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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6205667" data-attributes="member: 1465">Doesn't work for me. I had the most refreshing games of D&D in the 3e era when the DMs decided to cut supplements and play core-only, or play a low-powered campaign*. YMMV but IMXP the "donut creep" goes in parallel with players getting more interested in their character sheet and less interested in everything and everyone around them.*by that I don't mean a game where you get less than what the PHB says, I simply mean not to play a campaign with added donuts, which at some point was almost the standard especially in PbPNo. There are many hundreds features of the current playtest package which are not causing any controversy. And most of that 30% (or whatever) which is debated, is debated in terms of balance ("this is too good", "this isn't good enough"), simplicity vs accuracy/flexibility trade-off ("this is too complicated", "this isn't accurate/flexible enough"), missing content ("I can't yet make my favourite PC with these rules"). These are rarely dealbreakers, they are not comparable with the problem of disassociated mechanics (which admittedly is an overall problem... each specific feature like this Fighter one isn't a dealbreaker either per se, but it contributes to the overall look & feel of the edition), which we've discussed extensively here on the forums for years... Disassociated mechanics (or week, poor associations) really spoil the fun of a lot of people, while associated mechanics do not spoil anyone's fun. There is infinite room for new and exciting Fighter abilities that don't require week associations to the narrative.</blockquote>

Verification