Author Topic: Criticism of a random inflamatory D&D blog  (Read 497 times)

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1951
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Criticism of a random inflamatory D&D blog
« on: August 03, 2017, 07:30:09 PM »
https://www.livingdice.com/7729/ten-dumb-things-dd-wont-change/

  • Attribute mods: He wants the math to be more complex. No seriously. You can remove them, but then you have fractions rather than integers. Or your can double everything. It's like he doesn't consider how to change this. I suppose he's welcome to show us how its done and do all the re-balancing work, though. I won't hold my breath.
  • Wizard spells: Fluff is mutable. Is the spell prepared spell or not? Neeeeeeext
  • Monks: 5e problems compared to the 5th tier 3e class.
  • Saves: You mean the defenses after position, AC, SR, and immunities?
  • AC: armor & shield boni can instead boost DR. Yes, DR should apply to all damage. He got this one right. :)
  • Annoying Deaths: He wants permadeath. Okay. But most folks around here say that death means a reroll, since that "annoyance" makes you poorer and more likely to die again even more. He seems to have a problem with mechanics he hasn't fully considered the reprecussions of. Perhaps he's more worried about maintaining fluff, despite high level casters being rare, much less peasants being able to afford 5k all at once.
  • Too many casters: Well, yes 3e is caster edition. But the solution is to nerf them, not somehow conglomerate all of their power into one giant monolith. Won't somebody please think of the balance? He is correct that the prepared vs spontaneous division is down awkwardly. Again, the solution is to nerf the higher powered one so that prepared can't prepare more than one of the same spell. Then it simply becomes "lots:1/each" vs "few:SPAM-SPAM-SPAM!" Simple. But he's wrong about paladins and rangers being forced to be casters (See CW ACFs) and that the spell lists are the same with bards. Although casters do need nerfs, I'll again point out that I've balanced them simply and relatively quickly without ham-handed bans.
  • Power Gaming: because races are where all the power is? Lol. Anyway does ya want racial customization, or not? If you do, there will be more powerful combinations than others. By the way, dwarf druids are more powerful than, say, half-elf ones. So, yes, I do want a dwarf druid, for sure. Unless humans are on the table. They are the "other" best core race. Its a toss up between them when it comes to druids. As a minmaxer I'm doing exactly what he said I wouldn't (in core only), but maybe he has been called stupid many times before...
  • Alignment: LOL. Spoken like a true neutral. I think he's proving the point about humans' general alignment in D&D. It's like terrorists blowing up people to prove how peaceful their philosophies are.  :banghead Extra points for sounding like a comic book villian.
  • Magic items: aren't made nearby. They come from planes people haven't even heard of. There's just ferried into somewhere nearby. I know it sounds crazy, unless you've ever been to a retail store ever in your life. Anyways his numbers about magic items versus GDP is way off. Eventually a party will get there, in which case you won't be "plucky adventurers" saving little kingdoms anymore. They'd be teleporting to their cushy hide out, wearing their rings of sustanence. He's just plain wrong about having to sell items to upgrade them (see MIC rules). Again, he's off about how much a solid silver castle would actually be appraised at. This is what happens when you don't take ranks in appraise.  :P

"Chris Tavares Dias is the literary equivalent of that crusty burnt cheese at the bottom of the fondue pot." Also after most of the comments disagreed, he closed them. Extra lol.

Offline Samwise

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of a random inflamatory D&D blog
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2017, 02:03:01 PM »
1. Not really.
He is both wrong about "every" numeric increase giving you "something" in the "old days", as well as mistaking a deliberate feature for a flaw in rolling a linear probability against a bell curve generated base, particularly when said bell curve generated base has been replaced by a variable point buy base.
However, other than having to be careful in rewriting the rules, there is nothing inherently absurd about replacing the ability scores with the modifiers and just going from there. Instead of rolling against an ability score, which I'm not sure even happens anymore, you would roll against a static DC 10 with the modifier, and the whole thing would be a near statistical wash.
As it happens, I noted something quite similar myself in respect to supplanting damage ranges with "average" damage results as "4th" edition progressed.

2. In this case you are way too kind. This is JUST the anti-Vancian rant yet again. Never mind no original solution, he doesn't even have an original complaint.

3. For this the problem goes deeper.
He whines specifically about "high fantasy", casually handwaving past any consideration of whether people want their D&D to actually be high fantasy, and gratuitously bypassing the relatively low-fantasy Thomas Convenant books which very prominently featured mundane martial artists. (It is difficult to quantify that series as high or low fantasy. It normally proceeds as low, but the background and villain are high and beyond.) But guess what? When those mundane martial artists come up against the high end mystical threats they suddenly wind up with crises of effectiveness when they realize they can't punch colons up through throats, and so can't really hang and bang with the big boys.

