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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6452664" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I think some people here misunderstand my meaning when I say malicious.  I don't think they are trying to kill me.  Maybe an example from the NFL would help.In the past, some teams really punished receivers coming across the middle.   They literally took their heads off.  This caused many receivers when playing those teams to "hear footsteps" and drop passes.  So it was a strategy that worked.  Let's call that an NFL playstyle for the sake of this discussion.The NFL since has passed rules to massively limit that approach.  Perhaps for good reasons.  Concussions are bad.  The passing of those rules though could be viewed by the teams using the above strategy as malicious.  You are destroying our playstyle they might say.  And they would be right.  It is a deliberate attempt to suppress that playstyle.In the case of D&D, getting rid of some rules or not providing others while good in their eyes could result in the suppression or ghetto-ization of a playstyle.  So the people being suppressed would be right in viewing those changes as malicious.  Malicious to their playstyle anyway.We can debate what the current DMG has provided and I might be on your side but I think it would be fair to say that without any healing modules it would be clear that Wotc only cares about the rapid non-magical healing style.  So those who prefer another style would be right in claiming their intentions are malicious.  If all they'd provided were a few sentences on changing up the short and long rests I'd agree.   I do believe additional information has came out though recently that leads me to believe they are offering more than that which is good and makes me think their intent was not malicious.  Uninformed perhaps in some cases but not malicious.  An attempt was made at least.</blockquote>

Verification