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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7213861" data-attributes="member: 12731">Can you explain why it is acceptable how people change arguments from "I think Z is weak and here's how it could have been so much better" to "you just want perfection that is clearly unreasonable" or "why do you want to go back to the old bad days where NPCs were hellishly complicated and crunchy"?Not to mention your own strawman, Sacrosanct! I have repeatedly said 5th edition is by far the edition I prefer. I just want good to be better. The ONLY reason we point out weaknesses and discuss ways WotC could fix them is precisely because we love this edition so much! If the edition weren't so good in general, why bother fixing its flaws?Why do you keep defending WotC at every turn? Why do you pretend there are no blemishes on this otherwise very shining edition?What would be so wrong with accepting and acknowledging that for 5E's many strengths, the high-level experience straight out the box is very weak? (Whether it was weak in earlier editions does not matter. Whether you can make it strong in your campaign does not matter). The fact is simple: the PHB gives us a truckload of goodies. This is good. But the MM is woefully under-equipped to deal with all those goodies. That is disappointment, no matter how you cut it.Then you try to undercut this argument with a load of irrelevant sidetracks. The fact remains: IF the MM was better made from the beginning, you would have enjoyed it at least just as much, while a powergamer like me would have enjoyed it MUCH more. It would have been a win win for everybody. I am ONLY talking about what you get in the books. And I am very constructively analysing exactly what is wrong, so we can fix it, and better: hope that WotC fixes it!</blockquote>

Verification