Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6006082" data-attributes="member: 17106">Actually, 3e can be balanced over all levels, without any excessive effort by the DM. It can also be unbalanced. Just like any rpg.As opposed to balance, which is not abstract, not a function of player choice, and is an immutable property of rpg mechanics?&nbsp; Yes. We reject the rationale for those mechanics. That rejection is not an invalid perspective. Or, as you put it:As to the comparison, it's true that some, even problematic 4e mechanics predated 4e. However, that doesn't imply the hypocrisy that you suggest. The Tome of Battle, for instance, and the late 3e monster manuals took enormous amounts of criticism. It's not like WotC didn't know there were many people who hated those books; though they may have underestimated how many. If anything, I'd say that 4e was a collection of ideas that were playtested in late 3.5 splatbooks; but WotC ignored the playtest feedback. The flagging sales of late 3e were just as indicative of customer opinion as the (as you put it) rejection is.In other cases, people accepted mechanics begrudgingly or ignored them; that acceptance didn't indicate a willingness to go a mile farther in the same direction.If 4e were really that balanced, I don't think we'd be posting this in a 5e forum. You're welcome to define balance and games that successfully achieve it the way you like, but your definition doesn't apply to everyone (and clearly doesn't reflect the prevailing opinion on the subject if sales are any indication). Also, &quot;uncompromisingly&quot; is rather unfair. Many people use 4e-ish elements like reserve feats and dragonborn in their 3.5 games, and PF has substantial 4e-ish elements. Contrary to what WotC might want to believe, D&amp;D fans are open to change, just not the specific changes that constitute 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6006082, member: 17106"] Actually, 3e can be balanced over all levels, without any excessive effort by the DM. It can also be unbalanced. Just like any rpg. As opposed to balance, which is not abstract, not a function of player choice, and is an immutable property of rpg mechanics? Yes. We reject the rationale for those mechanics. That rejection is not an invalid perspective. Or, as you put it: As to the comparison, it's true that some, even problematic 4e mechanics predated 4e. However, that doesn't imply the hypocrisy that you suggest. The Tome of Battle, for instance, and the late 3e monster manuals took enormous amounts of criticism. It's not like WotC didn't know there were many people who hated those books; though they may have underestimated how many. If anything, I'd say that 4e was a collection of ideas that were playtested in late 3.5 splatbooks; but WotC ignored the playtest feedback. The flagging sales of late 3e were just as indicative of customer opinion as the (as you put it) rejection is. In other cases, people accepted mechanics begrudgingly or ignored them; that acceptance didn't indicate a willingness to go a mile farther in the same direction. If 4e were really that balanced, I don't think we'd be posting this in a 5e forum. You're welcome to define balance and games that successfully achieve it the way you like, but your definition doesn't apply to everyone (and clearly doesn't reflect the prevailing opinion on the subject if sales are any indication). Also, "uncompromisingly" is rather unfair. Many people use 4e-ish elements like reserve feats and dragonborn in their 3.5 games, and PF has substantial 4e-ish elements. Contrary to what WotC might want to believe, D&D fans are open to change, just not the specific changes that constitute 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification