Not true, the sorcerer fans are always out in force whenever the wizard gets anything nice. In this case, the wizard fans were out in force because the sorcerer got something nice.It's amusing watching the Spell Caster Supremacy League turn in on itself, usually they are only roused to action when the fighter gets nice things.
Not true, the sorcerer fans are always out in force whenever the wizard gets anything nice. In this case, the wizard fans were out in force because the sorcerer got something nice.
We could always cast "Raise Dead" on some of the Warlord in 5e debates.
I mean, who is upset, though?Playing a sorcerer and being upset you can't change your spells like you change your trousers is like playing a barbarian and being mad you can't fly, teleport, or cast cone of cold.
I mean, who is upset, though?
Disagreeing with a design decision isn’t the same as being upset about it.
Er...I mean, I wouldn't consider myself a Caster Supremacy League member, seeing as how I have consistently fought for reducing the power of spellcasting, developing non-spellcasting versions of classes like Paladin and Ranger, creating "simple" casters to parallel "simple" martials (and "complex" martials, like Warlords), giving Fighters more nice things especially outside of combat, etc. I find that this is less Caster Supremacy League infighting and more Wizard Supremacy League not being the entirety of people who like playing spellcasters. (Sorcerer is one of my favorite classes, alongside Warlord, Paladin, and Bard. I have a thing for Charisma classes, for various reasons.)It's amusing watching the Spell Caster Supremacy League turn in on itself, usually they are only roused to action when the fighter gets nice things.
Oh there have absolutely been people mad about it on all sides: pro-Wizard/anti-Wizard, pro-Sorcerer/anti-Sorcerer, pro-SV/anti-SV, all of them have had people getting their jimmies thoroughly rustled. I just find it terribly sad that people respond to a completely optional rules variant failing to appear officially in the game with "Ding dong the witch is dead!" and "REJOICE!" That is not "our team won the sportsball game," that is not satisfaction that good design won out, it is revelling in the fact that the other side lost. It is "and GOOD RIDDANCE to BAD RUBBISH."Oh, I see people mad about it here and there - there are threads I've seen where people make the claim that it isn't fair that a wizard can go to sleep and wake up with whatever spell the sorcerer used to win the day. Like, person - that's the class feature. It's what Wizards do.
It's bizarre because their love for the sorcerer class basically has nothing at all to do with the class mechanics and is entirely based on the no-schoolin' class fluff. Fluff for classes is as thin as cheesecloth in 5e though, so it's bizarre.
It's been explained before, in conversations you took place in. If you're amazed, is it because you forgot all the great reasons discussed back then, or just discount the opinions of so many people?It amazes me the glee people express in seeing stuff others had really wanted "die" or "fail."
As I just said: there is a difference between something like "relief I don't have to deal with a thing I dislike" or even "happiness that what I consider good design prevailed," and "Ding dong the witch is dead."It's been explained before, in conversations you took place in. If you're amazed, is it because you forgot all the great reasons discussed back then, or just discount the opinions of so many people?
If all you needed was a reminder, most of those threads were about how WOTC was not publishing as much content as they had in prior years intentionally. Most of the same arguments, and they were legit and good arguments, apply to this topic.
On the Internet?As I just said: there is a difference between something like "relief I don't have to deal with a thing I dislike" or even "happiness that what I consider good design prevailed," and "Ding dong the witch is dead."
It doesn't, though. It would have been completely optional just like everything else in that book. Who cares if something in Joe's game in Kansas steps on the toes of classes in his game if his players are happy. My game would have remained free of that rule.Apparently, people get offended if something steps upon the toes of other classes or some stupid crap like that.
It was only terrible if you opted to use it and at the same time you opted to use it, you didn't like it or want to use it. How often is that going to happen? For the people who liked it, it was a good rule.People are happy that the game designers at WotC display some competence and have realised what a terrible rule it was. But if you want terrible houserules nothing is stopping you from applying them.
This wasn't a win/lose situation. False Equivalences are false.So you have never celebrated when your favorite sports team won a match, even though the fans of the opposing side really wanted their team to win?
Oh I know that. Just seems to be the way in people's eyes.It doesn't, though. It would have been completely optional just like everything else in that book. Who cares if something in Joe's game in Kansas steps on the toes of classes in his game if his players are happy. My game would have remained free of that rule.![]()
There's always damage on a miss.I don't like it. Now what are we going to argue about?
The book is a very good book that has been highly play tested. It is well written and well-designed. The art isn't really my cup of tea, but I don't expect every book to meet my aesthetic tastes. I would think that any D&D 5th edition player would regard this as an exciting book to have and use. I have been enjoying since it arrived in the post yesterday.This is good news and I may rethink my decision to not buy the book.
I mean, some people may just be jerks like that, but I don’t think that’s the general thing for most of these controversial D&D rules (at least on this forum).I really don’t understand this thing where folks are celebrating the loss of a thing that other folks really wanted.
Like I’ve never in my life had this impulse. What is it?