Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 3795445" data-attributes="member: 3887">The 'people' part was implied.I think you're mistaking me for someone else. My positions in this thread can be summed up as:1) D&D doesn't need to rely on resource attrition to provide player challenge.2) Other successful systems do not use resource attrition, or use it in a much more limited fashion.3) The attrition model doesn't suit my preferred style of play.4) No ones offered a concrete reason why such an attrition-less/lite model works for some games, but not D&D. 5) Mistaking your preferred play style for 'smarter play' is vain. Also dumb.That's it. Wait, for the sake of discussion, I'll add something new...D&D's per-day class abilities (ie spells) have traditionally been too decisive (though 3.0 was a step in the right direction). It's bad design, IMHO, to give a few classes the really decisive abilities, then try and balance things by giving limited uses. It creates mutually incompatible play imperatives('charge!','camp!), it means casters either 'win' the fight or basically sit idle. I think the design goal should be to define the class abilities in such a way that every class can meaningfully contribute each round of an encounter. Or at least closer to that.And? Why is his blog so important?My point was simply that new rules systems that first appeared in popular 3.5 supplements will be part of 4e. Do you think this is a coincidence?</blockquote>