NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6194173" data-attributes="member: 17106">[sarcasm]Really? Proof on the internet? Case closed![/sarcasm]I'm not aware of any consolidated analyses to this effect. I am aware of basic fallacies in the ones that I've read. And the existence of 4e merely proves that WotC is capable of making mistakes.I'm also aware of a multitude of game designers, playtesters, and players who obviously disagree, based on their behavior.Magic can be limited on a per-time basis because its source is not known, and operates according to mystical and arbitrary rules. Because it's not real, and by definition is disparate from reality. Everything else comes from some known source, and operates according to rules that are, to some extent, based on reality. So they're not the same. Sure. However, in the absence of some ideal game without flaws, I prefer to use the available game with the fewest flaws. I would prefer it if those flaws were fixed. Adding or creating new flaws, not so good.As I've said before, show me a new age 3e with its flaws fixed, and I'm on board.Even if that's true, it doesn't justify making the game worse overall to patch it for your preferences. If there were such a need, I think it would be; I'm not seeing any other rationale. Since there is no such "need", its hypothetical predicates are irrelevant.That might be bad. However, the actual rules do not make animal companions or druids in wild shape superior to or competitive with fighters of equal levels, so that's more of a hypothetical.Even if it were the case, it would simply suggest that the designers felt that nature was a dominant force in the world and that nature worshippers should be powerful, and balanced the game accordingly. Your dissent would best be manifested by picking up another game whose philosophy more closely matched yours.Your experience seems to trump the experience of the millions of people who have not attempted to publish fallacious proofs to this effect anonymously on internet messageboards.</blockquote>

Verification