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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7887797" data-attributes="member: 22779">Heh.  It's funny.[USER=6799753]@lowkey13[/USER] mentioned arguing about magic item shops in 5e and then comparing that to warlord arguments.  [USER=15700]@Sacrosanct[/USER] now picks up the torch about things being disingenuous.  But, there is a significant difference, that I've mentioned a few times already.When we argue about buying and selling magic items in 5e, it's from the perspective of people who played 3e, where buying and selling was the presumed baseline as well as the perspective of those who have play experience in 5e.  The argument against magic items sales in 5e is based on the actual facts of the different systems.  3e and later 3.5e baselined the encounter system on the notion that characters would have particular amounts of magic items at a given level.  And, particularly later, monster design also presumed this - a monster's AC and whatnot was baselined to it's CR, which was baselined on the notion that the PC's would have X magic items.  And, over time, those presumptions became more and more exacting as play experience was accrued.5e, OTOH, doesn't do this.  Encounters, CR and monster design do not, in any way, presume that you have any magic items.  Magic items are flat out bonuses in 5e.  Meaning that if you allow players to choose a la carte in 5e for magic items, they can very quickly overbalance the system, creating characters that are far more powerful than their level would indicate, making it difficult to design adventures, and creating a large disparity between groups that allow buying magic items and those that don't.  Which, again, results in making it more and more difficult to write supplements that appeal to everyone.So, that long winded aside finished, my point is, when we argue about magic item shops, we are arguing from an informed position where our opinions are actually based on facts rather than hearsay.Yet, when it comes to warlords, people seem to be almost proud that they are completely ignorant of the actual mechanics of the class in 4e, have never played the system, have no experience, and are basing their entire opinions on hearsay and second guessing meaning, almost always from forums like this one.But, we're still supposed to give those opinions equal weight and treat them as valid?  Why?  They're completely uninformed, half-baked, and almost always factually wrong.  Look at how much time we've spent in this thread alone correcting the uniformed opinions of people with zero experience or direct knowledge of the subject at hand.It's not disingenuity.  It really isn't.  It's incredible frustration with having to explain the point yet again to people who cannot be bothered to actually make an informed and reasoned criticism.  And, yeah, that makes the atmosphere pretty short tempered, because, again, some of us have been having to do this repeatedly, over and over again, for damn near a decade.What utterly baffles me is how people figure they should be listened to.  I have zero direct knowledge of Pathfinder.  Never played it.  So, I never go into Pathfinder discussion threads, because, well, I have nothing to contribute.  What do people, with zero actual facts to back up their opinion, think they are contributing to this discussion?  I'd really like to know.</blockquote>

Verification