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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7217742" data-attributes="member: 996">Repetition won't change the correlation between those reasons and the features that made the game better-balanced.[sblock="Edition stuff"] Hypothetically, you could, but 4e didn't, there were some non-AEDU classes that were on the sad side, and two AEDU classes that were badly under-supported, but nothing like the class imbalance to be found in other editions.   I understand the distinction. You don't want to say you object to balance, you just object to everything that carries a risk of too much balance, on various grounds that have nothing to do with balance.  It's just not a difference.   But 4e wasn't horribly balanced, and wasn't a tactical boardgame.  So it's neither here nor there.  4e combat encounters had somewhat-balanced guidelines for determining difficulty, though, which rested on a number of mechanics, including those you conflate with a boardgame feel.  So, again, I see the distinction you're drawing, but there's no difference.  You said:You may have gone on to use yourself as if you were a representative example, but you were not speaking only for yourself, and I was responding on that same level.   Meh, it's an analogy to lactose-intolerance.  I suppose it's unfair to the lactose-intolerant because it's not a choice on their part, while it may be to some extent on yours.  Certainly it was your choice to bring in an appeal to popularity to support the 'more art than science' argument - ironically, one where we're on the same side - and to do so in the form of edition warring. So, first, you accuse me of being insulting, then you stoop to insults and threats?  [/sblock]Can we get back to how 5e D&D is more art than science?  Or maybe even to it's viability for high-level play?</blockquote>

Verification