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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Moonshade" data-source="post: 4268231" data-attributes="member: 54606">Isn't this all about personal taste? There's no objective way to measure fun. Some people love monks, others are happy their core spot has been claimed by warlords. Some people like the idea that attacks can go so wrong that they have no effect at all, others are thrilled by the possibility that missed attacks still do damage and explain it through the enemy growing tired or losing some of its morale. Some people are bitter over the loss of things they liked about pre-4E D&D, others are prone to bitter rants about things like 3E CoDzilla and fill threads with their partying over changes to spellcasting (because no sane person could possibly have liked resource management or enjoyed playing low-level mages - and if they say they did, it's alright to accuse them of being powergaming wizardlovers whose badwrongfun has to have screwed over the other PCs in their group). If someone thinks it's a problem monks aren't playable, I don't need an essay that details the monk contribution to D&D and the player's fun-filled sessions playing the class in order to accept that monks not being in the core three could be a legitimate problem to that gamer.Hopefully people will also explain why doing away with a particular sacred cow is good, instead of just talking about how gamers fear change. Sharks hit upon a winning formula how many millions of years ago and they're still around even as other species have evolved and fallen, so change can reveal itself to be progress towards you being screwed over instead of solidifying or increasing your odds of survival.</blockquote>

Verification