More proof that Mike Mearls doesn't even know what he's talking about

#171MrGreenonion(Topic Creator)Posted 6/1/2012 12:25:44 AM
So the D&D Next blog is still going despite having been largely ignored in favor of the playtest. Here's a gem from last week, whining about a whole lot of nothing related to magic items:

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/05/23/sword_1,_flame_tongue

Just a bunch of wah wah wah about MY SENSE OF WONDER! Yes, magic items were one of the major problems of both 4E and 3.x. No, it wasn't because they told anyone that Santa Claus wasn't real.

And what's with those poll options? I want to disagree with this assclown but I can't even tell which one that is! These poll options really need to simplify so I can understand what they think I'm telling them. Like just give me agree/disagree options, and write more articles if the stance of the disagrees is ambiguous.
---
SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...
But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion
#172Fenris_LathiinPosted 6/1/2012 9:55:35 AM
From: MrGreenonion | #171
I want to disagree with this assclown but I can't even tell which one that is!

That's been a theme with his blog articles. You're not actually allowed to disagree with him. Sort of like when Monte Cook was there.
---
This sig is original!
#173ZhftnPosted 6/1/2012 3:01:12 PM
You can’t, for example, create a +1 flaming shock sword in 4th Edition since +1 flaming sword and +1 shock sword are two separate items.

What the f*** am I reading.
---
Welcome to GameFAQs, where you're lucky if people read your entire topic title before answering, let alone your post. - JohnnyShred612
#174KushuPosted 6/2/2012 4:14:28 PM
I've been gone for a while, and I come back to THIS?

The item stands out in my mind not for its power—and it was quite powerful—
...
Reducing magic items to fundamental components did give DMs powerful tools to construct the items as they liked, but this process, in my opinion, cost the game. To get to those components, the game sacrificed the evocative magic weapons and armor that populated the older editions. The classic items became preconstructed items
...
these items lost their appeal since we could understand them



1: I doubt that. I doubt that it was objectively powerful. I've played dozens of videogames where you get this kind of stuff. "Here's a weapon, it has this long and storied history, and it can do this neat thing" --Oh! Thanks. So, you mean it does this one awkward thing that's less effective than anything else I can do and that not only will I never USE the dang thing, but it's 50/50 on me flat out GIVING it away the next time I meet a kid who wants to be an adventurer.

Perhaps I'm just spoiled. That's entirely possible. But it feels like developers seem to lose touch with things that are objectively powerful and cool. Look, I dig story shenanigans as much as anyone, but this ALWAYS HAPPENS. I guarantee I can load up Baldur's Gate Shadows of Amn right now and go dig around in my portable holes for dozens of "cool" weapons that I will absolutely never use because they point blank suck. Before our group had an AV, I used the old character builder to essentially make them a "Shopping List", so that they'd know the sorts of things that were available. I ignored soooooooo many items that were flat out garbage. Save ends Ongoing 2-5 as a daily? Save ends -1 to attack or AC? I know my group. They'll N.E.V.E.R. buy that because it sucks.

2. This, to me, makes 100% sense. I'm not even being sarcastic. I can follow this logic.
They print Flametongue. Players widely regard it as inferior, perhaps even a joke item. They make fun of people who take it. Dev dies a little inside.

3: Wow. I almost want to sig that.
---
The police officers wouldn't say "TOUGH **** BRO! SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT A CLAW!"
#175LobsterDandyPosted 6/2/2012 5:01:08 PM
These guys are trying to evoke an edition where you were supposed to gasm in your pants over a +1 weapon. You were supposed to treat that +1 weapon with religious reverence and adoration! That +1 sword was supposed to be on par with Excalibur! With Narsil, the blade that would be renamed Andúril, the Flame of the West!

Yep. A +1 weapon. The ones you had stopped giving a **** about in Baldur's Gate 1 like halfway through the game and was not even worthy as vendor trash by Shadows of Amn.
---
I believe in Artemis Hound & John Magnum
The heroes 215 deserve.
#176Pieke OkataPosted 6/2/2012 9:21:18 PM
These guys are trying to evoke an edition where you were supposed to gasm in your pants over a +1 weapon.

Which, as a note, was no edition ever.
---
I dont trust any of the tastes of people who were born with such good taste that they didnt need to find their way through trash.
#177LobsterDandyPosted 6/3/2012 1:12:25 AM
Pieke Okata posted...
Which, as a note, was no edition ever.


Well the people the woots are trying to cater to think their old timey edition wanted you to gasm your pants over a magic at least, although I'll bet ol' Gary did expect players to think that getting a +1 item was a big deal and there's a ton of grogs out there who sneer at players expecting to not only get magic items but to get progressively better magical items is entitled vidya gaem babbyism and when they played they used a +1 dagger from level 9 to level 20 and by Gygax they considered themselves lucky to have it.
---
I believe in Artemis Hound & John Magnum
The heroes 215 deserve.
#178Fenris_LathiinPosted 6/3/2012 1:39:50 AM
From: LobsterDandy | Posted: 6/3/2012 3:12:25 AM | #177
although I'll bet ol' Gary did expect players to think that getting a +1 item was a big deal



From what I've heard about the group Gygax used to play with (and the original reasons for playing) probably not, but I don't think magic weapons were supposed to be a big deal. I think things like Wondrous Items were supposed to be the big deal.
---
This sig is original!
#179mystic belmontPosted 6/3/2012 9:04:48 PM
http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604

Lol
---
"Freedom was meaningless without ownership and control over one's own body" -Henry McNeal Turner
[Evil Republican]
#180FlyinBrianPosted 6/3/2012 9:29:14 PM
honestly, this bounded accuracy thing seems like the first idea I've heard out of this whole project that actually makes some sense, oftentimes the sliding scale of accuracy and AC (as well as DCs for skills and saves) felt kinda arbitrary and unnecessary, making that more uniform across levels of play seems like a much simpler design decision, and leaves room for more tangible ways to assign difficulty like special powers and effects without having to worry about the number crunch of whats accurate at what level and blah blah blah

I mean, I do get a special warm feeling in my gamer heart when I have all the big numbers on my sheet, but when you get into especially high level play it just gets ridiculous. does the Tarrasque need +60 to hit? can't we just say: "it's ****ing D&D Godzilla, of course it hits you" and be done with it?

ah hell, who am I kidding? lets see how long it takes them to ruin this idea...
---
Sanity's really just a one trick pony, you just get one trick: rational thought. But when you're good and crazy, oh baby! The skies the limit! - The Tick