Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9605815" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Your group chooses to play that way. They say, "Ah. They're never going to make martials as strong as casters, nor casters as weak as martials."Not everyone does. That's literally the reason there's a problem. The above is acceptance of the difference, not proof that no issue exists. It very very much seems to me that you are projecting your own positive attitude toward this difference onto everyone else, without any reason other than "well my group does that."Now you're smearing positions you don't agree with. Please stop.Yes, because taking away phenomenal godlike power so that everyone can actually play on an even playing field is such a capitulation. It's such an onerous burden to think that a teamwork-based game should not force people to choose between "martial themed and weak" vs "spellcasting themed and strong."Seriously. This isn't what you keep trying to paint it as. Most people have not accepted, and do not accept, that caster = very powerful and martial = not very powerful.Ah, good, so you have the survey data which proves this?Because I'd love to see it. Until you can provide it, this is you falsely presenting your opinion as though it were shared by 99% of people, not an extreme minority viewpoint NOT widely shared.It's not a matter of being "top dog" and I'm sick and tired of this slander from you. Please stop.It's a matter of wanting to be an EQUAL PLAYER. Of wanting to be PEERS with others, not casters-and-caddies.If someone only gets joy out of playing D&D because it lets them be far more powerful than several of their fellow-players, I'm not at all unhappy telling them their need to be "top dog", to keep their martial-enjoying friends beneath their heels, isn't a fantasy welcome in D&D. That's a hurtful fantasy; it delights in denigrating others, in forcing them to be lesser so the fantasizer can be greater. That's not acceptable in general, let alone in a specifically cooperative game.Because I don't believe it does do that.Because I think the designers explicitly tell us, over and over and over again, that they AREN'T supposed to be that way. That they keep saying, over and over and over again, that places where such disparities exist are a problem, a mistake, or a faulty interpretation, and not only can be altered, they should be altered.It's you--and, as far as I can tell, only you--that keeps asserting that this is 100% intended. It's you--and, as far as I can tell, only you--who thinks that it's somehow good for a cooperative game to make some people "top dog" and other people their weak lackeys.But, since you seem so supremely confident of this position: Prove it! Show that this is the designers' intent. That should be easy to do; they talk about their design intent all the time. Show me the place--any place--where they say "Casters are just more powerful than non-casters." Show me where they actually wrote down that that's how things have always been intended to be, and that players should just know that choosing to play a martial character means choosing to be weak. I eagerly look forward to your example. Or, rather, examples, since your supreme confidence indicates this should be a cinch, something you can prove with multiple examples, though I would accept it if you could cite even a single one.</blockquote>

Verification