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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jaer" data-source="post: 4240284" data-attributes="member: 57861">So you believed that WotC was beseiged by swarm requests (swarmed by them, even) so much so that a swarm of protesters marched out to know how swarms worked?And that they locked the designers in a room with 100,000 ants to better model swarms for a game and shoved their hands into boxes of scorpions?If so, then I can understand whyy you believed that this was the "greatest stride forward with swarms" but if you saw those other statements as hyperbole, why would you assume that, in an article already written in an over-exaggerated tone, the paragraph about how much swarms have changed would not be an exaggeration as well.Note this sentence alone: "Well, swarms are cool, but researching how we think swarms might actually work into D&D was not so cool."  We know the marketing team (and I'm sure Mearls!) knows the "complaint" about over-using cool, but he did it twice in one sentence...you don't think that was on purpose as part of a joke?Of course "3e bashing" would be blantant.  That's the tone of the article: way over the top and not at all serious.  The worst critisism (that wasn't an obvious hyperbole) of the old version of swarms was potential boredom (a 15th level fighter or rogue or range or paladin who needs to switch to a non-magic torch to fight a swarm is not very engaged in combat.  Oh, right....at that level, you don't have a torch and swarms resist fire.)Sure, they could have said "We took the 3.5 rules for swarms and added a couple of special effects for the new types of swarms we created" and just shown us the samples, but I, personnally, much perfer the time and effort put in to writing an entertaining and well-constructed intro.</blockquote>

Verification