Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9565522" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No one will permit such a discussion to occur. 100% of the time, someone will rebut any previous analysis or claim with, &quot;Well, it utterly failed as a product, so clearly those design decisions were bad.&quot; Likewise, any attempt to criticize anything 5e does--even when the designers themselves made that criticism first--will be rebutted with &quot;well, it sold extremely well, so it must have been great design.&quot;I've had this argument so many times, I can't count them. It never, ever dies, no matter what. 4e was bad because it sold poorly, and it sold poorly because everything in it was bad. 5e is great because it sold well, and it sold well because everything in it is great.Indeed. This one is particularly disappointing because bloodied is...well, I mean, it's really simple, right? Like this seems like the kind of thing that could've been a mechanic even in 2e. (I dunno if it's quite...woolly enough for 1e-and-earlier.) It creates a lot of useful design space without really adding any particularly significant heft. I can't think of how one could go about making a simpler bolt-on mechanic, even for the existing 5e combat system.Even if they wanted to shy away from &quot;bloodied&quot; as a term because it smells too much like 4e, they could've called it &quot;battered&quot; or the like, since that's more generic.(Also, notice how everyone got so twisted up in knots about slimes being knocked &quot;prone&quot;, but nobody ever complained about, I dunno, skeletons or iron golems becoming &quot;bloodied&quot;? The bitter aftertaste of irony never truly goes away...)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9565522, member: 6790260"] No one will permit such a discussion to occur. 100% of the time, someone will rebut any previous analysis or claim with, "Well, it utterly failed as a product, so clearly those design decisions were bad." Likewise, any attempt to criticize anything 5e does--[B][U][I]even when the designers themselves made that criticism first[/I][/U][/B]--will be rebutted with "well, it sold extremely well, so it [I]must[/I] have been great design." I've had this argument so many times, I can't count them. It never, ever dies, no matter what. 4e was bad because it sold poorly, and it sold poorly because everything in it was bad. 5e is great because it sold well, and it sold well because everything in it is great. Indeed. This one is particularly disappointing because bloodied is...well, I mean, it's really simple, right? Like this seems like the kind of thing that could've been a mechanic even in 2e. (I dunno if it's quite...[I]woolly[/I] enough for 1e-and-earlier.) It creates a lot of useful design space without really adding any particularly significant heft. I can't think of how one could go about making a simpler bolt-on mechanic, even for the existing 5e combat system. Even if they wanted to shy away from "bloodied" as a [I]term[/I] because it smells too much like 4e, they could've called it "battered" or the like, since that's more generic. (Also, notice how everyone got so twisted up in knots about slimes being knocked "prone", but nobody ever complained about, I dunno, skeletons or iron golems becoming "bloodied"? The bitter aftertaste of irony never truly goes away...) [/QUOTE]

Verification