Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MPA2000" data-source="post: 9230444" data-attributes="member: 6682107">I personally don't see the need for table top, when they have top quality video games now. I mean the reason for table top was because video games hadn't been invented and when they were they were subpar for these types of games.  Baldur's Gate 3 broke the mold IMO.  It is nearly everything D&D fans have been asking for since the first D&D video game came out.But since the question isn't asking should the game be done away with, I will say that it is odd that there have been so many editions. Basic D&D went through through three rewrites with three different authors (Mentzer, Holmes and Moldov).  AD&D went through only two with TSR.  D&D has went through four (3.0, 3.5, 4.0 and 5.0). Now it is headed to a sixth that will probably be digital only. smh  Some people will defend the authors as "tweaking" the game to better fit the player's needs, hence so many editions. I personally think it is because of poor leadership in the company and worse, developers probably have never played any version of the game. My personal thought is that D&D from 3.0 to now, has been written to look like a video game you can play on paper.  In fact, IIRC that was specifically mentioned in the book for Epic Heroes.  So what should be done? The answer is probably not much.  No matter what they do, no one will be happy.  In the beginning (1970's), players were complaining in Dragon Magazine that Magic Users (called Wizards today) were too powerful and could kill things before other PC's got a chance.  So in AD&D1e they limited MU's by putting rounds and segments on their castings, as well as the requirement for material components. IMO using the table to hit "descending" AC was superior than the "ascending" AC when WotC took over.  CR ratings don't make much sense. I think they should have stayed with HD being one measure of how powerful a monster is. Gods should not be omnipotent and unkillable.  They weren't presented this way in mythology. The Greek  Gods were unkillable, but they could be wounded and feel pain just the same, as was shown when Ares was stabbed through the heart and cried out in pain. He had to go to Zeus to heal him. So the unkillable god things started with 2e, from which they claimed the gods depicted in the new Legends and Lore books were simply avatars of the real gods who are too mighty to have physical bodies or whatever. Another thing that needs to go is things like sorcery points, spell slots and the more silly things long rest and short rest.  I get that spell casters need to sleep to get their spells back the next day. No problem with that, but why the need for points and slots? What was wrong with the TSR system?  Why do non-spell cast classes need to do any kind of rest at all? It's too video gamey.   Ki points for a Monk?  Why? What was wrong with the TSR's version anyway? The Monk was never meant to be like the fighter class, so it was understandable that whatever damage they do would be in bursts. Like stuns to get more attacks and Quivering Palm which more than makes up for what the Fighters do.  Also in TSR the Monk's armor got better with every level now it's dependent on your Dex/Wis modifiers?  Why?  Why not make that the baseline and then have it get better with each level, as it was originally written? Like I said, it doesn't matter what they do, people will still complain.  BF3 is the best example of any D&D video game, and people still make hateful videos about it.</blockquote>

Verification