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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5793740" data-attributes="member: 82160">I couldn't disagree more. If 5e follows this theory I will be able to smell it in the first 40 pages and put it back down right in the store.Some points:You forgot to mention how making classes equally effective in combat regardless of niche made them feel the same.  Didn't see how you're going to overcome this without having niches eitherYour post also assumes players want to all be equally effective at combat and non combat.  Players pre 4e have always been able to set their combat effectiveness and there non combat effectiveness according to their own wishes.  Skills, Feats, Items and Spells can be chosen on the players desire.  Let Burselbutt (my gnome bard) keep collecting non combat feats and spells so when he has to charm a King, thats his time to shine.  And  Taku (my brothers barbarian) well he can keep picking powers to rip orcs heads off if thats what he likes.    Bursellbutt and Taku don't need you telling them they need to select powers from a variety of sources so they dont have a niche.  Some theives like to focus on being skillmonkeys and sneakers, how are you going to satisfy them by shoving combat powers down their throat?What Im trying to say is it sounds like you want to TAKE AWAY my ability to focus on non combat at the expense of combat.  You also wants to take away someone elses ability to focus on combat at the expense of non combatNo edition was perfect.  The fighter should be able to boost his non combat area if he wishes.  But pushing everyone into a rigid power structure where everyone is equally good in all areas will not make the game more fun for me or my group.  Anyways, we all ready tried that.  I thought the only reason Im in this forum is that they gave up on telling me how I am supposed to play my character?Frankly I'm still astounded at WOTCs actions.  This is akin to turning  monopoly into the game of life, or adding complicated and more granular mechanics to risk to make it "more realistic".  Your trying to change the very CORE of what d&d IS and means to player.  Stop  What your arguing for sounds like a very fun and interesting game, but its in many ways opposed to D&D.  They should try it out as something else, it might gain in popularity, it might replace D&D.  But calling it D&D is just brand destruction. D&D needs updates, twists, ever more elegant rules, new ideas and rebalancing.  What it doesn't need is people changing what it means to be a fighter, or a theif or a wizard.</blockquote>

Verification