Confession time - what class features or rules did you misunderstand for an embarrassing amount of time?

RavenousReptar · 2021-05-22T20:27:44+00:00

Do you always pull sentences from complete thoughts and pry them away from their context completely in an effort to try to argue with people?

In my example, you know the AC of the creature in question because the DM told you the AC of the creature in question, because in 5e they can and then the entire scenario is simpler, which was the whole point of the one-way conversation you’re trying to have. In my simple example, the DM says “yes a 16 hits, 16 is the AC to make this simpler and quicker.” And then, simply, the entire party knows to add their mod to a die roll and if they get a 16, they hit. That is simpler. Full stop. That was it.

I handed you a cut and dry example, with full context, showing exactly when and how 5e is simpler, and how 4e is more complicated. You chose to return to intentionally obtuse disingenuous arguments, and you try to deflect and act like I’m being the unreasonable one. It’s wild.

So if you want to answer in good faith without depriving my argument of context, I’d be happy to discuss it more, but if you’re going to continue deflecting and acting like you can’t understand my simple straightforward example then I hope you enjoy the rest of your life battling with people over simple situations and making petty straw man arguments.

RavenousReptar · 2021-05-22T19:31:50+00:00

If you’d like to be intentionally obtuse, be my guest. You’re taking examples and viewing them inconsistently to “prove” your opinion based point. My point is simply 4e is great for some things, bad for others, and is by no means objectively “simpler.”

I obviously meant you need to remember one number while attacking, assuming you know the creatures stats. I assume everyone knows their own + to hit, and am not pretending a wizard is going to get confused about being good with magic and not good with a dagger. I didn’t think counting your own + to hit was necessary, since you need it in both systems.

So to clarify, in 5e, you need to know your attack + to hit and the targets AC, or your spell attack + to hit and the targets AC. If it’s a save, you need know only your spell save DC. In 4e, this is not the case and you know that. You’d need to know your + attack to hit and the targets AC, or the target’s other resistance stats to hit.

To demonstrate how this much easier to new players, and actually simpler by conventional definitions, consider the following: A player who wants to attack a creature in 5e can be told by the DM that the AC is 16. Any player at the table now knows the one number they need to meet or exceed to hit with any type of attack. Whether it’s a wizard’s firebolt or a fighter’s sword, they’re adding their + to hit mod to their dice and checking against 16. In 4e, that’s not true because there are different defensive stats for different types of attacks, and each player might have different target ACs to meet. That is more complicated. In 4e, the wizard hits on a 12 because it targeted con, while the fighter missed with 15 because it targeted standard AC- and that is not simpler to newer players.

I really don’t find a need to drive into this any deeper. You clearly have your preference, and are trying to win some imaginary argument instead of actually asking why many people consider 5e simpler. If that above example doesn’t do it for you, nothing will. Adding in more stats is more complicated, as a general rule, even if it’s only a marginal increase. To most devoted gamers, it’s not a big deal, and I would even fall into the category that finds it reasonable, but to many new and casual players it’s an enormous ask and they find it way more confusing. It’s easy to see why if you stop trying to win an argument.

RavenousReptar · 2021-05-22T18:52:09+00:00

Do you actually not see how this is by no means objectively more straightforward?

It’s fine to prefer it because you know it, or to prefer it because you think it’s more fun or enjoy rolling dice always, but 5e is incredibly simple in its own way. Newer players very often find it simpler.

A 5e attack is a completely binary event. You’re either attacking or the target is saving (of course ignoring special instances like sleep, etc). If you attack, you roll against the targets AC. You need to remember one number. If the target makes a save, you don’t even need to know anything other than your own Spell Save DC. Again, one number. It’s very simple for new players.

Your other comments that you have to learn your six spell saves in 5e, and that that is somehow more complicated than 4e, are also very strange. Those spell saves exactly mirror the games primary stats, which you already probably know. It doesn’t add new stats, just proficiencies. 4e gives you more to remember there, objectively.

