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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6955274" data-attributes="member: 15700">Others have wrote and implied that, and you agreed.  So when I said statements like that, I'm responding to that side of the argument as a whole, not just you specifically.All of this can be summarized in one response, one that I've said a couple times already.  What is "better" for you or CaptZapp is not universally true.  It's a fundamental flaw in your argument, this assumption that if you don't like a particular thing, then it must be a "pitfall" that the designers should have fixed in the first place.  And it's not a pitfall, or something that is broken.  It's something that in your opinion doesn't work how you want it to work.  And when I say "entitled", it's for things like you saying "I paid money, it should be designed how my personal preferences are."  Sorry, but that's not true.  There is not a single RPG ever published (except my own obviously) that did everything I wanted.  This is a known for everyone.  Anyone who thinks that an RPG should be designed to do everything they want out of the box is someone I'd like to sell some oceanfront property in Arizona to because everyone has different tastes.  I'll say it again: Something not working how you want it is not a pitfall or broken design; it's an opinion.  Expecting to have an RPG do everything how you want is unrealistic, whether or not you paid for it.  Presumably you knew something about 5e before buying it, and you made a decision whether or not you would buy it.  It's also universally true that in order to make the game work how you want, it requires DM prep.  It requires you to know what the monsters can do before you play them.  If that is too much work for you, then stick to the game that you enjoy the most.  It's a decision we all make.  It's also entitlement to think that the most recent version of a game should fit your own personal desires.  None of us are entitled to that.  When 3e and 4e came out, I didn't get all mad because I thought I deserved to have those versions cater to my playing style.  No, I stuck playing the games I enjoyed playing.  WoTC is  business, and they design games based on a lot of factors.  My personal opinion is not one of them, especially if its counter to their overall design philosophy.You and CaptZapp keep making comments about how they are broken or need to be fixed, when it appears that the reason they seem broken is because you (general you) didn't play them up to their capabilities.  Again, that's not a "pitfall that the designers should change".  The failure point here is you.  How are the designers supposed to fix you taking a genius NPC with a ton of spells at his disposal, and you playing him as just a bag of HP ignoring all the things that NPC can do both in combat and out of combat?  They can't.Then play them that way.  You are the DM, you have complete control over how you play a monster.  Goblins, hobgoblins, etc are all fairly intelligent creatures.  There is nothing anywhere in the rules that says they can't use tactics, or the environment, or tools, or different weapons, or whatever.  This is what I'm talking about when I say things like "want it done for you." and how "the designers doing the game like you want is detrimental to the masses." because the masses already know they can play all of those monsters differently.  They don't need additional page content (which raises problems I mentioned earlier) filled with variants "this kobold uses snake baskets" and another page for "this kobold throws pots of acid/powder/oil" and another page for "this monster has these list of spells, now lets add another page describing what all of those spells do because expecting the DM to know what SHIELD does is too much to ask..."   It's common sense, especially in something called a "role-playing" game, that how you run the monsters is up to you.  That's what role-playing is.</blockquote>

Verification