NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7931260" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Okay... but that exists in all games to a degree. Why was gaining resources at the same rate a problem? Or was it even a problem at all?I've seen a lot of people mention they've had issues with that solution. Each table finds their own balance I suppose, but I suspect you have not kept the same number of encounters that you would have if you were still working on a daily time scale. So, you are keeping a similar balance with only a narrative reskin on the time.I think that while the different resources answer is potentially a good one, it leads right back into the problem that caused you to stretch out your time scale. If those powerful resources come back quick enough, and their are a limited number of fights, then those are not equally impactful. Or, if the weaker resources do not recover quicker, you can have the same issue. I won't say it can't work, because 5e comes close to it working, but again, I think you can see why instead of trying such a complicated balancing act, they simply give classes more equivalent resources and more equivalent recoveries. 4e went too far, but it wasn't a bad idea what they attempted to do. Love that Show <3Of course, it has a similiar issue with the majority of the villains being physically ugly or deformed. But, I'm still loving it.Then explain what you mean. They didn't feel like casters. Why? Was it at-wills? I would think not since 5e has at-wills. Encounter Powers? 5e has concentration effects that last an encounter, so that would seem slightly off as well. If you feel I am nowhere close to what you mean, explain what you mean instead of accusing me of projecting.  Okay, how do you imagine this working out?Dailies were much more powerful abilities, so would you want Casters to have more dailies and less encounter powers? If they are gaining more of the most powerful abilities, and losing out on smaller abilities, how do you expect that to alter the game play?I would suspect it would lead to novaing and hoarding. The casters would hoard their abilities til a big fight, then unleash multiple dailies in a row. They would have to have something at-will just to contribute, unless you were thinking of going back to an Ad&D style of 5MWD where the caster is reduced to cheerleading after they use their big abilities. But, I can only guess at what you mean by those very broad strokes.No, I am not. I was using your post as a springboard, but I was never arguing against you because you made no claims as to the philosophical messages in The Incredibles. That is why I started that section with a "can we all agree" not "can you FrogReaver agree"No, I am not. That was is plan. That was how it would be implemented, that is the assumed bias presented in the story. If you would like to prove your literary view is right, provide evidence and quotes.And yet, every class does share some resources, they do share recharge times, and a lot of classes play very similarly. This is just plain true. So, it is only a matter of degrees, and we can talk about the degrees presented and where you want to draw the lines. But, the section you quoted when you said this, that section has absolutely nothing to do with DnD. I am not equating the philosophy and ideas in the incredible movies to DnD. If you saw what I was saying as somehow suggesting I wanted everyone to be wizards, you missed the point by reading into it what is not there. I was discussing the movie, the quote people are using, and why I think it carries too much baggage to be a quote people should want to use. Most people don't analyze animated movies for deeper messages, which is why I presented the facts about why that quote from that movie carried the connotation it does. I think in part it is because of Capn Zap's very vitrolic language about how PF2 is sprinting down the path of destruction by following the ideas of 4e, because the ideas were obviously terrible to begin with. But, as you start breaking it down, looking at what was there, and thinking about why the choices that existed did, you can begin seeing that there was solid logic involved. Sure, Martial vs Caster was not a big divide, but Striker vs Defender was. Maybe Arcane vs Divine wasn't as split as it could have been, but there was a divide there.There is a solid reason to have every class have a similiar number and recovery of resources from a game design perspective.And so, in responding to the idea of there being no redeeming qualities, we end up discussing what was good and what was different.</blockquote>

Verification