Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6958000">If you think 4E or 3E are higher quality products, I recommend you play them.&nbsp; Especially if they provide the rules which you seem to be wanting to implement in 5E (they do).&nbsp; EX: I just bought Civilization 6.&nbsp; I do not enjoy it as much as Civ 5, which is widely regarded as a worse game than Civ 4.&nbsp; I am quite happy to keep playing Civ 4 or Civ 5, the fact that there is a newer edition of Civilization does not incline me in the slightest towards ceasing play of the editions that I enjoy more.Personally, I'd dump 5E in a heartbeat if I could get enough people together to play 4E.&nbsp; Isn't it?&nbsp; You're discussing fundemtnally altering the gameplay of 5E because of a percieved problem.&nbsp; A problem I might add, which I and several other users have positied that may be exemplified by the way in which you approach encounters and the type of players you have.&nbsp; If you are unwilling to alter your fundamental approach to encounters and you are unwilling to alter your player's fundamental approach to the game, then strctural rules changes will not help.&nbsp; It's like you're trying to stop two trains from crashing by replacing the metal rails with wooden ones.&nbsp; The game enables all sorts of characters.&nbsp; The fact that your entire group chose to power-build an entire party of bowmen is what is exacerbating the problem.&nbsp; The system works just fine when players diversify.&nbsp; Even if they still power build.&nbsp; You'd likely have problems if the entire party were great-axe wielding barbarian dwarves.&nbsp; If they were all sword &amp; board paladins.&nbsp; If they were all utility wizards.&nbsp; If they were all druids.&nbsp; The game enabled your party to do whatever they wanted.&nbsp; What they did was build a highly-optimized artillery unit.&nbsp; Yes, the game can't handle that any more than it can handle a squad of battlemasters (seriously it's like everyone is their own spiked chain).&nbsp; Personally, the monster manual, the monster math, is fundamentally flawed.&nbsp; Which is why I prefer to fix the monsters rather than rewrite the game to make the monsters work.&nbsp; BTW, I only have to fix the monsters once.&nbsp; To me, it seems easier to fix the puzzle pieces, rather than attempt to paint a new picture.Translation: we can't talk about these other issues that may or may not be compounding, creating or inherent to the issues I am having, we can only talk about what I want to talk about.Honestly, I'm done with this discussion and I won't bother your thread any more with my posts.&nbsp; If you think rewriting the game is a better solution, go for it.&nbsp; I disagree, I voiced my disagreement, I've got nothing else to say.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6958000"] If you think 4E or 3E are higher quality products, I recommend you play them. Especially if they provide the rules which you seem to be wanting to implement in 5E (they do). EX: I just bought Civilization 6. I do not enjoy it as much as Civ 5, which is widely regarded as a worse game than Civ 4. I am quite happy to keep playing Civ 4 or Civ 5, the fact that there is a newer edition of Civilization does not incline me in the slightest towards ceasing play of the editions that I enjoy more. Personally, I'd dump 5E in a heartbeat if I could get enough people together to play 4E. Isn't it? You're discussing fundemtnally altering the gameplay of 5E because of a percieved problem. A problem I might add, which I and several other users have positied that may be exemplified by the way in which you approach encounters and the type of players you have. If you are unwilling to alter your fundamental approach to encounters and you are unwilling to alter your player's fundamental approach to the game, then strctural rules changes [B]will not help[/B]. It's like you're trying to stop two trains from crashing by replacing the metal rails with wooden ones. The game enables all sorts of characters. The fact that your [I]entire group[/I] chose to power-build an [B]entire party[/B] of bowmen is what is exacerbating the problem. The system works just fine when players diversify. Even if they still power build. You'd likely have problems if the entire party were great-axe wielding barbarian dwarves. If they were all sword & board paladins. If they were all utility wizards. If they were all druids. The game enabled your party to do whatever they wanted. What they did was build a highly-optimized artillery unit. Yes, the game can't handle that any more than it can handle a squad of battlemasters (seriously it's like everyone is their own spiked chain). Personally, the monster manual, the monster math, is fundamentally flawed. Which is why I[I] prefer[/I] to fix the monsters rather than rewrite the game to make the monsters work. BTW, I only have to fix the monsters [I]once[/I]. To me, it seems easier to fix the puzzle pieces, rather than attempt to paint a new picture. Translation: we can't talk about these other issues that may or may not be compounding, creating or inherent to the issues I am having, we can only talk about what I want to talk about. Honestly, I'm done with this discussion and I won't bother your thread any more with my posts. If you think rewriting the game is a better solution, go for it. I disagree, I voiced my disagreement, I've got nothing else to say. [/QUOTE]

Verification