Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8733197" data-attributes="member: 22779">Yeah, well, this has always been a bit of a sticking issue with me for 5e.&nbsp; I really don't like how D&amp;D has become SO high magic.&nbsp; Once upon a time, you saw a spell or magical effect once every couple of encounters.&nbsp; Then, in 3e, it was probably every encounter, and at higher levels, maybe a couple of times.&nbsp; Now, it's every round of every encounter, usually multiple times in every round.&nbsp; It's far, far more Potterverse than anything else.&nbsp; Now, as far as the 4 Elements Monk goes, I've only seen it played once and it worked pretty well.&nbsp; But, to be fair, it was a fairly short campaign - we played out Lost Mines of Phandelver and a chunk of Hoard of the Dragon Queen, so, it only was up to sixth or seventh level.&nbsp; Not really a big example.But, claims that it was &quot;designed poorly&quot; has to be based on actual play.&nbsp; It just has to be.&nbsp; I've seen far too many games that read great and played crap and conversely, games that read terribly but played great to theory craft &quot;poor design&quot;.&nbsp; So, if you want to make claims that it was &quot;designed poorly&quot;, I'm sorry ,but, you have to show your work.&nbsp; Run a dozen or so tables through, let's say, Storm King's Thunder and another dozen or so tables through Wild Beyond the Witchlight and see how the monk player does.&nbsp; Is the monk player happy at the end or not?&nbsp; Because, otherwise, it's just theory and no proof.&nbsp; &quot;Poorly designed&quot; is pretty vague.&nbsp; What?&nbsp; It's not doing enough damage?&nbsp; It's being overshadowed in play?&nbsp; It fails to provide an enjoyable character for the player?&nbsp; What, exactly, does &quot;poorly designed&quot; actually mean?Frankly, considering that we've got such a range of adventure types just from WotC (and not counting 3rd party and homebrew), claims that something is &quot;poorly designed&quot; needs a HELL of a lot more to back it up than, &quot;Well, it doesn't look like Avatar the Air Bender&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8733197, member: 22779"] Yeah, well, this has always been a bit of a sticking issue with me for 5e. I really don't like how D&D has become SO high magic. Once upon a time, you saw a spell or magical effect once every couple of encounters. Then, in 3e, it was probably every encounter, and at higher levels, maybe a couple of times. Now, it's every round of every encounter, usually multiple times in every round. It's far, far more Potterverse than anything else. Now, as far as the 4 Elements Monk goes, I've only seen it played once and it worked pretty well. But, to be fair, it was a fairly short campaign - we played out Lost Mines of Phandelver and a chunk of Hoard of the Dragon Queen, so, it only was up to sixth or seventh level. Not really a big example. But, claims that it was "designed poorly" has to be based on actual play. It just has to be. I've seen far too many games that read great and played crap and conversely, games that read terribly but played great to theory craft "poor design". So, if you want to make claims that it was "designed poorly", I'm sorry ,but, you have to show your work. Run a dozen or so tables through, let's say, Storm King's Thunder and another dozen or so tables through Wild Beyond the Witchlight and see how the monk player does. Is the monk player happy at the end or not? Because, otherwise, it's just theory and no proof. "Poorly designed" is pretty vague. What? It's not doing enough damage? It's being overshadowed in play? It fails to provide an enjoyable character for the player? What, exactly, does "poorly designed" actually mean? Frankly, considering that we've got such a range of adventure types just from WotC (and not counting 3rd party and homebrew), claims that something is "poorly designed" needs a HELL of a lot more to back it up than, "Well, it doesn't look like Avatar the Air Bender". [/QUOTE]

Verification