AGAINST THE SLAVE LORDS - D&D Next 2hr Podcast
Jul 5, 2013 2:45:24 GMT -8
Post by Arcona on Jul 5, 2013 2:45:24 GMT -8
Jfever to repeat something said in this thread...
Absolute TWADDLE!
I think that a statistical analysis of the fighter killing goblins between editions is a horribly RIDICULOUS analysis to make and then expect that it somehow gives insight.
I am really happy fighters have become more powerful in progressive editions of DnD. Because contrary to many I like a balance between classes. The primary casters of DnD (Cleric, Mage, Druid) have been overpowered from day 1 and they have been trying to fix them ever since the 0 edition.
Funnily enough they succeeded with 4rth where the Fighter (and other melees) have a chance to be worthy members of a party (gasp!). There was an attempt to do so with Book of 9 Swords in 3.5 (but unfortunately though interesting it made melee classes into Manga style ala Exalted flavor) and Pathfinder but it was still obvious that the versatile caster was dominating both in defence, offence and utility.
Having said that the notion of 'hey lets do 1 vs 1 goblin vs fighter and make conclusions' is a random premise. Why 1 vs 1? Why a fighter? Why not take into account the environment, the initiative and well you know... EVERY SINGLE mechanic there is in the game???
But enough of that, if its not obvious why its a mistaken comparison I wont try to convince you.
As for the AP.
Its obvious a marketing thing trying to get us interested. It fails. Its not the first or the last time a marketing scheme fails... there are million dollar ads that fail into generating any sales and yet companies use them.
The problem here is that WOTC chose the wrong people for the job. Indeed they might be the designers but that doesnt make them fun to watch players! They might really enjoy writing a game and they might also enjoy playing the game... that doesnt mean they are actors or playtesters fit to be on camera! I dont see the CEO of Coca Cola or the Chief Engineer of BMW on television using the products they make! I see Top Gear and special ads created by the biggest Creative Agencies in the world!
As I said, I believe me and my group would have made a better 'this game is awesome video' than these guys!
As it is I dont think video speaks to anyone. I am a powerplayer/munchkin (according to this forum anyway cause Gasp! I like to also delve into the system a bit and make characters with personalities that also commit the crime of being efficient and potent) but that doesnt mean I want a roll-fest. I want to roleplay and also be efficient and epic in combat... I wont to do well because I designed a character well but also because I am smart and interested and actually engaged in the game! In another thread I mention how I hate published adventures exactly because the result is a DM reading from a book!
So yea, this thing was a failure but that STILL doesnt make me say 'Oh these guys were a failure and hence 5th edition must be bad."
Ufff...
Rant over...
I notice I am ranting alot in this forum lately...
I blame YOU!
Absolute TWADDLE!
I think that a statistical analysis of the fighter killing goblins between editions is a horribly RIDICULOUS analysis to make and then expect that it somehow gives insight.
I am really happy fighters have become more powerful in progressive editions of DnD. Because contrary to many I like a balance between classes. The primary casters of DnD (Cleric, Mage, Druid) have been overpowered from day 1 and they have been trying to fix them ever since the 0 edition.
Funnily enough they succeeded with 4rth where the Fighter (and other melees) have a chance to be worthy members of a party (gasp!). There was an attempt to do so with Book of 9 Swords in 3.5 (but unfortunately though interesting it made melee classes into Manga style ala Exalted flavor) and Pathfinder but it was still obvious that the versatile caster was dominating both in defence, offence and utility.
Having said that the notion of 'hey lets do 1 vs 1 goblin vs fighter and make conclusions' is a random premise. Why 1 vs 1? Why a fighter? Why not take into account the environment, the initiative and well you know... EVERY SINGLE mechanic there is in the game???
But enough of that, if its not obvious why its a mistaken comparison I wont try to convince you.
As for the AP.
Its obvious a marketing thing trying to get us interested. It fails. Its not the first or the last time a marketing scheme fails... there are million dollar ads that fail into generating any sales and yet companies use them.
The problem here is that WOTC chose the wrong people for the job. Indeed they might be the designers but that doesnt make them fun to watch players! They might really enjoy writing a game and they might also enjoy playing the game... that doesnt mean they are actors or playtesters fit to be on camera! I dont see the CEO of Coca Cola or the Chief Engineer of BMW on television using the products they make! I see Top Gear and special ads created by the biggest Creative Agencies in the world!
As I said, I believe me and my group would have made a better 'this game is awesome video' than these guys!
As it is I dont think video speaks to anyone. I am a powerplayer/munchkin (according to this forum anyway cause Gasp! I like to also delve into the system a bit and make characters with personalities that also commit the crime of being efficient and potent) but that doesnt mean I want a roll-fest. I want to roleplay and also be efficient and epic in combat... I wont to do well because I designed a character well but also because I am smart and interested and actually engaged in the game! In another thread I mention how I hate published adventures exactly because the result is a DM reading from a book!
So yea, this thing was a failure but that STILL doesnt make me say 'Oh these guys were a failure and hence 5th edition must be bad."
Ufff...
Rant over...
I notice I am ranting alot in this forum lately...
I blame YOU!