Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9606410" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Irrelevant.No. You do not agree. You think nearly everyone agrees with you. You have no evidence to support this claim.Stop being insulting. I have asked you nicely before. Please stop.And you are wrong.Then show your evidence.Nope! They aren't allowed to be equally powerful AND martial. That's very specifically what I said. Please stop twisting my words and then replying to the strawman you've constructed out of them.Nope! They aren't allowed to be equally powerful AND martial.No it is not. It is explicitly not. The books say, the developers say, the marketing says, over and over, that this is a game of peers, not a game of casters and caddies.Then prove it, rather than simply dismissing everything anyone who disagrees with you has to say with "nope, the silent majority is with me!"...are you serious? You're going to act like your anecdotes have any value at all in this discussion? Seriously?No. You have not stated it as a belief. You have repeatedly stated things as though they are facts. That the silent majority agrees with you, for example.This, for example, is not stated as a belief. But it is one--and a false one at that."Equals" does not mean "absolutely 100% identical in every possible way." You and I are equals before the law, even though I am not perfectly interchangeable with you. Equals--peers--can be dramatically different but still afforded the same rights, privileges, etc."Equality" does not mean "uniformity."Nnnnnnnnope! That is objectively false.A lack of bias IS equality. That's...literally what that means in this context.And no, being actively biased against popular player preferences is not good for the game. It is bad for the game. By definition. You are literally telling people that their widely-held preferences suck and they should be happy that those preferences suck.But that's exactly what you are advocating for. You are advocating for casters who rule the roost. Casters who denigrate (I assume that's the word you meant?) others, namely martials, and martials who are happy to be so denigrated.Classes in 5e are explicitly not designed to have roles. Yet another example of a "belief" of yours that is directly contradicted by statements openly made by the designers.You keep saying that the game was designed with a particular intent, that you have somehow divined from looking at the rules. Why not, instead, look at...the things the designers explicitly tell us? Or is it because those explicit, repeated, consistent statements from the designers poke holes in your "beliefs"?Why? It's very simple.I want to be just as important to the party's success as any other participant. That's what being on a team means. That's why we have the phrase "there's no I in team". Teamwork and joint effort. Promoting inclusion, equanimity.Because I also understand all of the other things about the game that aren't "rules and mechanics"? Like the things the book tells you about what you should expect from it. Like the advice the game gives for how to run it. Like the explicit statements of intent from the designers. Like the extensive playtesting documents. Like the repeated discussions, podcasts, and other sources where the developers explain that being radically, actively biased against martials and for casters is the opposite of what they want.That's not what you said. You have argued--repeatedly and consistently--that not only DO the rules do this, not only SHOULD the rules do this, but the designers explicitly WANT the rules to do this.That is the thing I'm arguing against. I don't disagree that there's a major pro-caster bias. It is better than it was in 3.x/PF1e, where non-casters were objectively almost useless unless ruthlessly hyper-optimized. I emphatically do disagree that the rules should do that--they absolutely should not, being actively hostile to some (extremely popular, widely-played) concepts and actively playing favorites with other concepts is not good for the game. And I asked for proof about your "beliefs" regarding the designers' intent specifically because I know, for an absolute fact, no belief required, that the designers have explicitly rejected that position. They have repeatedly said that balance matters to them, that they don't like long-rest-based classes overshadowing short-rest-based ones. (That's a rare case where even a caster was affected, and Jeremy Crawford explicitly said that because people weren't taking enough short rests, Warlock and other short-rest-based classes were falling behind other classes, which is contrary to their design intent.)</blockquote>

Verification