Author Topic: Characters of War - character backgrounds  (Read 6010 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Characters of War - character backgrounds
« on: August 31, 2008, 11:45:03 AM »
So, in its long reign of taking ideas and making them worse, WotC has done it again?

Here, to be exact.

Oh yeah, and this is also very lol:

Quote from: The monkeys working at WotC

Quote from: Veekie's response
My ass, I found a significant advantage in 1 minute (Born Under a Bad Sign)

Thoughts, ideas?

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2008, 11:46:39 AM »
Auspicious Birth too, it's pretty much identical.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

Nick

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
  • Cheese plz?
    • Email
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2008, 11:48:43 AM »
4E YOU ARE PWNED !
"You'll still be living in caves."
"Hell I don't mind that."
[spoiler][/spoiler]
befriend (v.): to use mecha-class beam weaponry to inflict grievous bodily harm on a target in the process of proving the validity of your belief system.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2008, 05:42:38 PM »
God, are these people THAT dense?

Brew Potion, Enchant Magic Item, Disenchant Magic Item.  All Creation Rituals.

Now, go back and look at Imbuer and Warsmith again... that's right, you are now a wandering shopkeeper of infinity with absolutely no investment!  Seriously, those three are almost certainly the three most commonly used rituals because they're basically free.

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2008, 06:25:24 PM »
The truly hilarious bit is they actually claimed in the article itself that theres 'no significant benefits' to be found here. You have access to the most valued rituals, getting your best stat for HP so you can dump con but for number of surges and to a lesser extent, free weapon proficiency.

At least if they didn't put that line in the article they could claim an oversight.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2008, 06:30:57 PM »
Yeah, using this there's no reason to not dump Con in favor of Str, especially for characters that use Str (AoA Swordmages, TWF Rangers, Fighters, Warlords, Brutal Scoundrel Rogues, and half of all Clerics and Paladins).

Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2008, 09:40:46 PM »
God, are these people THAT dense?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Fucking 4E...

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


Alpha

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2008, 10:47:45 PM »
God, are these people THAT dense?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Fucking 4E...
*Ahem*
4e rocks.

Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2008, 10:49:25 PM »
*Ahem*
4e rocks.

No comment. Really, none at all. If you would care to quantify that utterly pointless statement with something resembling facts, then I might even address it, if I'm feeling nice today. :D

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2008, 11:37:14 PM »
God, are these people THAT dense?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Fucking 4E...

Ahem, let us amend that to something everyone agrees with. Fucking WotC...
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

Alpha

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2008, 11:41:44 PM »
*Ahem*
4e rocks.

No comment. Really, none at all. If you would care to quantify that utterly pointless statement with something resembling facts, then I might even address it, if I'm feeling nice today. :D
1. Something Resembling facts, though not mine
2. How is "I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Fucking 4E..." quantified with something resembling facts, and not utterly pointless?

Don't be a hypocrite, there are enough of those running around Gleemax.  Be evenhanded in your criticisms, at least.

Ubernoob

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
  • Happy Panda
    • Email
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2008, 12:26:23 AM »
*Ahem*
4e rocks.

No comment. Really, none at all. If you would care to quantify that utterly pointless statement with something resembling facts, then I might even address it, if I'm feeling nice today. :D
1. Something Resembling facts, though not mine
2. How is "I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Fucking 4E..." quantified with something resembling facts, and not utterly pointless?

Don't be a hypocrite, there are enough of those running around Gleemax.  Be evenhanded in your criticisms, at least.
1. Groupthink.  It happens at WotC and Enworld.  We know.  It's why we come here to actually use LOGIC.  Logic is good, y'know?  Thanks for linking yet another reason people left WotC.
2. Fail.  Epic, epic, Fail.
Ubernoob is a happy panda.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2008, 12:28:46 AM »
Okay, fair warning: I dislike 3e (including 3.5) and I don't own 4e (or intend to), so these comments are observations primarily on Sinister and WotC rather than the game system.

As a general rule of thumb, D&D works in one of two ways.

1) Its really cool so the fact it is completely implausible and has less fluff than a balding dustbunny doesn't matter.

2) It was written by a drunken lemur who got fired by the PHB (Pointy Haired Boss) for being too stupid.

Examples of the former (3.5): Swashbuckler, Duelist.

Now, okay. D&D has a setting that manages to fail at being generic fantasy because it is specifically high powered, high magic, active gods, good and evil are absolutes and not for being argued with, and it has sixteen quasi-human like races...elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins, gnomes, hobb...halflings, etc.

