Community

Jun 18, 2012 -- 6:07AM, ChefJackButler wrote:

This same principle is present in all the editions, including 4E.  Its not a "house rule", its just a part of the game.  If you as the DM don't like the spells the player picks, ask him to pick others.  Its not that hard a thing to comprehend.

The vehicle for the DM to change and decide those things is the house rule system.  It is a house rule for the DM to decide that wizards don't get the 2 free spells per level.

Jun 17, 2012 -- 5:34PM, Titanium_Dragon wrote:

I'm pretty sure this is correct as well. It wasn't one guy who sat down and decided "Hey, I hate 3.5 and everything about it, so let's put these into neat lttle boxes". It was a bunch of people who recognized the problems, debated them, and decided where they belonged, and it was still in flux even after the end of 3.5 for awhile.

Which tier characters were in was pretty set though, especially in the top two tiers.

Ahh, yes. I'm wrong because I disagree with you. You are right because you are you and you play to optimize. I've heard this all before. You are an optimizer, and one who cannot concieve that there are whole legions of people who don't want to play like you do and who couldn't give a rats behind about optimization. Of course, it couldn't be because they like to play that way. It's because they don't understand how the game works. They're just flat out wrong for wanting to enjoy the game the way they do.

I'm right for the same reason that we are having this conversation on the computer and not face to face in a cafe. Optimization is an eternal ongoing thing and it really does make our lives better. There is no reason this wouldn't apply to games when it applies to everything else in the universe that humans touch.

So what. It's not supposed to be a pseudo-medieval world. It's supposed to be a pseudo-medieval world with MAGIC and CLERICS and FOOD CREATION. It works just fine.

Not really, no. Its nothing like a pseudo-midieval world at all.

I think Maxperson has fun IN SPITE of the imbalance. Their group could play parcheesy and have a fun time, but that is independent of the game.

I'm pretty sure they don't intentionally want an unbalanced game because that is the sole reason it was fun. They want the feel of 3.xE instead of the feel of 4E. The problem is 4E had its feel because everyone progressed using the same subsystem, not because it was balanced. 3.xE had its feel because you could customize and if the DM fixed the game for the developers it could be lots of fun...

Jun 17, 2012 -- 5:54PM, ChefJackButler wrote:

Jun 17, 2012 -- 5:48PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Which means that its basically made of opinion.

Yes, of course.  Everything is subjective, that way no one need ever admit they were wrong.

At last someone willing to admit our arguments are based on subjective opinion.

I believe that was sarcasm.

Like when you tell me the sky is green and I look up and see blue. Then I look at you and your like "The sky is green I tell you."

They have crunched the numbers. Many, many people have done the math and came to the consensus that those classes fall into those tiers.

Sure maybe your personal little group didn't run into those problems, it does not mean those problems don't exist. Everyone arguing your position has said over and over that they house rule the game to pieces or use story and plot devices (which are not governed by the rules) to 'fix' those problems. That's akin to saying there is an invisible stalking that follows the wizard around and casts dispel magic anytime they try to cast a spell.

For DMs that don't want to have to fix a broken game, using anything (i.e. house rules, story rules, etc...etc...) or can't fix it because they aren't a good, fair, clever DM, we need a base line game that has a solid rule set that doesn't leave anything to the 'imagination'...

Just for reference, I've played through every edition of D&D, as well as countless other systems. I got my feet wet playing Palladium, which is one of the most broken systems ever created. I try to play as many systems as possible, and I'm always willing to try something new. Note, that is try, not buy. I'll try DDN if it doesn't live up to my expectations, but I will never buy it. I love trying new systems, though. It has helped me identify my own personal tastes and gaming style.

Overall, I've found that the group you play with is more important than the system you play, provided that system is in the realm of what you're looking for. I love 4e, but if I had to play it with a bunch of people I couldn't stand, I would hate that particular game. I love my group, and I'm not a 3.x fan, but if they suggested we played 3.5 for a while, I would oblige (though I wouldn't run it). If my group decides they want to switch to DDN, then I'll play it, I just won't buy it. This is just about them earning me as a customer.

I'm rambling, but certain people like to suggest that their experience makes their opinions more valid than someone who is just getting into the game. It doesn't. It isn't even worth mentioning. We're all potential customers. If we are to be current customers, no person's opinion holds more weight than anyone else's. This isn't a job interview. This is a sales pitch. If they want income from me, here's what needs to happen.

All this complaining about how the game is broken still sounds remarkably like personal problems to me.

It has been implied that this is because I am not intelligent enough to see the problem.  I doubt it.

In any case, I see no more value in continuing this discussion.  You folks have made it clear that you're perfectly willing to screw over those who don't agree with you, as long as your own opinions are catered to and as long as you don't actually have to put any effort into running a game.

I, too, am a paying customer, and if WotC continues the dumbing down on this game the way they are going, I certainly have other outlets for my money.  As do the hordes of players who think as I do.  The fact that Pathfinder is outselling D&D by a large margin should be proof enough of that fact, and the fact that WotC is backpedalling away from the "tabletop MMO" ideal of 4E should be sign enough that the designers are aware of what a failure, ultimately, that idea turned out to be.

So be it.  Have fun.  Personally, I can't see how you people do have fun, what with your reliance on rules and your complaing complaining complaining complaining, but I suppose its the complaining you have fun with.  This has become boring.