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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mirrorrorrim" data-source="post: 9092356" data-attributes="member: 7040132">Clint, kindly don't misrepresent my arguments or Jeremy's reasons.First, I said it was FINE and to leave it alone. I didn't say it was strong or superior. I gave an example about how it was valid and competitive.Second, Jeremy said essentially that "Flex, mathematically, is one of the most powerful of the properties" and I feel that this has merit. I like it for the reasons I mentioned. But he also said that they "get" the feedback from people saying they want tactical options and want Flex to "feel" like it is more than just the number going up. And that feedback is why they are looking at revisiting it. So the decision to revisit is about feelings, not facts. But those feelings are valid.You can disagree about the mechanical argument. However, I agree with the professional game designers on this one. But I am also glad that despite the designers' feelings on the mechanic, they are honoring the desires of the masses to revisit it.To express a bit more on that point of appreciation, despite my frustration about rolling back some of the cool designs we saw in the past, I actually really respect that they are looking at rolling them back. Whether Wildshape templates, Pact Magic, or Flex, or others. They told the public they would roll it back if the public didn't like it, and are being honest and are keeping their word. They gave us the parameters for playtest approval, let us vote, and are working with the results. If something doesn't cut the mustard with the community, they revisit the rule. Even if they roll back some of the designs that I really liked, I have to respect them. They have gone above and beyond, telling the public that D&D belongs to the community in many ways. They want to be stewards with us. They value the community. The designers are doing the heavy work after the suits effed up so much.</blockquote>

Verification