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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 5755180" data-attributes="member: 98255">I think this is a biggie for a lot of people, and here's how I see it as a problem.I have no issue with the 4e paradigm where some classes can use nonphysical stats to make melee attacks. In the context of a specific case - a class going for a particular concept - it's fine. If it were a general rule, like the example above, I would find it harder to swallow.The problem though, is that some folks can't handle that level of abstraction or dissociation in their game at all. Designing around that fact though, makes people like me (i.e. those who at times find it actively desirable) unhappy. A game devoid of those constructs is essentially telling us, "no, you can't do that - it's badwrongfun." Especially since that particular can of worms has already been opened.It's like the abstract version of what someone said upthread about the pro-simulationists getting used to clunky rules, then finding it jarring when those rules get removed for ease-of-play concerns.And like another poster has already pointed out, no 5e will truly succeed unless both camps can somehow be satisfied. For what its worth, I think 2e handled that pretty well by making all the clunky wargame sim type stuff pretty much optional, and being pretty clear in sidebars about why.As another, more recent example of how I believe both sides can be satisified: I think the Skald from 4e's Heroes of the Feywild does a pretty reasonable job of this - you can make your Skald as a pure Charisma class, for weapon attacks and all. At the same time, nothing prevents you from making the same character to swing an axe using Strength, and still benefit from all your powers. That way, for those who find it jarring, they can avoid it, but the rules are also there for those who want them and/or don't care about pure sim.</blockquote>

Verification