Search results

I mean, isn't that what game companies just do? You don't believe 5e is the reigning champ because of this design process, do you?

I don't know if it's 'perfect', but V for Vendetta by the Wachowskis is tight; not an ounce of fat on that film: the plot moves, yet there's still time for emotional connection with the protagonist as well as a helluva plot twist (for those who didn't know it was coming, anyway). I think it hit...

So, with respect, but...clearly not, right? The casters do more than that; just look at how sorcerers, druids and witches all do different things besides spellcasting. I suppose we can add all their abilities to some huge list one has to consult after choosing spontaneous/prepared, but...at...

Yeah, they're fairly different, unless we use definitions so broad (like you did above) to reduce everything to being same-y. And hey, if that's how people want to go, fine...but go take a look at the casters, please and thank you, and once those have been reduced to 1 (MAYBE two) we can...

To some, sure. But it's a game we're playing, and mechanics are a big part of it. These options are going to provide more fun for some people, even if it isn't me.

Mechanics seem significantly different enough...

Ummmm...no. We just read the rules and understood them. Focused on our characters primarily, and the rest as we go. Cheat sheets helped. Really didn't feel different than playing most other RPGs. Is it possible you are being hyperbolic?

People who feel the need to make comments like this seem to be equally obsessed...

Our group tends not to have these problems...ymmv, I guess.

A pattern of 2? It doesn't matter, I don't have a horse in this race; I just saw his statement and went to check. It would be great if people could discuss without resorting to hyperbole. As for the "lazy" discussion, @EzekielRaiden said it better than I could.

Ok, but to be fair, the italicized part is not proof of the bolded part. As well, I went back and checked, and it's seems it's true that he used the word lazy twice, and not "for any and all design choices he didn't like."

I mean, this is the thread that includes takes like "Learning doesn't make you better," so...no real surprises, I suppose.

Feeling high level isn't just about how much damage one can put out as a player. It's also about what one can survive. In epic 4e, you can be sure that the opponent will survive long enough to use abilities that are frightening and devastating and it feels epic to survive them (or quickly...

They can't be, can they? Didn't he claim they never made it to that level? Of the two people discussing high level 4e, only one actually has experience with the game at that level...

On a VTT, this might still be a good feature...

Why couldn't they just write it out how it was intended to work? Because as it is, it doesn't do what we all know it should do. "Eh, they'll figure it out" is lazy design.

I wish people would just imagine seeing this in a movie, or reading it in a book...there's no way they'd conclude "Well, the reason he's misfiring so much is because he's so good, one of the best ever actually!"

1) They don't say exactly, only if the spell would work 2) Why is that a problem, exactly? They worked hard to weaken the enemy so that the wizard can finish it with their most powerful spell. That's GOT to be a better scenario than "Oops, sorry...had 3 too many hp for that spell to work. Too...

Oh, for sure, D&D isn't like that at all...but maybe it should be if it had hp-thresholds for spells. Just to be clear, players in 13A don't know the hp totals of their enemies, just if their hp-dependent spells would work or not.

Fortunately, 13th Age has both! As well, hp totals aren't a secret; if your spell wouldn't apply because of a hp threshold, the GM tells you so...it's not a game of GM gotchas!