationalization; I sometimes find those acceptable.I'm ok with the Barbarian power, and if I really had to, I'd hand-wave Stunning Fist away with an explanation of how he doesn't have enough qi to focus. Both of those are internal limitations; having opportunities in combat doesn't come into it. I'd swallow an internal in-game rationalization quicker than that.The "disguise" works better for me.Don't mind Rage.In a pinch, I don't mind Monks, though it's harder to stretch.Defensive Rolls sucks.I'm similarly allowed to dislike an aspect of a game, especially when it has gone from two classes to becoming standardized.While calling an individual poster desperate and irrational may not quite get tipped to the mods, it isn't polite. Vaguely saying "some people" are desperate and irrational will protect you from that, but you'll hit a lot of folks you may not have been aiming at. And whomever you hit won't know if they are the "some people" you were talking about.See how that can be a problem?EDIT: Rechan explained it better in fewer words."Silly" I don't have a problem with. It's when I may be desperate and irrational, but don't know for sure, that's unpleasant.And here we have the central design philosophy of 4e. Which I disagree with.It breaks my disbelief to sit in a basement with my buddy next to me playing an elf and he says he no longer wants his eyes to be blue, but gray. If liking internal rationalization is silly, then I'm your man.And if I were playing "Chess: the RPG", you're darned right I'd want a reason why the knight can only move in an "L". Since it's not an RPG and has no in-game characterization, that's not an issue.Way ahead of you.</blockquote>

Verification