Community

My only point and the reason I made it was this.

There is an opportunity cost to any choice in game design.  Some of the "fixes" suggested for the game to handle perceived problems in 3e are not worth what they fix.  Because to be honest we didn't have the problem and we most definitely feel the effect of the fix.

I realize people have different experiences.  I am frustrated though with those who want to shoot down anyone who wants to play what has been the tradition of D&D for three editions.   I'm not against expanding the scope and allowing for other playstyles.  I'm for a healing module and a warlord that really makes the 4e people happy.  I don't need it.  I've even advocated they make the warlord a really good version of what it is instead of watering it down to make me happy.  I don't need everything in a game.

I am hoping for a really good toolbox.  I am hoping using that toolbox I can assemble a game that is fun for me and my groups.   I don't care what anyone else builds with that same toolbox.  I would like it if my choices are labeled as dangerous or risky.  I don't mind if they are labeled traditional or hard core.  I think 5e is striving for just such a toolbox.  When I see something I don't like I mention it.  I'm not though saying that what I don't like has to go.  I am saying that it would be nice if some alternative is offered.

Just like fighter combat dice.  I thought there were some things that with minor tweaks can be fixed for me.  I really do believe that the plot coupon issue is a big reason 4e was disliked.  So it's important to a lot of people.  So I see no reason to not offer an option that does not succumb to that flaw.  

I think we all should be advocating for what we need to be IN the game and not advocating for other people's stuff to be OUT.   I wish others had the same attitude. 

Oct 12, 2012 -- 2:36PM, sleypy wrote:

Oct 12, 2012 -- 2:22PM, Emerikol wrote:

My only point and the reason I made it was this.

There is an opportunity cost to any choice in game design.  Some of the "fixes" suggested for the game to handle perceived problems in 3e are not worth what they fix.  Because to be honest we didn't have the problem and we most definitely feel the effect of the fix.

I realize people have different experiences.  I am frustrated though with those who want to shoot down anyone who wants to play what has been the tradition of D&D for three editions.   I'm not against expanding the scope and allowing for other playstyles.  I'm for a healing module and a warlord that really makes the 4e people happy.  I don't need it.  I've even advocated they make the warlord a really good version of what it is instead of watering it down to make me happy.  I don't need everything in a game.

I am hoping for a really good toolbox.  I am hoping using that toolbox I can assemble a game that is fun for me and my groups.   I don't care what anyone else builds with that same toolbox.  I would like it if my choices are labeled as dangerous or risky.  I don't mind if they are labeled traditional or hard core.  I think 5e is striving for just such a toolbox.  When I see something I don't like I mention it.  I'm not though saying that what I don't like has to go.  I am saying that it would be nice if some alternative is offered.

Just like fighter combat dice.  I thought there were some things that with minor tweaks can be fixed for me.  I really do believe that the plot coupon issue is a big reason 4e was disliked.  So it's important to a lot of people.  So I see no reason to not offer an option that does not succumb to that flaw.  

I think we all should be advocating for what we need to be IN the game and not advocating for other people's stuff to be OUT.   I wish others had the same attitude. 

Have you considered ending your statements at the point where you have stated what you want to see instead of constantly tacking on the minor digs at some peoples edition of choice and literally contributes nothing to your point. I mean you do have every right to do it, but in most of your post were you have left those things out the eventual mod response hasn't occured and much of the negative backlash hasn't happened either.

I fear sometimes that when I say I hate X that some people will actually think that 4e does not contain X even though I think that it does.  So I relate X to 4e so that it's clear of what I speak and not purely in the abstract.

Also when you criticize in the abstract I wish you'd give a quote.  So I know the specific case.   

Also, it is definitely the case that people that favor an edition are more sensitive about it than people who do not.  I am constantly irritated by many on here with their snarky comments.  I am amazed that a few people can even stay on the boards at all saying what they say.  I feel if I said the same sorts of things I'd be banned.  I've come to realize that in some cases these people aren't doing it to attack me.  They really have a world view so set that they don't even realize that there is a whole separate group out there with a totally different view of things.  

Now I don't for a minute think that I'm or anyone is completely unaware of a critical remark but I do think that we overrate or underrate the severity of it based upon our own position.  These threads would be an interesting psychological study actually.

All I'm arguing for is the Fighter gets interesting and good options, with a degree of versatility. He doesn't need anywhere near as much as classes like the Wizard, but I would think the guy who's supposed to be a master of battle can't find some creative uses for his weapons(like using a pole-arm to pole vault, using a heavy blade as leverage to pry a door off it's hinges, etc)  and his battle experience(for example, using your battle knowledge to predict when an enemy is about to strike and dodge it, feint to throw the enemy off guard for your real attack, etc).

That last one is something I find that Superiority Dice are looking to handle quite nicely, but it's mostly the first one I'm worried about, that the Fighter gets good AND interesting options with some versatility, even if it's not as much as the Wizard gets.

A Fighter and Wizard on the same level have to be able to contribute on the same level, even if not the same way(the balance should be like a pound of cheese and a pound of chocolate cake, both are equally balanced, but they are both completely different things).

With the wall example I had earlier, the Wizard probably has about 20 different things he can use to get around/over/through the wall. The Fighter has much fewer options, but still has those options in case any number of things come up(like it's an anti-magic zone, or he's seperated from the Wizard for any reason, or the Wizard doesn't have spells prepared that would do the job).

Oct 12, 2012 -- 3:22PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

All I'm arguing for is the Fighter gets interesting and good options, with a degree of versatility. He doesn't need anywhere near as much as classes like the Wizard, but I would think the guy who's supposed to be a master of battle can't find some creative uses for his weapons(like using a pole-arm to pole vault, using a heavy blade as leverage to pry a door off it's hinges, etc)  and his battle experience(for example, using your battle knowledge to predict when an enemy is about to strike and dodge it, feint to throw the enemy off guard for your real attack, etc).

That last one is something I find that Superiority Dice are looking to handle quite nicely, but it's mostly the first one I'm worried about, that the Fighter gets good AND interesting options with some versatility, even if it's not as much as the Wizard gets.

A Fighter and Wizard on the same level have to be able to contribute on the same level, even if not the same way(the balance should be like a pound of cheese and a pound of chocolate cake, both are equally balanced, but they are both completely different things).

With the wall example I had earlier, the Wizard probably has about 20 different things he can use to get around/over/through the wall. The Fighter has much fewer options, but still has those options in case any number of things come up(like it's an anti-magic zone, or he's seperated from the Wizard for any reason, or the Wizard doesn't have spells prepared that would do the job).

This seems reasonable as written.  I would only criticize based on past posts of yours.  But your words as written here seem fine to me.

Edit:  But just a quick question.  If someone wants something else why would that bother you?  As long as you got the options you needed.