K wrote:DnD-style “stat-only” fighters are viable only if magic users can't get armor (or armor-like defenses) and they can't summon monsters. (DnD Basic set)
False. Stat-only characters only work if no abilities are able to circumvent stats to a significant degree.
K wrote:People don't actually use maps of cities, but they will use maps of countries (Forgotten Realms).
Dunno. Certainly if I knew of a good city map relevant to whatever I was playing, with well-made places (in terms of RP content, not ... mapping art), I'd use it. Why'd you say that to be exception rather than the rule?
Sphere wrote:Any buffing at all is boring.
Shapechanging's counted as buffing in
lots of circles. Also, the "dumbass turns hero when needed" is rather wanted AFAIK.
Sphere wrote:Once a society can't hurt a character, they lose their fear of that society.
Any "respect" is either fear, or one's oversized ego telling them they don't need to "stoop down to others' level" - certainly powerful people are free to have the 2nd, but no inertia's forced outta them, which's bad for a presumably persistent setting.
K wrote:Every area has a new monsters because monsters are not tactically interesting, so once the surprise is over the fun is over.
Because those monsters are too retarded to have more than, say, 3 abilities each, i.e. sized for the average player's intellect. That could be avoided if the average player isn't deemed important.
K wrote:Basically, Chess is boring which is why old men in the park play it and gamers don't.
Yeah, sure - a.k.a. shut the fvck up. You may find it so, feel free to; but whereas much of tactical RPG combat actually exercises memory the most (as you do know well), Chess exercises actual tactics - exactly because you know how things
can work, but don't know how they
will work - that's the only point where tactics win the day alone. Also, I don't fvcking want stacks of books with newly-colored monsters with retarded new restricted abilities, because they're newly-colored.
Buttlords wrote:But I'm not so sure what's so shocking or revolutionary or even novel about this thought.
There's nothing shocking, revolutionary, or even novel about it (certainly, I've read about it before). There's the
retarded concept that once science reigns and racial superiority's gone, people'll go all moral - ha, ha, ha!!! BTW, are we on the same page on "magic belongs in D&D" or not? And, do you believe racial superiority exists in our beloved Earth? Because some people might argue we're completely reliant on science, without magic or any race being
intrinsically superior to others (certainly some peoples' situation's rather heinous, but it's no inherent racial quality AFAIK), and yet anything but stable or desirable.
RC wrote:Well, this is an example of a poorly designed combat system (at least for fighters). You have one gimmick. Melee.
Isn't that what you actually want?
Sigma wrote:Breaks the game, and that's no fun.
No it doesn't. Just hand them out to everyone, and don't be retarded when balancing them internally, the same way you shouldn't when making stuff
in the level system. Then find out what environmental adjustments you might need to make to keep challenging.
K wrote:Exceptions don't disprove a general rule, they can just prove that they are exceptions to that rule.
Yeah, sure (this time not an irony
). But players not wanting to customize seems really common IME.