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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Presentation vs design... vs philosophy
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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7931224" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Maybe I'm confused, but what do you mean by "every class used the same structure for gaining abilities"? Isn't that how DnD always works? Or are you talking about how they all gained a similar number of abilities at a similar rate, ie, everyone gained 2 at-will an encounter and a daily, next level everyone gained a utility?</p><p></p><p>I've never understood why everyone having at-will, encounter, or daily resources was such a big deal. Frankly, it seems like a good solution to the constant complaints we have in 5e. After all, if you are novaing all 2 encounters you have and the wizard is outshining the barbarian because of it, if the barbarian also had daily powers to waste on those fights, then it would be more equitable without having to go to "absurd lengths" as I have heard it called to have 8 fights in a single day.</p><p></p><p>I will grant the similar structure to the powers, that irritated me as well. However, I'm curious about something. How does any of this make someone special? If everyone is using weapon damage plus riders... what we want some people to use weapon damage and other people to use random number? Everyone has the same number of resources... what do we want some people to have far more resources than others?</p><p></p><p>These seem like relatively good things, a little boring perhaps, but everyone having the same number of resources for the daily expenditure seems like a good goal, not one which should be derided, especially since we complain constantly that warlocks and monks are too weak if you don't get 2 SRs an adventure and that wizards are too powerful because they can solve all the fighter since the DM can only fit in 3 fights per day. </p><p></p><p>In light of that, you can see where 4e was coming from. And those are 5e complaints, I'm assured that. 3.5 was worse.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Can you see how this makes people think you want to make casters better than non-casters? Your complaint isn't that it made non-casters feel like casters (who were far and away the best in 3.5) but that is made casters feel like non-casters (who were far and away inferior in 3.5). </p><p></p><p>They didn't make the other classes too good, they didn't make us good enough, and that is bad. </p><p></p><p>Maybe you don't mean it that way, but that is how it sounds. And, if you try and explain how you wanted casters to be more like casters, think about what you might have wanted. Bigger effects? Bigger Area of Effect? Longer term effects? More interesting effect? All of those would make them better than average. Which would make your desire come across as wanting casters to be better than martials.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I'm not wrong and I'm not arguing against a strawman. I'm not arguing against anyone in this thread either. I'm pointing out the philosophy and literature of the source people want to use as a pithy one-liner. </p><p></p><p>He states his goal and his plan. He is going to give technology to everyone so that everyone in the world is superpowered, is special. This is bad, because the supers who were born with their gifts would no longer be special. If everyone is like you, if everyone is as strong as you or as fast as you, then you aren't special anymore. That is his "villainous plot", equality of ability through technology. That is the source of the line people are using. </p><p></p><p>And the movie presents this as a terrible thing. If everyone is special, if everyone has super powers, then no one is special, there are no icons standing above us and being better than us with their inborn gifts. </p><p></p><p>It is notable that many supervillains, and in fact every Incredible's Villain, uses technology. The Bomber from the beginning, Syndrome, the Miss Mind Control from the second movie. I love the Incredible's movies, they are great, but it is really concerning to realize that all the good guys are born with their gifts and all the bad guys are using technology to make themselves equal and pull the heroes down to their level. To prove that being born with better gifts does not make them better than normal people. I cannot think of a single villainous super from that series, everyone born with powers that set them above is good, the majority of those using technology to make themselves equal are bad. </p><p></p><p>So, I find the use of the phrase "If everyone is special, no one is" to be philosophically messy. It carries with it a lot of baggage no one really wants to have associated with them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7931224, member: 6801228"] Maybe I'm confused, but what do you mean by "every class used the same structure for gaining abilities"? Isn't that how DnD always works? Or are you talking about how they all gained a similar number of abilities at a similar rate, ie, everyone gained 2 at-will an encounter and a daily, next level everyone gained a utility? I've never understood why everyone having at-will, encounter, or daily resources was such a big deal. Frankly, it seems like a good solution to the constant complaints we have in 5e. After all, if you are novaing all 2 encounters you have and the wizard is outshining the barbarian because of it, if the barbarian also had daily powers to waste on those fights, then it would be more equitable without having to go to "absurd lengths" as I have heard it called to have 8 fights in a single day. I will grant the similar structure to the powers, that irritated me as well. However, I'm curious about something. How does any of this make someone special? If everyone is using weapon damage plus riders... what we want some people to use weapon damage and other people to use random number? Everyone has the same number of resources... what do we want some people to have far more resources than others? These seem like relatively good things, a little boring perhaps, but everyone having the same number of resources for the daily expenditure seems like a good goal, not one which should be derided, especially since we complain constantly that warlocks and monks are too weak if you don't get 2 SRs an adventure and that wizards are too powerful because they can solve all the fighter since the DM can only fit in 3 fights per day. In light of that, you can see where 4e was coming from. And those are 5e complaints, I'm assured that. 3.5 was worse. Can you see how this makes people think you want to make casters better than non-casters? Your complaint isn't that it made non-casters feel like casters (who were far and away the best in 3.5) but that is made casters feel like non-casters (who were far and away inferior in 3.5). They didn't make the other classes too good, they didn't make us good enough, and that is bad. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but that is how it sounds. And, if you try and explain how you wanted casters to be more like casters, think about what you might have wanted. Bigger effects? Bigger Area of Effect? Longer term effects? More interesting effect? All of those would make them better than average. Which would make your desire come across as wanting casters to be better than martials. No, I'm not wrong and I'm not arguing against a strawman. I'm not arguing against anyone in this thread either. I'm pointing out the philosophy and literature of the source people want to use as a pithy one-liner. He states his goal and his plan. He is going to give technology to everyone so that everyone in the world is superpowered, is special. This is bad, because the supers who were born with their gifts would no longer be special. If everyone is like you, if everyone is as strong as you or as fast as you, then you aren't special anymore. That is his "villainous plot", equality of ability through technology. That is the source of the line people are using. And the movie presents this as a terrible thing. If everyone is special, if everyone has super powers, then no one is special, there are no icons standing above us and being better than us with their inborn gifts. It is notable that many supervillains, and in fact every Incredible's Villain, uses technology. The Bomber from the beginning, Syndrome, the Miss Mind Control from the second movie. I love the Incredible's movies, they are great, but it is really concerning to realize that all the good guys are born with their gifts and all the bad guys are using technology to make themselves equal and pull the heroes down to their level. To prove that being born with better gifts does not make them better than normal people. I cannot think of a single villainous super from that series, everyone born with powers that set them above is good, the majority of those using technology to make themselves equal are bad. So, I find the use of the phrase "If everyone is special, no one is" to be philosophically messy. It carries with it a lot of baggage no one really wants to have associated with them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Presentation vs design... vs philosophy
Top