So the question is: Does this fit into the setting?

Well, when we don't have anything resembling examples of how it fits into either Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms in Complete Warrior, then I would say that if it does, they carefully avoided showing us how, because of the traditional strategy of lazy game companies: "It's up to the GM! We're going to give you as little instruction as possible because you can change any rule you want to! Isn't that awesome?"

Blegh. Can't we at least have it stated how a rapier would come to exist in a world where being able to penetrate armor (not that D&D handles that even remotely well) would be vital in order to survive? A rapier is barely useful against maille, and that's virtually "please hurt me." Versus say, dragons? It's useless. Its completely and totally undesigned to do that. And please spare me the "It's fantasy!!!!!" arguement.

Moving on.

2) What in the name of the Holy Emperor's chest hair is up with the Kensai? I mean, no, really. Its a wonderful concept. Doesn't have much fluff, but I can come up with individual characters it fits reasonably well.

But the mechanics are completely deranged.

Okay. First off.

Its a warrior class.

It has an average base attack bonus progression? Whaaaa?

And then there's ki projection, which fits someone who has "devoted his strength and his life to a master or ideal that he accepts as greater than himself." like a ball gown fits an ogre.

Maybe worse.

So, yeah. This is the company that made 4e.

As to Sinister...

I know Sinister, and whatever else is true about him, not all of it confidence inspiring, he's honest. In fact, that's the problem.

I'm sure there's some way that one might be able to enjoy 4e without having a brain the size of a walnut.

In fact, I'm sure there's a way WotC could improve on the two complaints made about D&D above.

Divine intervention, maybe.

Anyway. Read Sinister's posts and rants. View him describe how unplayable something is.

Then call him a hypocrite.

Please.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 12:46:03 AM by Elennsar »
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Alpha

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2008, 02:32:57 AM »
1. Groupthink.  It happens at WotC and Enworld.  We know.  It's why we come here to actually use LOGIC.  Logic is good, y'know?  Thanks for linking yet another reason people left WotC.
2. Fail.  Epic, epic, Fail.
1.  I'm was referring to the statements of the OP in that link, which I agree with.  I could care less how many people posted in his thread after that or who did or did not agree with him.  Dismissing his views because people at Gleemax agree with him is a fallacy, violating the very "LOGIC" you tout so highly.
2.  I thought you were going to bring some of this logic you speak of?  One person makes a bald statement denigrating 4e, and I reply with a bald statement supporting 4e, yet criticizing my post solely for that is not hypocritical?

Some stuff, notably discontent with D&D, and about Sinister.
The hypocrisy is not in his treatment of gaming systems, nor in his opinions about the game.  I respect him as an optimizer and as a fellow gamer, and I often agree with his analysis of rules and optimization.

The hypocrisy is criticizing my post as useless, while making the very same mistake he criticizes me for.  It's one thing to ridicule another for disagreement, another to ridicule the nature of their post while doing the very same thing.  I felt the need to balance out yet another "omg 4e sux" thread with a note that not all folks are discontent with 4e(and I'd say I'm hardly a fool, nor do I have a brain the size of a walnut, yet I do indeed enjoy 4e).
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 02:36:37 AM by Alpha »

Ubernoob

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
  • Happy Panda
    • Email
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2008, 02:41:13 AM »
1. Groupthink.  It happens at WotC and Enworld.  We know.  It's why we come here to actually use LOGIC.  Logic is good, y'know?  Thanks for linking yet another reason people left WotC.
2. Fail.  Epic, epic, Fail.
1.  I'm was referring to the statements of the OP in that link, which I agree with.  I could care less how many people posted in his thread after that or who did or did not agree with him.  Dismissing his views because people at Gleemax agree with him is a fallacy, violating the very "LOGIC" you tout so highly.
2.  I thought you were going to bring some of this logic you speak of?  One person makes a bald statement denigrating 4e, and I reply with a bald statement supporting 4e, yet criticizing my post solely for that is not hypocritical?
And I only read the OP.  I callz the groupthink like I see it.
Ubernoob is a happy panda.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2008, 02:56:52 AM »
Alpha, I'm going to assume you were busy and only had time for a brief scan and quick reply to my post. That's me being an optimist*.

Your post is "Um, actually, it's okay." regarding 4e.

Okay. Sinister and others have pointed out the various ways in different threads that 4e is the product of drunken frat boys who haven't seen a nipple since they were breastfed.