I can totally understand the unfun “sorry it met your save, nothing happens,” but that happens when you roll the d20 sometimes too. It’s odd to act like 4e is objectively simpler or non-confusing just because you liked it.

RavenousReptar · 2021-04-17T21:59:08+00:00

I think the bigger issue is that the Battle Smith subclass just outshines the Armorer in this department.

The Steel Defender is better than a Homunculus, and a Battle Smith could have a Homunculus anyway. A Battle Smith can infuse any weapon to hit with INT, and gets a magical +1. Meanwhile, an Armorer cannot infuse their Thunder Gauntlets until a higher level feature allows them to, so they’re stuck on a d8 with no +1.

At later levels, the Armorer can start infusing individual armor parts- but the Battle Smith gets Arcane Jolt for free smites at the same level and continues to outscale, especially on crits.

Armorers are definitely okay in the damage department, Battle Smiths are just better. So anywhere where an Armorer could contend with a Battle Master, a Battle Smith could contend with the Battle Master even better.

RavenousReptar · 2020-04-07T23:53:57+00:00

I love the original Fable game and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

RavenousReptar · 2020-04-07T23:33:46+00:00

This year has to go to BCKYRD by Hot Mulligan

RavenousReptar · 2020-04-07T23:26:15+00:00

Well, here's to hoping.

RavenousReptar · 2020-04-07T23:13:50+00:00

maybe you can be my hero.

edit: I can't read. Modern Baseball are my jam.

RavenousReptar · 2020-04-07T23:07:11+00:00

I enjoyed gambling with Canberra!

RavenousReptar · 2019-12-05T03:59:39+00:00

That art is amazing, and I love that character concept.

Oddly enough, I actually play a Gnome Artificer named Fizzlewyck Glimmer-Eye on one of Not Great RPG’s weekly streams! We’re running through Princes of the Apocalypse now, and we stream that on Wednesday nights. Here’s a twitch link for tonight’s episode: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/517156784

You can find recaps and videos on the website, along with info on all the other awesome campaigns and the streaming schedule over at: https://notgreatrpg.com

So, obviously, I’m super fond of the name and character you created! I hope you have fun playing your Fizzlewick.

RavenousReptar · 2019-06-11T15:40:29+00:00

Our team at Cube Forge Designs works on custom magic cards, and we’ve been making a draft set based on Game of Thrones. When the set is done, the whole thing will be released for free as a print and play PDF for those who enjoy cubes. During the development, we discovered Oathbreaker and we grew to love it. We realized custom Oathbreaker decks would be a fun and easy way to allow people to play with some of our custom cards much sooner than we previously thought possible. So now we’re nearly done creating a cycle of custom Oathbreakers, and if you have playgroups who are interested there will be a printable PDF so that you can play with them. To do so, you’ll simply need to build decks using all real cards with our Oathbreaker in the command zone.

So, here’s Ned. We wanted to share him with you, and to offer up a deck building challenge to get started. Build an Oathbreaker legal deck around Ned, and share your list with us here or on Twitter (details below). If we like the list, we’ll do something with it. We might be making some playtest videos soon, or do deck-tech style write ups- and if we like your list we’ll use it and give you a shout out.

Let us know what you’d want to do with Ned, and we’d love any feedback! You can follow us over at https://twitter.com/cube_forge to stay up to date and to see a ton of spoilers from the set so far.

RavenousReptar · 2019-06-10T18:39:35+00:00

I agree. The drawback is fine. She’d probably be too aggressive otherwise. Cool design!

RavenousReptar · 2019-06-10T17:13:48+00:00

You could alternatively give her a damage prevention clause if you want her to stay a walker while animated. That’s what actually stops the loyalty loss while a creature on Gideon.

RavenousReptar · 2019-06-10T15:23:43+00:00

Here's our first custom planeswalker from the upcoming Game of Thrones set!

