Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 4024517" data-attributes="member: 10095">No, I don't. That's also partially because I have a friend whose a playtester and he keeps raving about how much faster it goes, even with players having more individual choices. Since I don't expect people to believe the &quot;I have a friend...&quot; explanation, I don't use it in my arguments (despite it having a dramatic effect on my personal opinion) and I stick to what the designers/developers say.We see eye-to-eye on this one. Maybe there's hope for us after all.Well, I don't think we needed &quot;Halflings are the size of a two-year-old,&quot; like in 3e, and giving them a more distinct culture is a plus in my book.And that's where our difference in thought lies.You think that the weakest magic rings should be as weak as the weakest magic swords (thus, available from level 1, if applicable). I think the weakest magic rings should be (and are) as weak as moderate magic swords (paragon tier).That's also because the crunch was going through far more substantial change. 3e was tearing down the old house and building an entirely new one. 4e is taking that new house and renovating it while leaving the solid foundation (basic d20 mechanics) in place.I guess you're some kind of genius, because it's pretty obvious that WotC's market research has concluded that you are in the minority in this regard.Or the feeling, to people like me, that some people's resistance to change is preventing poor designs from being discarded because of &quot;legacy appeal.&quot; I've played every edition of D&amp;D (except OD&amp;D), and nothing bothered me more than poorly-designed legacy items surviving simply because they're legacy items.Necromancer's goal seems to be to appeal to the 1e crowd, but in the latest system. WotC's goal is to grow the potential pool of players. Necromancer's goal would not be conducive to keeping D&amp;D alive, honestly.Then allow me to rephrase, since you've made it abundantly clear that your group in no way represents a &quot;standard&quot; D&amp;D group.The majority do not use them, because they're more effort than they're worth.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Little Raven, post: 4024517, member: 10095"] No, I don't. That's also partially because I have a friend whose a playtester and he keeps raving about how much faster it goes, even with players having more individual choices. Since I don't expect people to believe the "I have a friend..." explanation, I don't use it in my arguments (despite it having a dramatic effect on my personal opinion) and I stick to what the designers/developers say. We see eye-to-eye on this one. Maybe there's hope for us after all. Well, I don't think we needed "Halflings are the size of a two-year-old," like in 3e, and giving them a more distinct culture is a plus in my book. And that's where our difference in thought lies. You think that the weakest magic rings should be as weak as the weakest magic swords (thus, available from level 1, if applicable). I think the weakest magic rings should be (and are) as weak as moderate magic swords (paragon tier). That's also because the crunch was going through far more substantial change. 3e was tearing down the old house and building an entirely new one. 4e is taking that new house and renovating it while leaving the solid foundation (basic d20 mechanics) in place. I guess you're some kind of genius, because it's pretty obvious that WotC's market research has concluded that you are in the minority in this regard. Or the feeling, to people like me, that some people's resistance to change is preventing poor designs from being discarded because of "legacy appeal." I've played every edition of D&D (except OD&D), and nothing bothered me more than poorly-designed legacy items surviving simply because they're legacy items. Necromancer's goal seems to be to appeal to the 1e crowd, but in the latest system. WotC's goal is to grow the potential pool of players. Necromancer's goal would not be conducive to keeping D&D alive, honestly. Then allow me to rephrase, since you've made it abundantly clear that your group in no way represents a "standard" D&D group. The majority do not use them, because they're more effort than they're worth. [/QUOTE]

Verification