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="OneWinged4ngel" data-source="post: 4320813" data-attributes="member: 37292">Which is, of course, stupid reasoning.  Yay.  They took the terrible 3rd ed armor system and, instead of fixing the glaring issues, decided to just make it out that they did it all on purpose, set up the sets by class, and say that there's *supposed* to be a downright best choice for you to pick out.  A pattern that one sees throughout lots of 4e, really.  They tend to avoid or justify old problems when they don't just outright axe features.  It's like they're too lazy to actually try to *fix* things, so they narrow the system down and restrict choices to a point that any dimwit could do it.  And then they STILL come up with stuff like Cascade of Blades.  The worst part is that in the pursuit of this "easy balance," they're willing to axe any beneficial feature that stands in their way, as well as say "you're supposed to have a best way to build."  Since when was that balance?  Balance was when I had all the options, but I couldn't make the decision because all the options were similarly attractive, though unique.  Not when I got to pick Mithral Breastplate again because it turns out that it's by far the best armor for my given class.Of course, the argument could easily be made that there's good reason that they made the system far more restrictive, despite all the early evidence that it was going in the opposite direction (with things like ToB having easily the best multiclassing in 3rd edition, for example).  Harder to homebrew, harder to make unique concepts... easier to sell you new supplements for every new character concept.It's entirely possible that WotC wasn't just taking the  lazy way out, they were just taking the greedy way out.  Neither possibility makes me feel any better about the company, however.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Problem being, the game suffers blatantly obvious shortcomings when it comes to the primary purpose of the genre of games known as "pen and paper roleplaying games."  The purpose of a roleplaying game isn't just to have a game that you can roleplay in.  You can, quite literally, roleplay in ANY game.  I can roleplay while playing the Warhammer Fantasy Miniatures game, but that doesn't mean that it's the same category of game as the Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing Game.The purpose of the pen and paper roleplaying game is primarily serve the purpose of resolving and facilitating the story.  That's what characterizes that classification of games.  If a rule hinders or restricts storytelling, it's a bad rule.   Making suspension of belief significantly harder and restricting creative freedom is a negative aspect.It's just a game, and it's a game that has many flaws.  It goes far beyond this.  These little discrepancies build up very noticeably in 4e, even moreso than in 3rd.I can think of a dozen ways to solve that off the top of my head other than changing the price to a pittance in a grandstand deus ex machina.  Why can't WotC?</blockquote>

Verification