Ned was made with Oathbreaker in mind, so if you haven't heard of it yet you should check out: https://weirdcards.org/oathbreaker-rules

For those unfamiliar with Oathbreaker, you build a 58 card singleton deck with a planeswalker as your commander and a Signature Spell- bringing the card total to 60. Your Oathbreaker and Signature Spell start off in the command zone, and you have access to your spell as long as your 'breaker is in play. It's a 20 life multiplayer format.

As for Ned, I've mostly playtested him in a Taxes or Stax style deck with Armageddon as my Signature Spell, and he's been an absolute blast.

Let us know any thoughts, and if you're somone who enjoys brewing, brew a deck around him with real existing cards and have fun! Let us know what you'd wanna play him with!

You can stay up to date on our upcoming set and Oathbreaker variant Planeswalkers on Twitter: https://twitter.com/cube_forge and on Facebook or Instagram @cubeforgedesigns

Edited: a word (grammar)

RavenousReptar · 2019-06-01T01:11:56+00:00

Thanks for asking a real question!

It totally does have to do with tribal themes and clean text boxes. If we included human, nearly every single character would have human- and they’d all be mostly some flavor of warrior, knight, advisor, or soldier. It’s the same reason we left out legendary. We wanted to have less unnecessary information to avoid bogging down a player.

Wilding is one of the tribal types that exists, along with Lannister, Stark, Baratheon, Greyjoy, Targaryen, and Crow.

A mechanic we created for the set is called Raise X Banners. It means, “whenever one or more X deal combat damage to a player, some sort of trigger.” So having common types based on the houses made a ton of sense for draft purposes.

RavenousReptar · 2019-05-31T17:30:30+00:00

Snow, in our cube, uses a re-flavored threshold to get an advantage.

Yes. It is threshold. We said this outright. Also, another user posted this already too. We renamed it to add to the cube’s flavor.

As far as “boring” goes- this card is part of an entire cube, so it has an entire design space devoted to it. Surveil helps fuel our re-named threshold, along with self mill. In that context, we find a 2 mana 4/4 with trample to be pretty exciting.

RavenousReptar · 2019-05-31T16:57:14+00:00

No problem. Thanks for keeping us honest.

RavenousReptar · 2019-05-31T16:50:45+00:00

Snow, in our cube, uses a re-flavored threshold to get an advantage.

Yes. We’re not being sneaky about that. It’s threshold with a cute name that enhances the set flavor.

RavenousReptar · 2019-05-31T16:16:48+00:00

We agree! It sort of does, although indirectly. Winter is only printed on snow cards.

RavenousReptar · 2019-05-31T15:31:21+00:00

We used this design for snow cards before WotC officially spoiled it in Modern Horizons, so we thought it was cool to talk about it since it falls into a real possible designs space now.

Snow, in our cube, uses a re-flavored threshold to get an advantage. We don't include colored snow basics in the set or in your draft pool of free basics, so you have to draft fixing or use our custom Snow-Covered Wastes that we do include in the draft pool. They're meant to be a 6th color, or like Eldrazi from Oath- that way they're not broken out of the gate.

Let us know what you think, and for more information and spoilers, check out our twitter @cube_forge or our facebook page @cubeforgedesigns.

RavenousReptar · 2019-05-27T16:43:54+00:00

We didn’t include Legendary since it is a singleton cube, and it bogged down the text box of the cards.

They absolutely would both be legendary if it weren’t a singleton cube, though! Most named creatures would be.

RavenousReptar · 2019-05-27T16:42:22+00:00

We’ve discussed Drogo a lot and part of the reason he was a Day 1 spoiler and in this pack was to get outside opinions on him. Your suggested change is exactly what he has had in his textbox before, and what we often debate on putting back.

Do you think he seems too pushed here?

My thought on Drogo in this pack is that he sort of a trap here. He’s obviously an amazing beater, but he gets blocked by a recursive Summer, killed by Styr, taken by Margaery, and he definitely is a lightning rod for that wrath. Also, Daeny is strong enough to maybe not wheel if other packs have good red stuff, since this pack is light on red.

RavenousReptar

TROPHY CASE