You then comment in this thread that it is okay. Fine.

How?

Ever since some Greek decided to listen to another Greek instead of going "OG SMASH!" and breaking his skull with a rock, the dissenter has always been under the burden of demonstrating that he has a point that those he dissents with (plural intentional, when its a personal arguement/disagreement, this does not apply)
should look at.

So, while Sinister shouldn't make his points without evidence, you saying "But I liiiiike 4e." needs to be backed up with something. And "I personally had fun with it." isn't that something. That's not the point. The point is whether or not it is broken (badly designed), not whether or not is possible to find people who can have fun naked, in the middle of the desert, in ways that can be described to children.

So yeah. Long way of saying: Okay, you think its not so bad, show us how. They've shown how it is bad.


Optimist*: As used here, an optimist is a person who willfully ignores evidence that something is negative because they believe with all their heart that it can't really be so. Its a form of idiocy, really. In this case, it means that since I don't know you, I'm hoping that my initial impression is founded on a misperception of a misinterpetation of you.

I'm also hoping that 4e doesn't have the sucking properties of a black hole. After all, good games are more fun to meddle with than bad games.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2008, 03:09:34 AM »
OK, Alpha, I will qualify my somewhat open-ended and, truthfully, rather useless statement, as requested by you. However, the evidence which you brought also needs to be addressed, because I think it brings up an important point of 4E, and DnD in general.

However, first of all, I wanna apologise if I came across as being unreasonable and trollish - this was not my intent at all, and I quite frequently make tongue-in-cheek statements such as 'Fucking 4E...', which should be familiar to people who have read the guide I am working on. Additionally, my reply to you was mainly knee-jerk, as I have too much experience with mindless 4E fanboys, and did not mean to lump you into the same category.

This guy who you linked here talks about being a "veteran". Now, 'veterancy' is a state which is given much hype in a lot of systems, simply by virtue of being there longer than everyone else. However, in fact, it doesn't mean you understand diddly-squat more about the game. Seriously. I have been with 3.5 since it came out, and quite frankly, I am constantly blown away by people who have hardly held the game for five minutes on things I simply didn't see before. To quote the Ferret of SCG fame "I have known people who have been playing since Alpha and still suck." Much the same can be said of DnD, which is actually a very confusing, complex and counter-intuitive system, known for hiding options and encouraging dumpster-diving in order to obtain massive benefits. This has been true of just about every edition, simply because DnD stubbornly refuses to evolve from a miniatures game played in mass combat.

However, DnD also possesses a massive mitigating factor in the form of the DM, who can essentially totally bar any option he deems, for whatever reason, to be non-conducive to the gaming experience of (hopefully) the group. As a result, it is easily possible to see something, make a false assumption, and then impose this on players who may not know any better. Additionally, traditionally speaking, the best options in DnD don't jump out at you screaming: no, they are sneaky and resourceful, like ninjas, and require incredible amounts of picking through and dumpster-diving in order to find. This is the whole 'mastery of the system' idea, explained here by Monte Cook. Although he claims this to be a large part of what they wanted to do with 3E, in actual fact, it has been present throughout DnD. While I cannot call specific examples, it is worth noting that in 2E and 1E, the gulf between casters and noncasters was even WIDER than it was in 3E, which honestly takes quite some achieving.

Resultantly, you can be as 'veteran' as you like and still not get squat about how the system works, simply because you might have played the game for YEARS with a set of assumptions reinforced by your group and DM while not truly encountering how the system works. This guy spouting creds does little to instil in me a belief that he understands how these systems work, and his subsequent statements only take that further.

He claims that 3E had evolved in a distended fashion, and that 4E is somehow more 'elegant'. However, you're comparing apples and oranges! The amount of material we have for 4E (or rather, how little material) is what gives this illusion, not anything else. This so-called 'elegance' is termed 'lack of accessible material'. Give 4E five years, and see if you can still make these claims. As the article I linked indicates, the 'dumpster-diving' is very much ongoing, and, with any luck, those trained drunk monkeys in WotC's R&D department will give birth to another Pun-Pun in no time.

