Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7759845" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>This is a BS statement to make, and a toxic attitude. You need to stop telling people to "love it or leave it", especially people who like the game and are criticizing an aspect of it. Their place here isn't any less than yours. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I was more referring to the specific subset of the topic I was responding to in that section of text, but yeah, that too. Although, I think most folks just aren't willing to directly engage, for whatever reason, with the fact that you are just saying that it would be great to have the option to play a version of a class that makes some kind of choice at most or all levels. </p><p>If we break every class into a Warlock style structure, with a combination of features to be chosen from that include passive features, feature upgrades, and new distinct abilities (spells, manuevers, etc), and a new choice made every few levels, on levels where you don't gain a feat, or a new subclass ability, or spell, so that most levels have a choice to be made, I imagine you'd be happy? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Battlemaster has a suite of distinct powers. What are you talking about? Those powers are expressed in a way that fits the system, but they're not actually different from 4e powers, or spells. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The biggest feature of 4e, for a lot of us, is having a choice of a new ability or feature at most levels, and the meaningful difference in playstyle that came with different powers and feats. </p><p></p><p>The level of customization, and the degree to which the customization changed gameplay without creature massive power creep, and with only a few examples of "broken" options, most of which were somewhat weak options that were still usable in a normal game, but unplayable in a heavily optimized game, was awesome. </p><p></p><p>Seriously, I played a Cavalier next to a phb ranger with twin strike. We were about even, because it wasn't a CharOp cheese game. Even if the ranger had been heavily optimized, I would still be viable next to him, as long as I didn't ignore optimization, which is also true of options in 5e. Now, I wasn't playing a vampire or binder, to be fair, but the vast majority of options were somewhere between the Cav and the Ranger, and in normal games, the differences weren't really noticeable, even at the very end of the game's publication. </p><p></p><p>It was an incredible wealth of distinct options, that meaningfully changed how a character played, such that two dagger master rogues could be mechanically distinct in the way they play at the table, but the entire game didn't contain any power gap near as great as those found in previous editions of DnD.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7759845, member: 6704184"] This is a BS statement to make, and a toxic attitude. You need to stop telling people to "love it or leave it", especially people who like the game and are criticizing an aspect of it. Their place here isn't any less than yours. I was more referring to the specific subset of the topic I was responding to in that section of text, but yeah, that too. Although, I think most folks just aren't willing to directly engage, for whatever reason, with the fact that you are just saying that it would be great to have the option to play a version of a class that makes some kind of choice at most or all levels. If we break every class into a Warlock style structure, with a combination of features to be chosen from that include passive features, feature upgrades, and new distinct abilities (spells, manuevers, etc), and a new choice made every few levels, on levels where you don't gain a feat, or a new subclass ability, or spell, so that most levels have a choice to be made, I imagine you'd be happy? The Battlemaster has a suite of distinct powers. What are you talking about? Those powers are expressed in a way that fits the system, but they're not actually different from 4e powers, or spells. The biggest feature of 4e, for a lot of us, is having a choice of a new ability or feature at most levels, and the meaningful difference in playstyle that came with different powers and feats. The level of customization, and the degree to which the customization changed gameplay without creature massive power creep, and with only a few examples of "broken" options, most of which were somewhat weak options that were still usable in a normal game, but unplayable in a heavily optimized game, was awesome. Seriously, I played a Cavalier next to a phb ranger with twin strike. We were about even, because it wasn't a CharOp cheese game. Even if the ranger had been heavily optimized, I would still be viable next to him, as long as I didn't ignore optimization, which is also true of options in 5e. Now, I wasn't playing a vampire or binder, to be fair, but the vast majority of options were somewhere between the Cav and the Ranger, and in normal games, the differences weren't really noticeable, even at the very end of the game's publication. It was an incredible wealth of distinct options, that meaningfully changed how a character played, such that two dagger master rogues could be mechanically distinct in the way they play at the table, but the entire game didn't contain any power gap near as great as those found in previous editions of DnD. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
Top