Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6005683" data-attributes="member: 996">So, what'd be a way to re-write martial dailies so they're 'not plot coupons?'There was a clear set of issues being complained about with 3e, too, and 4e addressed them very well.  That didn't save it.    It may be that what's talked about and what's really an issue to the customer base can be two very different things.  Or, it may be that the rejection of 4e had very little to do with its content.While we go in circles with invalid complaints and tortured logic, there probably /are/ real issues/insights that are being missed.No matter how many times you imply that I'm an idiot for not agreeing with you.  I'm opened to being convinced, but that would take a strong argument, something with some validity.Meta-gaming is closely related, I'm sure.  Though, it's still primarily a player choice issue.  You can choose to meta-game or not.  No system can ever be so concrete and realistic that there aren't disconnects that leave room for meta-gaming.  It has the virtue of being a concept that ante-dates 4e, though.All 5 of these have something in common.  They addressed known problems with 3e (and even earlier), particularly class balance problems.  Problems that had been subject to long, vigorous debates on-line, and were well-known and not really in dispute (rather, they were just 'lived with' or house-ruled or compensated for in-play or otherwise dealt with because 'D&D had always been that way'). [sblock] (Indeed, in such debates, I was fond of pointing out that, while this or that serious problem with D&D could theoretically be solved, the result would hardly be D&D anymore. 4e proved me wrong, to my satisfaction, that is, I suppose I should feel flattered that I have half the fan base still backing up my old 3e-era snark.) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> [/sblock]The common mechanical structure (2) was key in delivering class balance, for instance, and, it couldn't have left the wizard 'vancian' (which, really, it /did/ to a degree), without also giving everyone dailies - thus martial dailies (1).  Moving non-combat spells to rituals (3) helped with encounter balance.  Silo'ing (while I'm a bit down on it, myself) and dropping modular multiclassing (which, again, I quite miss), was also done so classes could be balanced more robustly and the damage to game balance done with extreme mix-n-match 'builds' in 3e could be avoided.   Healing resources (5) were moved out of the Cleric's spells/day, and to individual resources, which took the pressure for 'someone to play the heal-bot' away almost completely, improved encounter balance, and made balancing classes with healing abilities much more practical.  So there were very solid, mechanical, reasons for all 5 of those.For me to believe that they were 'wrong' would require some equally solid reasons.  I've yet to hear any.  I've heard rage, opinion, and rationalization, but never a solid reason.  That's why I have to suspect that the reasons either have little or nothing to do with the mechanics, or that the reasons are un-examined or left un-articulated for fear they'd be get an unsympathetic reception.For instance, objecting to the 5 items above because they spoil the fun you had curb-stomping entire campaigns with an over-the-top "CoDzilla" build would be a solid reason, but one that would likely garner little sympathy.  I can see that.  4e magic items look like they were designed to avoid the excesses of pre-3e items, and went overboard.  Part of the reason, I think, was because 4e followed the 3e approach of commoditizing magic items to fit in a wealth-by-level guideline, even going so far as to build assumed items into character progression.  Inherent bonuses cleared up the latter problem, but providing exciting/interesting items that don't break the game is a challenge that 5e could rise to, I agree.'Attitude' is one of those things that goes both ways - especially on the internet.  It can be there intentionally on one side, or it can just be perceived on the other.   Perception is equivalent to reality as far as the offense taken goes, though.  I'm glad 5e hasn't offended you, yet.  I'm sure it's offending someone with it's 'attitude,' though...</blockquote>

Verification