NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 5707715" data-attributes="member: 98255">Again, on some of your points I agree, i.e. skills. Others, i.e. attacks, not so much. Attacks, like damage, in this game are abstract, and always have been. In saying that these things have to make logical sense all the time is an attempt to de-abstract them, and in my opinion, purely for flavour reasons.People can rationalize attacking physically with *some* non-physical stats in a way that I find very believable. Sometimes, the game mechanics even does it for me, i.e. by power source. Likewise, I find some of the other stat choices to strain MY sense of disbelief, (Clerics use Wis for powers darrived from faith in their god, but to me Wis =/= faith; more like Cha) but I get that it has more to do with my interpretation of things than any kind of bogus simulation of imagined "reality." Not everyone will agree, and fine, but I see no reason to disallow other interpretations from the game.Anyway, I just wanted to point out that any theoretical 5e, if it doesn't want to further split the market, needs to be inclusive of many different playstyles. The things you were suggesting (demanding? speaking of entitlement) ran contrary to that goal. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your tone is very dismissive of any sort of disagreement with the style and flavour choices you make (and I still maintain that that is all they are for the most part). That is one of the major mistakes made in the introduction of 4e and I don't think we need to see such things repeated.Suffice to say that as usual, we do not agree, nor are we likely to ever see eye-to-eye on this, so I'll leave it at that. Happy gaming.</blockquote>

Verification