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: 6987608" data-attributes="member: 996">Certainly there are.  Marking, for instance.  4e powers like C&GI.  3e contested skill checks.  Simply speaking in character and letting the DM make a judgement.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Then again, if you place the bar for 'realistic' high enough, 0 is a number, too.  :|Nope, not wrong.  Speculation about the nature/motivation of the overstatement, sure.  But the factual bits were correct as far as they went.  FWIW.Most RPGs, including all editions of D&D certainly fit that definition.  Exception based design, sure, allowed for some variation.  The actual range of each of the underlying mechanics (conditions, named bonuses, durations, etc), though, probably peaked in 3e, and, if anything, 5e has ramped 'em back up a bit, thanks to the more traditional approach to spellcasting.Making allowances for 'bazillion' as rhetorical hyperbole, sure, there were a lot of 'unique' powers in 4e.  But, 4e had one mechanic for resolving attacks (spells or spell-like abilities & maneuvers included) - the attack roll - it was the most standardized (and thus simplest), in that sense, D&D has ever been.  Given 5e's emphasis on fast combat and supposed intent of simplicity, returning to separate mechanics for attacks and saving throws doesn't make much sense.  It's when we accept that the intent was never simplicity, but familiarity ('classic feel') perceived as such, that it falls into place.Maneuvers - martial powers or 'exploits' would be the closest analog to 5e maneuvers - were in no way worthless. As Pemerton has pointed out, you could bull-rush someone off a parapet.  You'd have to charge, which might not be practical in the middle of a duel, but you could do it, RAW, if you were adverse to improv.   If you weren't, well, "Page 42" anyone?  That's circumstantial, alright.  I don't think it deserves the 'in general' lead-in, since it's a pretty specific case of number & capability of allies and lack of advantage from any other source.  True, which is why PCs and monsters that have little to contribute beyond DPR can be politely called 'boring.' When you think about it, presenting boring options is still presenting more options than excluding boring options would have been.Very much so, yes."More situational," yes.We can't completely dismiss that conventional wisdom, either, but it's good to keep the bias in mind.Presumably to cater to the above conventional-wisdom misconception.  Similarly, the fighter is 'balanced' by his high DPR (and little else), making him 'best at fighting,' because DPR is over-valued.The 4e approach to class design prioritized balance, and the approach to monster design assumed any given (individual) monster would likely make only one appearance.  That did result in a narrower range of complexity in both cases, FWIW.  There's not much point to that in 5e.  Over-reverence for the RAW was a 3e phenomenon, and it may have been OK in 4e, where the rules were OK if you stuck to 'em, but 5e really invites the DM to mess with the rules all he wants, the RAW is only a starting point. Judging 5e by RAW is like running a race without ever leaving the starting blocks.Depending on the design philosophy there may be no /requirement/ to balance mechanics, either.  Arguably, 5e's design philosophy doesn't prioritize balance very highly.  For one thing, balance can be brittle, and 5e is meant to be DM-customizeable.  A meticulously balanced game discourages tinkering, for fear you might 'break' it.  No matter how much people might complain that a looser design is 'broken,' it encourages & facilitates tinkering.</blockquote>

Verification