Community

Dec 17, 2012 -- 10:13AM, Maxperson wrote:

So you're not interested in modules.  Modules are just ways to home brew/house rule your game.

I do not believe that logically follows at all.

Just because it's not the place of something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.  At least that's what you told me when I told you that it wasn't your place to tell me something that you shouldn't have.

Touche.
But seriously, though, that's completely different, and I'm sure that you know that.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 10:25AM, Mand12 wrote:

Access does not function as a balancing agent. Period.

Sure it does, when correctly applied. The entire premise of a level advancement system is that more powerful things become more appropriate at higher levels. Having 3d10 expertise dice isn't overpowered; it's just overpowered at level 1, so you can't get it until later when it's not overpowered. We can apply the same principle to prestige classes that we apply to class features; what's appropriate to be gained at what level? This sounds far more reliable to me than assuming the DM will figure out when the features will be balanced and making whatever storyline requirements coincide around then.

And you ask why they need thematic restrictions:  because the word "Prestige" is in front of the word "Class."  As I said before, the difference between standard classes and prestige classes is axiomatic - there is no logical argument for its existence, and that basic assumption of its existence cascades throughout the entire discussion.  If you really don't see the difference between prestige classes and standard classes, thematically, then we will get nowhere.

None of that that points to needing thematic restrictions, though.

What I find strange is that the things that you're arguing for are exactly how Mearls has described it.  The post that made you do and believe I changed my mind to agree with you really is what you mean, as far as I can tell, and it is also really what Mearls has said.  But you need to accept that no, this approach is not the way it's ever been done before. 

Still not seeing it, I'm afraid.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 1:21PM, wrecan wrote:

I was really disappointed that Crash won the Oscar for best movie.  I thought that was a horrible movie.
Does anybody remember any other movies from that year?

I'm pretty sure that was the year everybody thought Brokeback Mountain was going to win. Crash winning was sort of an upset, if I recall correctly.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 12:52PM, zago wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 12:48PM, BellChanger wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 12:12PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Technically, you can't ragequit something that doesn't exist yet. Personally I'm planning on complaining non stop until it released, and then ragequitting in response to it sucking in its final form, while reserving the right to continue complaining if it becomes necessary(as in the final game not only sucks, but is insulting).

+1

So two geniuses think the playtest is imaginary, and thus can't be 'ragequited'? 

Hey, that reasoning is good enough for a lot of people when it comes to the playtest being criticized.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Maxperson wrote:

The existence of modules is entirely so that people can use them to modify aspect of their game that they don't like instead of coming up with a house rule.  Don't like the basic skill system, use a module.  5e is entirely about house rules/home brews.  That's the system.

I do not at all equate modules with house rules or homebrew, so I guess that we're just not going to agree here.

The only exceptions would be if you voluntarily chose to pick mechanics that had roleplay associated with them. For example, if you pick a druid, I would expect your roleplay to deal with nature in some way. Druids are a nature oriented class. 

Depends. I can think of plenty of character concepts for which there is not any particular connection to nature but Druid is the best fit for mechanical representation. The 4E Druid, for example, was the best way in that edition to play a simple werewolf or other shape-shifter.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 1:41PM, Marandahir wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 1:25PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 1:23PM, greatfrito wrote:

Dec 17, 2012 -- 1:21PM, wrecan wrote:

It only won Oscars for director and score and it totally deserved those.  I was really disappointed that Crash actually won the Oscar for best movie.  I thought that was a horrible movie.

If we're hating on movies, I agree: I didn't enjoy Crash at all, and didn't think it was anything special.

EDIT: The other nominees for best picture were Good Night and Good Luck, and Munich.  I remember enjoying both of them - but I have no idea if they were, y'know, any good. 

Was Crash that car accident fetish one?

Wrong Crash. 

You have the Car fetish one that was older and the one that came out the same year as Brokeback Mountain, which was about a car crash and then following the stories of each of the people in the cars up until the point of a car crash.

Ah.  Ty for the clarification.