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

#41Pieke OkataPosted 5/3/2012 5:55:56 AM
HEY SCEPTILESOLAR IT'S BEEN A WHILE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL SEE THIS OR NOT BUT I'LL STILL RESPOND:

You are stupid, read the next two sentences.

Okay, I will.

Likewise, I think people who dig the Nentir Vale and the 4E cosmology would be livid if we ripped out the dragonborn and tieflings, whose fallen empires are so important to shaping the land.

Oh wait, no. I already read that. And his solution to this problem was to try to appeal to the first type of gamer (by saying 'your races are more important') while marginalizing the second (by calling them 'rare' and therefore saying that they don't fit in D&D correctly). This is exactly what I was complaining about.

Maybe you should actually take statements within their proper context instead of just reading them off on their own and then implying that they mean anything at all. Literacy is more than just knowing what words mean.

Although the person in the previous topic did make such a claim, saying that Pieke was stupid and was therefore wrong.

Foolish people have been doing that for years. Don't hold it against them, they can't help it. You ableist.

Also wow that post about art is pretty ****ing pointless. Why is it a thing?
---
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.
#42KushuPosted 5/3/2012 7:31:17 AM
Pieke Okata posted...
Also wow that post about art is pretty ****ing pointless. Why is it a thing?
Aforementioned attention-grab?

*Booming Voice*: Well, it seems people are reacting poorly to your Dungeons and Dragons NEXT ideas.
WotcUnderling: I'm sorry Master. Please, allow me to divert the peon's attention.
*Booming Voice*: And just HOW do you plan to do that?
WotcUnderling: Master, we can pretend we want their insight on our artwork, through a sexist and inflammatory post. It will draw attention away from our design, and raise the hackles of female gamers everywhere. Then, the males will be so distracted by the females, they'll stop paying attention to us briefly.

*Booming Voice*: ...interesting. So Be It. Do Not Disappoint Me.
#43LobsterDandyPosted 5/3/2012 1:55:42 PM
The booming voice/higher power better be revealed to be Vincent Kennedy McMahon or I swear I'm not gonna buy WotCMania this year dammit it's still real to me!
---
I believe in Artemis Hound & John Magnum
The heroes 215 deserve.
#44n00bdragonPosted 5/3/2012 3:25:14 PM
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/05/02/avoiding_choice_traps

I... actually am okay with this. I could dig a smaller number of feats that do lots of different stuff and give you bonuses in many situations. I actually like that a lot.

WotC earns a gold star from me today.
---
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
John Adams (1735 - 1826)
#45MrGreenonion(Topic Creator)Posted 5/3/2012 4:33:48 PM

From: LobsterDandy | #043
The booming voice/higher power better be revealed to be Vincent Kennedy McMahon or I swear I'm not gonna buy WotCMania this year dammit it's still real to me!


It was me, Monte! It was me all along!
---
SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...
But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion
#46Baruch_SPosted 5/3/2012 4:54:04 PM
That... actually made a lot of sense. Having feats that do multiple things makes sense and makes the feats more valuable. I can't say I have any complaints with the idea, although I would like to see the feats coming with some options so you don't get stuck with two bonuses you'll never use to get the one you really want.

In 4e, you already sometimes get stuck with a +2 bonus to X that you don't actually want or use, and variable bonuses like they had with racial stat bonuses seemed to work nicely. They could apply that idea to feats by giving two or three options for what bonuses the feat grants. That would be more work, but it would make feats more valuable by making them more likely to provide bonuses you actually want.
---
I once dug a pit and filled it with clouds...or was it clowns.... come to think of it, it began to smell... must have been clowns...
White FC 0260 9873 0859
#47MrGreenonion(Topic Creator)Posted 5/3/2012 5:01:52 PM
I don't know if feats need to separately support exploration and roleplaying, but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to make all feats have a combat application, and maybe many/most feats have a non-combat application.
---
SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...
But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion
#48SceptilesolarPosted 5/3/2012 5:16:11 PM(edited)
That's decent. I think it might be more workable to just divide feats into combat and utility, and give people some number of each.
---
"[This is perfect. I have always fought with these kinds of cards. You say that I have lost the moment I was dealt? It's just the same as always!]"
#49LobsterDandyPosted 5/3/2012 5:22:04 PM
If they're bringing back the Vance, it would be fine if a feat gave you something for roleplaying, something for noncombat, and something for combat.
---
I believe in Artemis Hound & John Magnum
The heroes 215 deserve.
#50Baruch_SPosted 5/3/2012 6:43:54 PM(edited)
That's decent. I think it might be more workable to just divide feats into combat and utility, and give people some number of each.

That's not a bad idea either. They could split the feats into categories (combat, exploration, and roleplaying since they seem set on those pillars) and give you two feats each level with the restriction that you can only spend one feat per category per level. That would allow for a lot more customization and focus than would feats with multiple effects that may or may not mesh with your character concept.
---
I once dug a pit and filled it with clouds...or was it clowns.... come to think of it, it began to smell... must have been clowns...
White FC 0260 9873 0859