Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4190379" data-attributes="member: 5143">Yes, there is a difference between needless symmetry and useful symmetry.  If you want a campaign against metallic dragons then it's handy to have one that has a more brute feel to it than a more tactical feel, so that battles against multiple types of dragons don't get boring from being exactly the same.The symmetry they were talking about is: Good people go to a good plane when they die.  That must mean there is an evil plane...and a neutral plane, and a neutral good plane, and so on.  Now that we have all these planes, there has to be creatures who live in them all.  So now we have angels for the good planes, devils for the LE plane, demons for the CE plane, and so on.That sort of symmetry adds more monsters and more things to know, but it doesn't make the game any easier to run.They wanted to make it clear that hitpoints were as much morale as they were wounds.  So, there are non-magical ways to heal people.  And there are monsters that actually wound you as well.This helps the game because you don't have to keep track separately of morale that is dropping as well as each wound you receive then have to figure out which spell or which character can heal you.I've never heard anyone ever say that they want mechanics to make sense from a fluff perspective.  They wanted there to be at least ONE explanation that would make sense if you were willing to accept it.  There are all sorts of explanations that make sense for these powers.  However, you can cut them all down if you want to fairly easily and accept that none of them make sense as far as you are concerned.  Then, none of them will make sense and you'll be annoyed at them.These powers can be described as:-a quick prayer to your god and an attack that have nothing to do with each other, but you do them both on the same round because the rules are built that way.  ("Please, heal my ally!  Crap, there's an enemy attacking me.  *slice*")-a bargain with your deity to smite the enemies of your god, promote the cause of good, protect the lives of his followers, and so on and in exchange the deity will heal one of their allies or guide his aim.("My ally is in need of healing.  I will smite your enemies if you will use your divine powers to help him.")-a power source to power your buffs.("I hit the enemy with my mace.  This causes a ripple of power out of the fabric of the universe as a trickle of his life force slips out.  I catch that ripple and direct it using my training towards my ally.")Still, every one of the designers and developers I've spoken to or seen posts from has said that when they had to make a choice between simulationism and gamism they chose the gamism method.  So when faced with a decision like:"It's no fun for most people we've talked to to sit at the back and be expected to heal every round.  They want to use their powers to beat enemies, not to heal or buff their allies.  At least not every round.  But healing is necessary for the game to work.  So, if we make the primary method of healing a Minor ability then clerics can attack and heal in the same round.  But we can't make a minor power for every small buff you could possibly give an ally.  Especially when we need to restrict the number of powers the cleric has to a small number.  Given a choice between giving an ally +2 to hit and attacking for normal damage, all the playtesters chose the damage.  But we want the cleric to feel different than a fighter.  So, why not combine buffing and attacking as one action so people don't have to choose between them."And I'm guessing that playtest reports showed people enjoyed that better than the other way.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, this edition is less apologetic for combat being a board game.  The impression I get is: "It's always pretty much been a board game that you play with a bunch of roleplaying and plot in between the board game.  However, a lot of board games play better than this one.  They are easier to understand and more fun to play.  A lot of people put up with the flaws in the the board game part of D&D because of 'roleplaying' reasons.  Things like, 'I'm not supposed to be any good at hitting enemies, I'm a wizard' and 'I'm supposed to bad at killing undead, I'm a rogue'.  So, if we are going to make a board game, we should at least make it the best board game we can without being hindered by those things."</blockquote>

Verification