Recent content by EzekielRaiden

Well, frankly, while that wouldn't be bad, it's also not enough on its own. As an example, one of the classes that got an awful lot of post-release feedback in 13th Age first edition (since they're working on a second now--13A1e? Lotta numbers there...) was the Paladin. And a big part of why it...

Did I say that? Hmm. Don't see the word "superhuman" mentioned anywhere...nope, I am fairly confident that isn't, even remotely, what I said. I was saying that the standard, "very playable," is a completely irrelevant standard. Like attempting to praise a food by calling it "very nontoxic" or a...

Not at all. I wrote a poem about a sunset once, that several of my friends quite liked. That poem could have been written any time in the last two centuries. A friend of mine observed that it had interesting parallels to The Lord of the Rings, because of its emphasis on the West. It would be...

Wait, this means I can say "Your mom!" and now it's actually possible that, for some adventurer out there in the multiverse, that's actually true! This is great news.

"Very playable" is an irrelevant standard, as stated. A game that was actually not playable, that was so horribly bad that it was genuinely impossible for a human being to play it, would be an abject horror, something to threaten people with. "Balanced enough" is rather more up for grabs--and...

We have Crawford himself telling us that this is not true. That's why Warlocks needed to be revised in "it's totally not a revised edition, you guys! It's TOTALLY the SAME GAME, ignore any signs that we're changing anything" 5e, aka "2024 5e." Classes based on short rests are not getting enough...

Except that it is. We can mathematically verify that it is. Nobody said "nonviable." (Though I would challenge you to define what "viable" actualy means, because I find that that's a double-plus slippery word.) It's "viable" for a Wizard to never ever cast a single spell that targets enemies...

Ah. Most unfortunate that most people do not short rest nearly that often, then, isn't it? Plus, that's ALL you do with your ki. You literally don't get to do any special monk stuff after the second round of combat. Hope you have only three round combats the vast majority of the time or that's...

It emphatically does not. You get better, greater, more frequent, and more consistent success by using other methods.

Cool. I really had a long sit-down to think about exactly what the right term should be. Simple, meaningful, avoiding being dry or overly technical, ideally something visually evocative. Spent at least an hour banging my head against stuff until "Fractal" just popped in, sans fanfare, and said...

And that's great--for those people. A game should be designed in such a way that its mechanics actually reward the play-experiences the game intends to evoke. Hence why, for example, OD&D armor is such a great design concept within its incentive structure. Armor is heavy, but protective. Weight...

I don't have to imagine. I've seen how Wizard(etc.) fanboys whine about being brought back down to Earth even the tiniest bit, or being outshone in any possible way (the Illusionist must be the best illusion-user; the Transmuter must be the best transmutation-user; etc.) Hence why I don't...

Nah. That's a completely artificial way of doing things--predicated on the bad design of D&D spells. It absolutely is not. If the fundamental design is already borked, it's a GIGO situation. That's extremely relevant. If you already have a freshly-cut sow's ear, you're not making a silk purse...

Maybe folks hearing that should stop being so dismissive themselves.

Do they? Are you sure? Or is it just a vocal minority?