Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 5707599" data-attributes="member: 98255">That was quite the epic post. I agree with *some* of it, particularly the way in which powers are organized, but that is something that has been brewing in this thread for quite a few pages now.Overall though, I'm glad you're not in charge of R&D for 5e.In my opinion, you place far too many restrictions on what things should, or more specific to my issues with what you said, *should not* be able to do.Now I'm certainly not saying that you're Doing It Wrong based on your preferences, but you should at least be aware that some folks have different preferences, and I don't think that those preferences should be excluded from the entire framework of the game, nor do I think that the two necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. That's one or more GIANT steps backward, IMO.Call it shades of AD&D, where everything Must Make Sense in a straightforward literal way. I never liked that about prior editions, or more to the point, I didn't know until delving into 4e how much more interesting things could be when more abstracted. I found it freeing. And that's one of the things, call it a meta-theme, that I feel 5e should embody: freedom. Freedom to make Your D&D what you want it to be. Kind of like what Mike Mearls was talking about in his column before he handed the reins over to Monte Cook.</blockquote>