Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 5810213" data-attributes="member: 6688937">This rule intentionally left blankCan you explain how this is not contradictory? To have no areas of that are lacking must mean that all areas are included, yes? &quot;I want nothing excluded&quot; is logically equivalent to &quot;I want everything included&quot; right? Do you have some standard for an area of rules that would disqualify it as valid areas of concern?I'm not trying to poke fun. I'm sure we both have some limit of picayuneness where we'd say &quot;no need for a rule.&quot;. Your original concern in this thread:Seems to me to be a fairly specific issue (within the context of D&amp;D, anyway.) Especially so, since a fix within the rules sounds quite likely. Of course we really don't know what the rules are yet, so maybe there's a basic class for this in 5e, anyway. Personally, I'm not sure how any heavily spellcasting class would count as &quot;basic&quot; rather than &quot;complicated&quot;, but who knows? Provided the game plays the way you want it to, yes. However, the more expansive the system is, the more it locks down playstyle by making significant deviation harder. To quote Mearls from the D&amp;D 5e Info page:&quot;With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics. The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it. In some ways, it was like we told people, ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal,’ But there’s other ways to play guitar.” - <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/01/09/wizards-announce-new-dungeons-and-dragons-an-inside-look-at-the-game/2/" target="_blank">Mike Mearls</a>.
Not that I'm trying to start an edition war skirmish. I personally feel this kind of thinking started back in 3.5, and the attitude goes back farther.I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. You are correct, that's why such a system is more vulnerable to bad DMing. The trouble is that &quot;lopsided&quot;-ness can be a feature that a DM or group wants in their game. Just consider the innumerable threads on whether casters and fighters were balanced at various levels in various editions, and then consider the (also large) numbers of threads debating whether they should be balanced at all. The flexibility of the &quot;lighter&quot; systems of days gone by is (I'm confident) one of the things that a lot of people miss in the current editions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 5810213, member: 6688937"] [b]This rule intentionally left blank[/b] Can you explain how this is not contradictory? To have no areas of that are lacking must mean that [I]all [/I]areas are included, yes? "I want nothing excluded" is logically equivalent to "I want everything included" right? Do you have some standard for an area of rules that would disqualify it as valid areas of concern? I'm not trying to poke fun. I'm sure we [U]both[/U] have some limit of picayuneness where we'd say "no need for a rule.". Your original concern in this thread: Seems to me to be a fairly specific issue (within the context of D&D, anyway.) Especially so, since a fix within the rules sounds quite likely. Of course we really don't know what the rules are yet, so maybe there's a basic class for this in 5e, anyway. Personally, I'm not sure how any heavily spellcasting class would count as "basic" rather than "complicated", but who knows? Provided the game plays the way you want it to, yes. However, the more expansive the system is, the more it locks down playstyle by making significant deviation harder. To quote Mearls from the D&D 5e Info page: [INDENT]"With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics. The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it. In some ways, it was like we told people, ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal,’ But there’s other ways to play guitar.” - [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/01/09/wizards-announce-new-dungeons-and-dragons-an-inside-look-at-the-game/2/"]Mike Mearls[/URL]. [/INDENT]Not that I'm trying to start an edition war skirmish. I personally feel this kind of thinking started back in 3.5, and the attitude goes back farther. I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. You are correct, that's why such a system is more vulnerable to bad DMing. The trouble is that "lopsided"-ness can be a feature that a DM or group [I]wants [/I]in their game. Just consider the innumerable threads on whether casters and fighters were balanced at various levels in various editions, and then consider the (also large) numbers of threads debating whether they [I]should be[/I] balanced at all. The flexibility of the "lighter" systems of days gone by is (I'm confident) one of the things that a lot of people miss in the current editions. [/QUOTE]

Verification