I have never accused 4E of being either dumbed-down or simplistic. In fact, it is MORE complex than 3E ever was. The good options are even more hidden than they were in 3E. As an example, Intimidate is the deadliest weapon in a 1st level adventurer's array of abilities. Seriously, by means of a single feat, maxing out my main stat, and picking the right race, a 1st level warlock can inflict effectively 17 or more points of damage on a d20 roll of 4 or more against a bloodied opponent. If this option had been printed as the at-will ability it is, there would have been cries of outrage. However, in fact, there weren't, because this is how DnD always has worked, and continues to work. If the 'elegance' that this man claims 4E possesses is making good options clear and discouraging the 'pile of rule supplements', it certainly fails at both ALREADY.

In order to reinforce my point further, I deeply encourage people to read the guide to clerics in my sig. Veekie and I, with notable assistance from DemonLord57, have spent weeks going through all the stuff required to be useful. Yes, not good. USEFUL. 4E requires GREATER levels of optimisation to avoid totally sucking. While 3E could at least mitigate this craziness to some extent, in 4E, if you don't opt using high-level theory, you simply suck at what you do, and reduce combats to long slogs of circle-sucking. Locating optimal options no longer requires optimising as a character - it requires optimising your own party, and far, far further than 3E ever called for. Quite honestly, the levels of dumpster-diving and number-processing required to make an efficient (not optimal - efficient) character in 4E exceed 3E by several orders of magnitude.

Furthermore, 4E's systems are not elegant at all. Classes frequently do not fall into the roles they are described at all (the warlock, for instance, is not a striker at all, despite all attempts to be such), subsystems within the game totally fail (the skill challenge rules, which actually discourage teamwork and increase the own-suck dichotomy), some options are so ridiculous that there is no reason NOT to take them (divine whoracle, I'm looking at you), and in general, it is still easily possible to push an optimal character right off the RNG without even trying very hard. To add to this, the disconnect between crunch and fluff in 4E is greater than it ever has been, and as a result, flavour builds get hurt more, whereas the opts who work mechanics-up get more advantages than ever. Furthermore, the system is pervasive with sameness - everything seems to operate identically, and the variation in effects is so minor as to be irrelevant. Toss in the fact that solo monsters as written as insanely, terribly stupid and require combat tedium into irrelevance, and perhaps you can see that no, 4E is not elegant.

Now, I don't want to devolve this into a rant, so if you would like to address this, Alpha, please open another thread, preferably not on this sub-forum, where we can discuss this without derailment.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 03:17:48 AM by Mister_Sinister »

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


PhoenixInferno

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2008, 03:18:01 AM »
1) I don't see why Alpha, or anyone who likes 4E (myself included), should have to justify himself.  Not all statements are meant to be made to convince others of the "correctness" of their belief.
2) Having fun with the system is certainly necessary AND sufficient for a person to like a system.  Ultimately, nothing else matters when it comes to game play.

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2008, 03:23:53 AM »
1) I don't see why Alpha, or anyone who likes 4E (myself included), should have to justify himself.  Not all statements are meant to be made to convince others of the "correctness" of their belief.
2) Having fun with the system is certainly necessary AND sufficient for a person to like a system.  Ultimately, nothing else matters when it comes to game play.

Quite, Sinister didn't claim the system was not fun or something though, just that it's flawed in plenty of ways. I think this is to a large part the fault of WotC's own hype, they could hardly live up to it.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Characters of War - character backgrounds
« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2008, 03:25:41 AM »
1) If Alpha wants to say "Hey, guys, its not that bad." he at least needs to say why for those who don't feel like paying lots of money for the new system (but have heard of it and want to know what it is like). I mean, why not stick with 3e (out of familarity if nothing else)?

If he personally likes it and wants to say so just as "hey, I like it.", that's fine...but it would still be nice to know what about it. In his words, not someone else's. What makes him like it?

2) The problem is that you can have fun with a system you think is a festering pile of crap (my views, uninfluenced by Sinister and all even, on 3e/3.5) if you're playing with people you like. As such, you might well think "this game (session) isn't so bad." even if you don't want to play the game itself.

Besides. A good roleplaying game involves roleplaying...how you play it is up to you, but the game system should be about that kind of stuff, just like a trading card game should be about cards and chess should be about strategy.

D&D has a long standing tradition of being about being of nothing of the sort. And when Cook says that some options were intentionally made to look cool but not be that good, that indicates the designers don't get it.

This is a game where we're supposed to play characters who are all of roughly even levels of power so that everyone is equally capable of contributing when the party faces a challenge.

D&D fails at that too.

So "I had fun!" is not sufficient to be a good or even decent system. Not with those two glarring flaws left over from when Gary Gygax first said "You enter the dungeon, what do you do?"
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.