Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8744982" data-attributes="member: 4937">4e is the only version of the game that expressly had an epic tier as a core part of its game, taking the game from 1-30 as are core part of it's game.&nbsp; And I think the epic destinies are fine in the epic tier.&nbsp; Personally, I have never gamed all the way to level 20, and have a hard time imagining carrying a game up to 30.&nbsp; I find that even playing 25-30 times a year, we only go up 2 levels or so a year.&nbsp; A 1-30 campaign for me would be like 15 years with the same group gaming every other week.&nbsp; I'd have grandkids by then.I don't see really any competing design philosophy at all.Yeah, but so.&nbsp; IMNSHO, my Champion class is best designed 3e class.&nbsp; I would would love to have fighter be equally well done, but feats - which most designers treated as something easy to design - are in my experience one of the hardest things to get right.&nbsp; I don't think 3e, 4e, or 5e designers really did feats well, though I do like the direction 5e went.There is nothing arbitrary about streamlined and flexible chargen.&nbsp; Rules bloat is horrible for a system and from 3e on we've been seeing WotC build rules bloat into the system for the explicit purpose of selling books, and not because it makes for a better gaming experience.&nbsp; All those silo'd out class abilities, and silo'd out classes do immense damage to the game.&nbsp; You're basically arguing for a system where everyone's character concept is hard coded by a designer.&nbsp; Ok, if you are happy with that.&nbsp; That in essence would return us back to 1e where only fighter and it's subclasses could fight.&nbsp; I'm not interested in a PnP game where everyone has 5 different character defining powers on cool downs.&nbsp; I can get that elsewhere.Yeah, and?&nbsp; You seem to be upset that I've threated your world of narrowly defined martial artists with a separate subclass for everything.&nbsp; How about applying your same logic to Pirate?&nbsp; Pirate is a pretty broad concept.&nbsp; They can have very different flavour and styles.&nbsp; Absolutely then we need a pirate as it's own class, right?&nbsp; Because sailing a ship is too far outside of what a fighter can be expected to do, or something?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8744982, member: 4937"] 4e is the only version of the game that expressly had an epic tier as a core part of its game, taking the game from 1-30 as are core part of it's game. And I think the epic destinies are fine in the epic tier. Personally, I have never gamed all the way to level 20, and have a hard time imagining carrying a game up to 30. I find that even playing 25-30 times a year, we only go up 2 levels or so a year. A 1-30 campaign for me would be like 15 years with the same group gaming every other week. I'd have grandkids by then. I don't see really any competing design philosophy at all. Yeah, but so. IMNSHO, my Champion class is best designed 3e class. I would would love to have fighter be equally well done, but feats - which most designers treated as something easy to design - are in my experience one of the hardest things to get right. I don't think 3e, 4e, or 5e designers really did feats well, though I do like the direction 5e went. There is nothing arbitrary about streamlined and flexible chargen. Rules bloat is horrible for a system and from 3e on we've been seeing WotC build rules bloat into the system for the explicit purpose of selling books, and not because it makes for a better gaming experience. All those silo'd out class abilities, and silo'd out classes do immense damage to the game. You're basically arguing for a system where everyone's character concept is hard coded by a designer. Ok, if you are happy with that. That in essence would return us back to 1e where only fighter and it's subclasses could fight. I'm not interested in a PnP game where everyone has 5 different character defining powers on cool downs. I can get that elsewhere. Yeah, and? You seem to be upset that I've threated your world of narrowly defined martial artists with a separate subclass for everything. How about applying your same logic to Pirate? Pirate is a pretty broad concept. They can have very different flavour and styles. Absolutely then we need a pirate as it's own class, right? Because sailing a ship is too far outside of what a fighter can be expected to do, or something? [/QUOTE]

Verification