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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6245537" data-attributes="member: 87792">By reality check I mean "Quote you fairly and accurately and respond to what you are saying." In specific you talked about "a thief reminiscent of older e's whose player has chosen to eschew combat in favor of being an exploration god,"  By a plain reading of that I understand that you think that a thief who was an exploration god was actually possible in editions before 4e.  As I showed, it isn't.  The only edition of D&D that has thieves that remotely qualify as exploration gods is 4e.  (Indeed I've had a 4e fighter who was enough of a burglar to make 3e rogues and AD&D thieves turn green with envy.)  4e is here head and shoulders above any other edition there has been of D&D. And as I have demonstrated twice over you are tilting at straw men when you think that this is relevant.  I've demonstrated how you have starkly misunderstood skill challenges at numerous levels.  I've demonstrated how two characters of the same class in 4e can have very different levels of contribution to combat, one being twice as effective as the other in the opening rounds.  4e therefore certainly doesn't qualify.So if you want a game where balance doesn't mean equal contribution to encounters literally any roleplaying game I can think of will qualify.  Why is it even relevant that you want this when the counterexample does not exist within the realms of D&D (and I suspect not within the realms of tabletop roleplaying games unless you have clones)?What does your request even mean?  Because I can only see two possible interpretations:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You are stating that you want something to happen that has happened every time before.  You are stating this because you either like seeing yourself type, or in some way think that the balance of D&D Next is going to be vastly, incredibly more comprehensive even than that of 4e and is going to actually institute uniformity.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You are repeating hackneyed and long debunked edition warrior talking points that I have debunked and shown to be absolutely false on this very thread.</li> </ol>I'm struggling to come up with a third explanation of why the statement that you don't want the almost impossible to happen is even vaguely relevant to this conversation. As I have shown it didn't run even slightly counter to the design of the game.  Please stop spreading the falsehood that it did.  If it had been in line with the game then the rogue wouldn't have had six starting skills in the PHB to the fighter's three, and the wizard's ritual casting. They'd have had the same amount of out of combat potential.  And the fighter certainly wouldn't almost exclusively have had in combat utility powers while most of the rogue's operated outside combat.  So please stop repeating the falsehood that direct equality of contribution rather than getting everyone up to the starting line was the goal.  It simply isn't true. Once more you are reading into the game design things that simply aren't there.  It emphasises that each party member should have the chance to shine.  If they can.  That no one should be locked out of contributing and instead sitting on their ass while waiting for this section of the game to be over and they can get back to something they can do. <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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" />.  The evidence has not only been called into question, it has been shown that your reading of the evidence is incompatible with the game rules.  If there's anything you have said to this effect that I haven't debunked, please repost it.  The entire evidence base you are relying on so far as I can tell is a single line from 4e that says that everyone should have a chance to shine.  Which isn't the same as saying that they must shine.  I've been quoting the rest of the rules, showing what can be done, and illustrating by the actual examples in 4e.This one I'll grant.  You only mentioned the AD&D thief.  The one with risible thieving skills.  By 6th level a hide in shadows chance of 37% (remember that they can't move at the same time).  A hear noise chance of 20%.  An open locks chance of 47% - and if they fail they need to level up to try again.  Calling them an exploration god is ridiculous IMO.  You're asking for a thief that never was when the best implementation the thief has had at fitting its assigned role is 4e. Why?  Why can't you just say as a part of the ruleset "If you don't want a given proficiency you can just cross it off"?  The same goes for the antisocial barbarian and the pampered noble.  What, other than opportunities to min-max does additional support for incompetence bring?</blockquote>

Verification