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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joshua Randall" data-source="post: 9572568" data-attributes="member: 7737">Yes, this. So much this. I, personally, have decided my response is to embrace the bitterness and that I will never accept anyone's claims that some anti-4e thing was done out of ignorance. I will assume everything anti-4e was done out of willful malice and hatred.No, I'm not joking.Hahahahaha! When you list it out like that it just reminds of what a ridiculous overblown claim that was prima facie. Yet when we pointed out the claim was silly on its face we got shouted down as haters; and later, when we asked what happened to the ability to play 4e-style at the table, we got the hate turned on us, told to shut the (bleep) up, or just ignored with the pretense that no, that wasn't what Mearls meant, he didn't mean that D&D Next would let you play it like 4e, he meant something else.So yeah. Screw that.Yes. And it sometimes got them in trouble, particularly when they tried to "fill the grid" with what turned out to be poorly designed or half-baked classes. (They tried to be too much like 1e/2e with its pointless symmetry everywhere.) "What would a ki-powered defender look like?" Uhh. Turns out not very like. Just stop, 4e.Sorry, Ezekiel, you are not allowed to point out where 4e adapts something from the real world in a clever way. You are only allowed to point out where 4e fails to perfectly simulate the real world, even though it never wanted to do that./SIt is neither subtle, sophisticated, urbane, nor genteel.It is demeaning, insulting, nasty, and meant to provoke a fight, which it often does.</blockquote>

Verification