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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3790558" data-attributes="member: 18549">That's true, and an alternative position that I support is to assume that when the designers say that they're addressing a problem in D&D, that they have identified the problem in the same way that I see it talked about in the Rules or General forums here, and are attempting to smooth it over with a minimum of fuss.  I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.  If they say that magic item dependency is reduced, I'm not going to doubt that it's true when wizard implements are previewed.  If it's reduced, it's reduced and enhanced implements must not be critical to wizard performance.  If, when the PHB comes out and wizards are heavily dependent on magic items, I'll know I was wrong, but until then, I think that you can have "nice, but not necessary" magic items, and if I can imagine it, they can design it.There's a bit of hype to cut through, but for the most part I think that the descriptions of the rules, while vague, are probably an accurate portrayal.  So far, they've focused less on the mechanics of the new rules, and more on how those mechanics occur at the table.  I get the impression that any problems we will have with the game will be due to either:1. A given player dislikes the mechanics, and prefers the old rules2. There are unexpected synergies that appear once there are many more people playing the gameI don't think that the stuff we're hearing about is untrue.  However, it's not the complete picture.  If they say prep time is shorter, play is faster, PCs, NPCs, and monsters are easier to create and run, or any of the other things they've been saying, it's probably because they've seen it borne out at the playtest tables.  So I'm not worried about that.  I'm mostly worried about what they're not telling us.So I think that objections to the revealed information that object to what they're telling us will be the case are valid objections (i.e #1, above).  Objections that fit into category #2, above, will only really be sound when we have a chance to interact with the rules.  But objections that go from what they tell us to some imagined implication are not really valid objections.  And, as you point out, neither is praise on those grounds. Personally, I'm pleased with what they've promised us, without having to invent any other bits to supplement it.  If they deliver, I will like this edition.  I think that they think they can deliver.  Of course, they're promising to deliver a few things that I'm not that fond of, but I think that overall they're putting together a pretty good game.</blockquote>

Verification