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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8783002" data-attributes="member: 6790260">These two statements seem contradictory. It cannot be new if it was already baked in. Rarity doesn't matter for the same reason that "balancing" classes (races etc.) by making them really fragile early on but incredible powerhouses later doesn't matter: anyone who sticks with the game long enough will (a) get better at playing and thus mitigate those weaknesses, and (b) try enough times such that eventually they get lucky. Law of large numbers and all that.That seems to be beside the point. Magic can solve magic's own problems. What can a Fighter do to fix having all her equipment taken away? Nothing--other than just enduring not having equipment until it comes back.As is typically true, spellcasters are given both a weakness and a way of getting around that weakness. Which was the point: ways of getting around caster weaknesses have been baked into the game from essentially the beginning.See above. Rarity is irrelevant if the argument is "the game includes things to mitigate these problems." Are they present, or not?Why are you standing in fireball formation? This is, again, what I mean about being able to mitigate the weaknesses. Tactics alone can significantly protect you from this issue. (Also: talk about an incredible chore, rolling such saves! No wonder they didn't survive to WotC D&D.)I don't get how these two prongs are different. Doesn't a game "meaning" for you to do something only and exactly mean that that's what its rules incentivize you to do...?What, then, does that tell us about the explicit and open antipathy for magic items from the MEGA vocal people back in the D&D Next playtest? Does this not explicitly mean that non-spellcasting characters were being told they weren't welcome in the cool kids' club anymore?The argument presented is that magic has always had some degree of making things "easy," that degree has simply grown over time. It isn't a difference of quality, just of quantity. As for "numerous non-caster classes," there are only four non-caster classes in 5e, much to my chagrin. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue. Personally, I would have preferred if that list included Paladin and Ranger as well, because I like whatever supernatural power they access to work like that accessed by Barbarians and Monks: features, not spells. But that ship sailed a long time ago."More powerful," or "less inhibited"? There's a difference. Greater power means accomplishing more with the same resources. On that scale, magic (by far) reached its zenith in either 2e or 3e, depending on which specific spells you consider. "Less inhibited" means having fewer restrictions, difficulties, or complicating factors to deal with, and on this scale 3e is unequivocally the least-inhibited.Also, see above. Rolling a save vs spell (or whatever) for every single item on your person is an incredibly tedious thing. Likewise, rolling to see whether you're allowed to get better at the core of your class fantasy is frustrating. It's not that these things are necessarily "complicated," as you put it, but that they are tedious, frustrating, distracting, or simply just not very fun. It would be like, I dunno, saying that every time you try to fire a sniper rifle in Halo, you have to do a quick Simon Says minigame. People who don't use snipers don't have to do that, but snipers are one-hit-kill hitscan weapons with generous aim assist. It doesn't matter that Simon Says is a very simple game which demands very little of the person playing it: it's an annoyance. The annoyance is there in part to keep sniper rifles balanced, but it's an annoyance nonetheless. As with a great many things, people are very bad at going for what they know to be rationally better for the health of the community in general instead of actions which selfishly benefit them right away but damage the community. The "tragedy of the commons."They've gone back to being more or less what they were in 3e. Heck, if anything, races are much less fantastical than they were in 3e. Spells are if anything weaker and (slightly) more inhibited than they were in 3e. The only difference is availability--not ease or accommodation. So I'm genuinely stumped why you'd say this when they aren't more than they were in 3e and are arguably less (due to things like Concentration.)Again, rarity is irrelevant, because people will keep trying until they can get such a thing. Which, incidentally, is another reason people wanted to skip past a bunch of the inhibiting or mitigating factors from early editions: everyone understood that you'd keep rerolling Bob (Bob XXII replaced Bob XXI after he died of ear seeker, who replaced Bob XX after she died of a severe overdose of fire, who replaced Bob XIX after he died from falling damage, who...) until you succeed. If you're going to repeatedly make new characters and try again, much of the alleged excitement of high-lethality games drains away because it becomes a spin of the roulette wheel. Will the ball land on the right spot this time? Who knows, but you know it is essentially guaranteed to do so if you keep spinning long enough, and there's no cost to spinning again.That's why, paradoxically, lowering the stakes can actually raise the excitement and investment. Because then you can shift to a world where no, you aren't guaranteed to eventually get what you want. There's an actual cost for spinning the wheel again and you may have to go home and admit defeat rather than playing until jackpot.While it's fair that you didn't find them such, a lot of people did--and do. Inventory management, for example, is something that a number of computer RPGs do, and most players don't like it very much. Instead of being an area where if you do well, good things happen, it is an area where unless you do well, bad things happen. When there's no reward for success, only punishment for failure, it becomes hard to see why the mechanic adds value to the game.It doesn't really matter what the reason for doing it was. The trend is what matters. And the trend has been present in every edition (except 4e, as is typical for conversations involving poly-edition comparisons.)</blockquote>

Verification