Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 3968581" data-attributes="member: 40961">I consider Imaro's post borderline trolling, but what the heck.1: The fact that a class has unfun aspects does not mean that the class itself is totally unfun.&nbsp; For example, a campaign heavily focusing on undead has significant &quot;unfun&quot; aspects for a sneak attacking rogue who hasn't got special noncore items available to let him sneak attack the undead.&nbsp; This doesn't make the rogue 100% unfun.There are a lot of ways that the fun aspects of a class can be retained, while the crappy aspects removed or alleviated.2: The fact that you interpret comments and criticism of the core classes as people claiming that their classes shouldn't have drawbacks says more about you than it does about the people making complaints, or about the content of their complaints.&nbsp; The dispute is, and has always been, about the nature of the drawbacks each class should face.3: The &quot;make everyone good at something, but not necessarily combat&quot; style is one possible design style.&nbsp; I happen to think its a terrible, terrible, horrible awful design style.There's two ways to diversify characters.&nbsp; The first is to make everyone good at a different type of scenario.&nbsp; You could have the melee specialist, the ranged specialist, the diplomat, and the skillful character.&nbsp; The problem is that you end up in this situation- if you're in a diplomatic situation, three characters are sitting on their hands.&nbsp; If you're in a skill situation, three characters are sitting on their hands.&nbsp; If you're in a melee situation, a couple characters might as well be sitting on their hands.&nbsp; Take this to extremes, and you get Shadowrun.The other option is to give everyone something they can do in each type of situation, but make the something each person can do different from the next person.&nbsp; Each character has a combat role, a skill role, and a social role.&nbsp; Now everyone can be involved in every type of encounter.I think that's a massive, massive improvement over the &quot;Negotiations?&nbsp; I'll get the pizza while you handle it&quot; situation.&nbsp; I also think its the approach that 4e is taking.&nbsp; I'm quite excited by this.4: Nothing.&nbsp; I played D&amp;D for years while hating it with the fires of a thousand suns.&nbsp; I would have quit, but my DM had chained me to my chair.Seriously, a mature person is capable of enjoying 3e, recognizing its flaws, and hoping that they're improved upon in 4e.This &quot;you're either with us or against us&quot; attitude is starting to really get to me.&nbsp; I'm a fan of what I'm seeing in 4e.&nbsp; I was, and am, a fan of 3e.&nbsp; I also was, and am, a fan of BECM.&nbsp; You don't have to pick just one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 3968581, member: 40961"] I consider Imaro's post borderline trolling, but what the heck. 1: The fact that a class has unfun aspects does not mean that the class itself is totally unfun. For example, a campaign heavily focusing on undead has significant "unfun" aspects for a sneak attacking rogue who hasn't got special noncore items available to let him sneak attack the undead. This doesn't make the rogue 100% unfun. There are a lot of ways that the fun aspects of a class can be retained, while the crappy aspects removed or alleviated. 2: The fact that you interpret comments and criticism of the core classes as people claiming that their classes shouldn't have drawbacks says more about you than it does about the people making complaints, or about the content of their complaints. The dispute is, and has always been, about the nature of the drawbacks each class should face. 3: The "make everyone good at something, but not necessarily combat" style is one possible design style. I happen to think its a terrible, terrible, horrible awful design style. There's two ways to diversify characters. The first is to make everyone good at a different type of scenario. You could have the melee specialist, the ranged specialist, the diplomat, and the skillful character. The problem is that you end up in this situation- if you're in a diplomatic situation, three characters are sitting on their hands. If you're in a skill situation, three characters are sitting on their hands. If you're in a melee situation, a couple characters might as well be sitting on their hands. Take this to extremes, and you get Shadowrun. The other option is to give everyone something they can do in each type of situation, but make the something each person can do different from the next person. Each character has a combat role, a skill role, and a social role. Now everyone can be involved in every type of encounter. I think that's a massive, massive improvement over the "Negotiations? I'll get the pizza while you handle it" situation. I also think its the approach that 4e is taking. I'm quite excited by this. 4: Nothing. I played D&D for years while hating it with the fires of a thousand suns. I would have quit, but my DM had chained me to my chair. Seriously, a mature person is capable of enjoying 3e, recognizing its flaws, and hoping that they're improved upon in 4e. This "you're either with us or against us" attitude is starting to really get to me. I'm a fan of what I'm seeing in 4e. I was, and am, a fan of 3e. I also was, and am, a fan of BECM. You don't have to pick just one. [/QUOTE]

Verification