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: 8793559" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I would consider that stuff needing spot-fixes at best, rather than part of (again, as described) a "review...of the entire system top to bottom," which Lanefan has doubled down on that meaning exactly what it sounds like, calling it a "comprehensive review" and specifically expecting some things in a "needs-a-complete-rebuild" category.The "math-fix" feats are an area I think most players just had a different understanding of how things were supposed to work. The designers wanted fights to get (mathematically) harder at high levels, so players would have to make use of their more-powerful abilities and synergistic effects in order to rise to the challenge. IOW, the designers were specifically trying to avert the "treadmill" effect in a very mild way. Instead, people reamed them for it, so they relented in the only way that could preserve their original intent while letting people address it if they wanted to.Most feats weren't that bad--nothing nearly as bad as Pathfinder's Death or Glory, for example, and AFAIK nothing hitting the lows that 3.5e did--though I grant that there were some that just weren't really worth it 99% of the time. I don't, personally, consider that a breakdown of the system. There should be some value in learning what are good feats and what are mediocre feats, but there shouldn't be gaps like the difference between 3.5e Natural Spell and 3.5e Toughness.So you need to have a totally comprehensive, encyclopedic knowledge of everything contained in the entire game before you even begin preparing to play? That's patently ridiculous. More importantly, it will guarantee the eventual death of the TTRPG hobby. Ain't nobody got time for that.Ditto.It was satire.Er...nope. I've never once encountered a "bug" in 13A or DW. 4e had a few, mostly because it was rushed out the door (it seriously needed another 6-12 months in the oven.) But almost all of those were addressed within the first year, and addressed extremely well.Discrete subsystems are a bad solution to most things. They should be avoided unless they are absolutely necessary, because they add complexity without guaranteeing any more depth or richness to the experience. Players appreciate complexity which leads to depth and richness. They do not appreciate complexity that adds nothing other than complexity. That's the reason TTRPGs in general have abandoned the absolute nightmare tangle of overlapping, contradictory, esoteric subsystems of early D&D.Do you have a practical example of something that you think would be significantly improved by being a discrete subsystem? Again, I'm not saying it's impossible for discrete subsystems to be of value. They're just an unwise design choice unless you're very confident that you get back more than you're metaphorically paying for them.As Thomas Shey said above, "big-tent" and "universal" are not the same. The former is welcoming a variety of players within whatever areas the tent covers. The latter is offering to support all possible things one might want to do with it.The fact that many D&D fans think the Monk should not exist at all, while others love it and want to keep it, proves that it is not possible for D&D to be simultaneously universal and big-tent. It must either become exclusionary, or tell folks who are exclusionary "sorry, you aren't going to be able to tell people who like that stuff to go play some other game and leave your precious D&D alone."As a major fan of things like dragonborn and Warlords, I can tell you right now, there's a very vocal group who would be pleased as punch ifBut that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about reading a literal textbook--because that's what the DMG is!--and comprehensively knowing literally every single thing in it, down to the smallest detail, and then comprehensively reviewing every single one of those details, somehow testing them without playing them, adjusting them (and testing those adjustments, again somehow without playing them), before you allow yourself to prepare even a single campaign.That is completely ridiculous.It was satire.People keep asserting that, simply because there is a common format, all 4e classes must be perfectly identical in every meaningful respect. Thus, because they can be said to be "the same" in one specific way (they use a common format for "powers"), they must be "the same" in all ways. I was highlighting how ridiculous that claim is if you take even a moment to analyze it, as you have just done.</blockquote>

Verification