|
2 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 4:35PM
#141
|
|
|
Yet they still need to restrict it to some subset when the Fighter is too big of a subset.
I agree. But the question is why Fighter is too big of a subset. I mean, I understand your example is hypothetical, but the idea going through my head is " 'Doctor, it hurts when I do THIS' 'Well don't do that!' "
Yes, it is a hypothetical example, but it parallels what they describe as the direction they are heading.
Let's say you have some new idea for a feat, and it only works with Knights, and not other fighters. Well, why does it only work with Knights? Is it because non-Knight fighters lack a class feature that the new feat builds upon? Is it because non-Knight fighters don't thematically fit? Those are two distinct and separate issues.
The former is easy to address - you reference the class feature in addition to the parent class, such as "Prereq: Fighter, Combat Challenge class feature." This serves two purposes. One is to prevent people who don't get any benefit whatsoever from the feat from taking it - i.e. people who don't have the class feature that the feat enhances. That's why the second prerequisite is there. The second purpose is to guide people with a specific goal in mind toward feats that enhance that goal. I'm a fighter and I like my combat challenge class feature and want to make it better, so the easiest way to do that is scan the list of class feats for ones that match what I want to do. Now, you could easily argue that this should say "Weaponmaster, Combat Challenge class feature" because there are no Fighters with CC that are not also Weaponmasters, but I would ask why that extra layer of subclass is necessary in this case. Non-Weaponmaster fighters are still excluded from taking a nonfunctional feat since they don't have Combat Challenge, and it doesn't make it any easier to find and choose feats.
The latter is much more complicated, and a good deal more subtle. One might ask why Surprising Charge has "Prerequisite: Fighter or Rogue, Dex 17." (I won't even begin to address stat prereqs for things, that's an entirely different rant). Why just fighters and rogues, or wizards or sorcerers or slayers or avengers? Certainly other classes might like to charge with combat advantage, and appreciate an extra [W]. The only explanation is more thematic reasons. And you'd best have a damn compelling reason for preventing someone from taking a feat for purely fluff reasons. It's reasonable on the class level, I'd claim, but as you start to drill down to subclass and build level I'd be much harder to convince that it's a good idea.
My apologies, but I sincerely do not even begin to comprehend how you think that is less confusing moving forward than the new direction, other than you are already used to it.
Prerequisite: Fighter, Combat Challenge means that I (as a prospective new player), need to try to find Combat Challenge. What is Combat Challenge? How would I immediately recognize that Combat Challenge is a class feature of Weaponmaster? Listing it twice makes me think that I have to find two different things (Fighter and Combat Challenge) in order to take the feat (which in actuality, I would indeed have to find two things, only to realize after the fact that I only needed to find one thing).
Prerequisite: Weaponmaster is far simpler to understand and to locate. Since Combat Challenge is a feature of Weaponmaster, I don't even have to worry about it being a prerequisite. I (as a prospective new player) do not even have to be burdened with looking it up as a prerequisite since it's already built in to the subclass I am choosing.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 4:39PM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Yes, it is a hypothetical example, but it parallels what they describe as the direction they are heading.
Stating their direction doesn't address the question of whether the direction is good or bad.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2011 - 4:42PM
#143
|
|
|
Yes, it is a hypothetical example, but it parallels what they describe as the direction they are heading.
Stating their direction doesn't address the question of whether the direction is good or bad.
I have already addressed that question. I said I prefer the new organization. I have then illustrated in multiple places now how it will be less confusing down the road.
I'll take the new organization myself.
Not to mention, I think it is pretty obvious that I like the new direction.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2011 - 3:51AM
#144
|
|
|
I have already addressed that question. I said I prefer the new organization. I have then illustrated in multiple places now how it will be less confusing down the road.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
For whatever reason Mand12 thinks his method of organization is easier to understand. You and I think the WotC way makes more sense. Some people just detest change. I remember hating 4e long before it came out. Everything I heard about it made me cringe. However, when it came out I gave it a try and loved it. I am in favor of slaying a lot of sacred cows, and ending the frankly stupid class names from 1e doesn't bother me a bit. Think about it, fighter and magic-user in particular are stupid. Keeping that convention of naming they should have called the cleric and the thief, the healer and the stealer. Maybe the bard, druid and assassin could have been the singer, farmer and killer.
Getting rid of fighter for weaponmaster is just fine with me.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2011 - 5:42AM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
For whatever reason Mand12 thinks his method of organization is easier to understand. You and I think the WotC way makes more sense.
Ok, this is reasonable.
Some people just detest change.
And this is an unsupported slander. Make your point, but don't resort to generalizations and prejudice to do it. You and Jharii both disagree with me, but only one of you has actually demonstrated respect for a differing opinion.
And this is entirely a matter of subjective opinion. I don't expect to "convince" anyone. All I can do is present my opinion. If you like it, great. If you don't like it, say why. But don't insult me for disagreeing with you.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2011 - 6:31AM
#146
|
|
|
And this is an unsupported slander. Make your point, but don't resort to generalizations and prejudice to do it. You and Jharii both disagree with me, but only one of you has actually demonstrated respect for a differing opinion.
And this is entirely a matter of subjective opinion. I don't expect to "convince" anyone. All I can do is present my opinion. If you like it, great. If you don't like it, say why. But don't insult me for disagreeing with you.
Sigh.
I'll say it again. If it doesn't apply to you, don't be offended by it. If you weren't so hot to object to everything I say, you might have notied that I used myself as an example of someone who detested change. I have worked to be more open toward it and now "am in favor of slaying a lot of sacred cows," but that wasn't always so. I was simply offering an alternate explanation as to why some people are upset by this change.
Your overly strong reaction makes me wonder if, in fact, you do think this way about it. However if you say you don't, I'll believe you.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2011 - 6:59AM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
You seriously think it's unreasonable that you directly quote me, and then say "Some people are just afraid of change" and that I think you're referring to me? Because it pretty damn well looks like you're referring to me.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2011 - 7:06AM
#148
|
|
|
You seriously think it's unreasonable that you directly quote me, and then say "Some people are just afraid of change" and that I think you're referring to me? Because it pretty damn well looks like you're referring to me.
Um, I directly quoted Jharii.
BTW your overly strong reaction continues.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2011 - 8:20AM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Because you're engaging in passive-aggressive nonsense, and I'd like you to stop.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2011 - 8:28AM
#150
|
|
|
Because you're engaging in passive-aggressive nonsense, and I'd like you to stop.
I am absolutely not! You are misunderstanding my posts on purpose I suspect. What I said directly about you was "Mand12 thinks his method of organization is easier to understand." Anything I said after that had nothing whatsoever to do with you and I would like you to stop trying to find ways to misinterpret what I say. Thanks in advance!
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
