Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DDNFan" data-source="post: 6318978" data-attributes="member: 6776483">Thanks for saying this Tovec, it's appreciated. The owner of this website can insult me all he wants, it is like water off a duck's back and I care not one iota. Why would I? Doesn't make me wrong or my opinions invalid.I actually am a fan of D&amp;D Next, I play it every week. In fact, I played it tonight. But that doesn't mean there aren't some crusty stains in it, stuff like Tactical Warrior which neither I nor my current DM would allow in our games in a million years. It's one thing to put problematic mechanics in a feat somewhere, but it's another to give not one but two very highly controversial abilities to the Basic D&amp;D, simplest fighter you can think of.Second Wind is strike 1, but it's not so bad since it's once in a while. But Daom is an at will ability, and I'm not willing to sit through that all the freaking time, should someone at our tables chose it. I'd ask them if they could pick something else, but why would I do that when I can just play a different game where fighters and rangers and paladins can miss? I suspect that Rodney Thompson and others at Wizards are probably planning more such nonsensical rules to add in for subsequent books, and then it's a never ending game of whack a mole. That's not the reason I want to play D&amp;D. I want a game rule that, at least in the Basic game if not in the full PHB, contains only things that I would consider a reasonable facsimile of the D&amp;D I grew up with. Fighters with greatswords never failing any attack, ever, disqualifies 5th edition from that status, singlehandedly and irredeemably.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DDNFan, post: 6318978, member: 6776483"] Thanks for saying this Tovec, it's appreciated. The owner of this website can insult me all he wants, it is like water off a duck's back and I care not one iota. Why would I? Doesn't make me wrong or my opinions invalid. I actually am a fan of D&D Next, I play it every week. In fact, I played it tonight. But that doesn't mean there aren't some crusty stains in it, stuff like Tactical Warrior which neither I nor my current DM would allow in our games in a million years. It's one thing to put problematic mechanics in a feat somewhere, but it's another to give not one but two very highly controversial abilities to the Basic D&D, simplest fighter you can think of. Second Wind is strike 1, but it's not so bad since it's once in a while. But Daom is an at will ability, and I'm not willing to sit through that all the freaking time, should someone at our tables chose it. I'd ask them if they could pick something else, but why would I do that when I can just play a different game where fighters and rangers and paladins can miss? I suspect that Rodney Thompson and others at Wizards are probably planning more such nonsensical rules to add in for subsequent books, and then it's a never ending game of whack a mole. That's not the reason I want to play D&D. I want a game rule that, at least in the Basic game if not in the full PHB, contains only things that I would consider a reasonable facsimile of the D&D I grew up with. Fighters with greatswords never failing any attack, ever, disqualifies 5th edition from that status, singlehandedly and irredeemably. [/QUOTE]

Verification