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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9346447" data-attributes="member: 6790260">You can stumble into something great. That isn't a commentary on the product. It's a commentary on its designers.The people who designed 3e did not intend for it to be many of the things it actually was. I think that's pretty much incontrovertible fact at this point. Do you disagree?I also already did explicitly call out flaws in 4e, such as its presentation. It's not perfect, and I've literally never said otherwise; you are projecting if you think that's what I'm saying. But the designers did, in fact, have a very clear and specific vision for what they wanted the game to do, and they actually did the hard work of statistical testing and evaluation to see if it DID do that work.Excuse me? No. None of this is factual. At all. The MMs were plenty functional--they just erred on the side of caution, making monsters that were less likely to kill quickly by accident. It was very intentional, players just preferred a more high-risk, high-reward experience. So they adjusted to fit that.You're showing some pretty massively anti-4e bias here.Again, you bring up dissociated mechanics. If you can articulate that theory in a way that isn't just referencing the completely intellectually bankrupt argument The Alexandrian made, perhaps I'll be willing to entertain it. But his argument is complete crap, it always was, and his own hypocrisy has now shown that to the world. I can get you the links; he himself LIKES dissociated mechanics when they're the right kind of dissociated.It was not. It was extremely functional and purposeful--up until guess who took the helm? Mearls. Someone I've already said did not understand what 4e was about.Did I not already say that the enormous breadth and depth of 3e options is one of the most common complaints from 3e fans about 5e?5e's skill system SHOULD resemble 4e's. The rules themselves are closest to that (not the same, but closest.) Thing is, people RUN IT as though it were still 3e--much to the game's detriment in my experience. Insanely high DCs (e.g. 15-20 just for ordinary, mundane stuff), every action narrowly tailored and extremely specific, miserly with bonuses (even Advantage, for goodness' sake), forcing multiple rolls instead of letting it ride, etc. I've genuinely no idea why so many 5e DMs do this, but I'm far from the only one who's seen this pattern.Again, your radically anti-4e bias is showing ("pre-made combo"? Seriously? No such thing exists in 4e. You're literally inventing things to be mad about.)Frankly, though, I'm not sure what is somehow not-boring about the 3e Fighter. It literally doesn't have class features, it just has "get a crapload of feats." Except that the vast majority of feats it can get suck--badly. Picking up Spring Attack or specializing in some maneuver or another requires picking up multiple bad feats before you're allowed to have a single good one. Feats like Toughness and Mobility are prerequisites not because they are logically or rationally related, but because they're otherwise nearly-worthless choices, the penalty you pay for eventually, someday, being allowed to do some cool stuff if you actually make it to high enough level.Meanwhile, all the Druid has to do to be stupidly broken is "take Natural Spell at 6th level." (Technically, you qualify at Druid 5, but a single-class Druid wouldn't get their next feat until 6.) As Order of the Stick put it, "I have class features stronger than [the Rogue's] entire class."</blockquote>

Verification