Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Derren" data-source="post: 6028800" data-attributes="member: 2518">&quot;I&quot; am allowing?You seem to have completely forgotten what the OP suggested, so I suggest to read his post again.&quot;Thus, 5e needs to take this lesson to heart: no deliberately underpowered junk. Not everything needs to be perfectly balanced, but if the developers include an option available to players, it needs to be rougly equivalent in power to the other options.&quot;And when you read the rest of his post, which many people agree with, it is quite clear that he talks about combat and not &quot;wooing maidens&quot;. And this is what I heavily oppose. The system should not label options as superior because they make you more powerful in combat or even just suggest that one should take combat feats over other things because they are more &quot;effective&quot;.Because if the system does that, it automatically promotes combat over other forms of gameplay, turning D&amp;D more into a miniature skirmish game than an RPG.Sure, many people likely don't agree with that or don't care because D&amp;D was always combat focused. And if you want it to stay that way than the OPs suggestion make sense. But I am advocating for D&amp;D to finally grow beyond its wargame roots and catch up with many other RPGs on the market which are build around you playing a character in a world instead of limiting you to play a adventurer raiding dungeons.You can say that D&amp;D was quite successful in the past with its combat focus, but in my opinion the the 3E/4E split showed, among other things, that there are a lot of people who care about the &quot;other&quot; stuff besides combat and they were among them who were driven away by 4E.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Derren, post: 6028800, member: 2518"] "I" am allowing? You seem to have completely forgotten what the OP suggested, so I suggest to read his post again. "Thus, 5e needs to take this lesson to heart: no deliberately underpowered junk. Not everything needs to be perfectly balanced, but if the developers include an option available to players, it needs to be rougly equivalent in power to the other options." And when you read the rest of his post, which many people agree with, it is quite clear that he talks about combat and not "wooing maidens". And this is what I heavily oppose. The system should not label options as superior because they make you more powerful in combat or even just suggest that one should take combat feats over other things because they are more "effective". Because if the system does that, it automatically promotes combat over other forms of gameplay, turning D&D more into a miniature skirmish game than an RPG. Sure, many people likely don't agree with that or don't care because D&D was always combat focused. And if you want it to stay that way than the OPs suggestion make sense. But I am advocating for D&D to finally grow beyond its wargame roots and catch up with many other RPGs on the market which are build around you playing a character in a world instead of limiting you to play a adventurer raiding dungeons. You can say that D&D was quite successful in the past with its combat focus, but in my opinion the the 3E/4E split showed, among other things, that there are a lot of people who care about the "other" stuff besides combat and they were among them who were driven away by 4E. [/QUOTE]

Verification