Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7841761" data-attributes="member: 18">There's nothing worse than mindlessly making things symmetrical. It's an awful and senseless thing to do. You immediately show this with Monk as a STR class, which is totally off.Likewise why Sorcerer, which has literally always been a CHA class, as CON, when Warlock, which actually used to be a CON class, is INT? Silly.You're basically proving the opposite of your point by doing that. You can have some stats have more or less classes. Just there are too many CHA ones.This is not true and you do not have a rational basis for this argument. You just keep making very inaccurate claims which boil down to "It's just the way it, like, totally works, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!". I get that that's your opinion, but please stop trying to pretend it's anything but an opinion. It's not helpful.It's straight up false to claim D conflicts with all of A. D only conflicts with A2. A1 would be served by any adventures which meet the guidelines. That's not even arguable. That you are arguing it really proves my point here. It's likewise undeniably false to claim all of B is happy with undershooting and the impact thereof, rather than tolerating it. Again this isn't even arguable.Literally the non-logic you're using here could be used to support anything in any edition of D&D. Racial level limits for example. People kept playing 2E and not only that, but they kept on buying sourcebook after sourcebook full of racial level limits. So by your logic, racial level limits were the right decision, and a huge number of people liked them.Which is obviously not actually true. People just ignored them and go on with it. And that's what most people do with 5E's encounter/day guidelines. They're not happy with them. They'd have more fun and more exciting adventures with a different design, but they can't change them without redesigning 5E from the ground up, because the assumption is baked into the numbers on a really basic level.But the main point here is that you're not actually using logic or presenting a rational argument. You're just engaging in a totally circular argument that because a thing sells it must be "doing it right", which is absolute arrant nonsense of the most extreme kind. In fact you literally made that irrational claim in another post. It can't even be argued with because it's not a real argument! It's like "I'm 400lbs and alive, therefore being 400lbs is fine and has no consequences!" or something. Almost sad really, because it's unclear why you, who normally makes quite sound arguments, cannot see the circular logic you're employing.And the fact that it would require an edition-change to fix is a huge deal. Even if they've naughty word up, you know perfectly well that there is literally nothing they can do about it short of an edition change.I do agree with this, but I suspect you messed up your double-negatives. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />EDIT - You claim "hardly anyone" is complaining about this, and you know what, I agree. Why though? Because this is way, way, way, way, way over the head of 95% of DMs, with no insult to them. My two current 5E DMs (I also DM), both brilliant people, capable of great erudition, totally don't get this. Both of build homebrew adventures, and don't get why they aren't challenging - and it's because they're not jam-packing 5-8 resource-draining encounters into every 16 hours (or less) the PCs are awake.So their complaints are either:A) "I'm a bad DM I guess..." <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> Which sucks but you apparently think is totally cool!orB) "5E is really really low-lethality, even compared to 4E!"And we see plenty of complaints about 5E being too easy or hard to design interesting encounters for. Or people asking for help with that stuff. And those complaints are really about the 5-8 encounter/day idiocy. Because that's what is causing the problems. It's like a bad foundation. I also stone-cold guarantee that 6E, whenever it comes out, whatever it's called, ditches 5-8 encounters a day. And could not be ditched any sooner because it requires an edition change to ditch. So all your "Well they'd change if people wanted it!" is just wrong. They can't change - they'd need an edition change.</blockquote>

Verification