4. The Save or Die argument combined with the Active or Passive Defense argument combined with the Who Should Roll argument.
But he cannot be bothered to even address them all in a functional manner.

5. Not really.
He conflates protection against being burned by brushing up against something hot with actual protective clothing worn by firefighters with the impact and piercing protection of armor, completely forgetting that people, you know, die from heat stroke while wearing armor, but it should absolutely protect you from being burned even as your breastplate turns into a pressure cooker.
He struggles to make a Realist vs Simulationist argument, but falls far short.
Oh, and "increased complexity".

6. He wants to ignore how attitudes about the game have changed without seeming to be aware of them. Not particularly impressive.

7. No, he is complaining more the number of caster classes, not how many people want to be casters. He wants to reduce all spell slingers to wizards and druids, and everyone else gets to run around being mundane. Apparently customization can only be for spear fodder.

8. More than that. See above where he wanted to reduce the number of caster classes? Yeah. He doesn't seem to realize that by cutting out such variants he is actually contributing to the stereotyping that he despises because he wants such limited potential.
Likewise he also wants to handwave any sense of distinction between races. After all, if an orc can be as awesome a wizard as an elf, what exactly is the difference between being an orc and an elf? Fangs versus pointy ears?
That right there is the handwaving of fluff that made "4th" edition so absurd, effectively confessing that the designers had no ability to write distinctive fluff.

9. "Wah! I hate alignment! I hate fantasy archetypes! I don't care about genre!"
Wait, was I supposed to read anything else there, particularly after his previous complaints about power gaming and too many caster classes?

10. And here we get into the difference between literature and games.
As a matter of fact, I remember a book where the party went off on their quest with 2 greater artifacts, 1 lesser artifact, and 1 suit of armor worth more than a country. Along the way they picked up a few more lesser artifacts and a dozen or so magic items. They didn't buy those items, but most were custom selected for them, including the lesser artifact.
That book is of course The Lord of the Rings.
But never mind what people thought of them wandering around with such fabulous treasures, let's focus on how many peasants they could have fed with them. Even though, you know, one of the lesser artifacts was actually super-fertile magic earth that helped rebuild a country that had been devastated, enabling people to eat.

Overall, you are way too kind.
 :D

Offline Nifft

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Bad At Lurking
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of a random inflamatory D&D blog
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2017, 02:30:28 PM »
https://www.livingdice.com/7729/ten-dumb-things-dd-wont-change/

  • Wizard spells: Fluff is mutable. Is the spell prepared spell or not? Neeeeeeext

2. In this case you are way too kind. This is JUST the anti-Vancian rant yet again. Never mind no original solution, he doesn't even have an original complaint.

The best part about this one is that the blogger is somehow trying to use literary history to mock Vancian casting, as though Vancian casting had a non-literary origin.

PBMC, you are indeed too kind.

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2182
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of a random inflamatory D&D blog
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2017, 01:50:54 PM »
Just a little added perspective for point 10: I also remember a superhero story where the hero kept building newer and more powerful suits of power armour over and over and over, slowly assembling a massive collection that he eventually turned into a small autonomous army.  Each suit was obviously more powerful and expensive than the last, so that sounds exactly what he was describing.

(I'm referring to Iron Man, if you didn't guess)
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1951
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of a random inflamatory D&D blog
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2017, 10:42:55 PM »
Overall, you are way too kind.
0:)

Quote
But he cannot be bothered to even address them all in a functional manner.
:) There is something very appealing about your specific and insightful critiques.

Quote
9. "Wah! I hate alignment! I hate fantasy archetypes! I don't care about genre!"
It's successfully humorous because its true. See fu post below.

The best part about this one is that the blogger is somehow trying to use literary history to mock Vancian casting, as though Vancian casting had a non-literary origin.

PBMC, you are indeed too kind.
:D

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1951
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of a random inflamatory D&D blog
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2017, 03:10:29 PM »
Double posting to separate some thoughts on Fu:

I know that fu (especially the negative kind, hehe) has slowly gone away, but does anyone else use a boards with a more flexible system? Like, can the amount a person can give be limited by post count? Can it require quoting? Can it have delays built in so if you really want to commend someone, you have to save it and wait a day until after you've quoted the post you are commending?

Just thinking out loud.