Spoony reviews 5e

[Tengu_temp]

Now, I must say I'm not a very big fan of 5e (but not a very big hater either), and I usually like Spoony. However, his approach to RPGs is sometimes embarassingly grognardy, and he's completely disattached from the community (this is a man who thought 3e wasn't a popular edition, for ****'s sake). And that shows in this video like nowhere else; watch as he hates on 5e for all the wrong reason! Observe as he complains wizards dealing 1d12 damage as an at-will ability are overpowered, or that the game is dumbed down because there's not enough fiddling with dozens of tiny modifiers!

Language warning, also very long videos:
http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-dd-5th-edition-review-part-1/
http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-dd-5th-edition-review-part-2/

Enjoy, and comment.

[Theodoxus]

Dude needs to cut his hair. Not that I have a thing against long hair - but I do have a problem with him fighting with his locks throughout the video. Looks greasy and very unappealing.

As for the review... meh. I get it, he hates it. Not sure why anyone would rant that long - if you don't care, move on. I think the dude doth protest too much.

[SaintRidley]

Anyone care to summarize beyond what Tengu said? I couldn't make it past the first minute.

[Tengu_temp]

Well, I should specify he makes one good point; 5e halflings do look freaky.

[pwykersotz]

Half an hour into part 1. He has made the following points:

His book smells funky.
He only likes about 60% of the art.
He believes that the only reason that Drow are in the game is because of Drizz't based on the description.
Dragonborn's introduction in Faerun in 4e was forced and badly written.
Halflings and Gnomes have freakish proportions.

[HorridElemental]

One thing I fins funny is how people think simplifying something means you are dumbing it down. As my groups tend to say...

Which is dumber and which is simpler...

4+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2

Or

4 + 2*20

All editions of D&D are the first except for 5e, it is the most simplified version yet isn't dumb at all.

You can like or hate simplification all you want but that doesn't mean it was dumbed down.

[obryn]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds Spoony rambly, uninformed, and uninformative.


Half an hour into part 1. He has made the following points:

His book smells funky.
He only likes about 60% of the art.
He believes that the only reason that Drow are in the game is because of Drizz't based on the description.
Dragonborn's introduction in Faerun in 4e was forced and badly written.
Halflings and Gnomes have freakish proportions.
I mean, that's like 5 minutes of discussion if you're dragging it out.

[Theodoxus]

Anyone care to summarize beyond what Tengu said? I couldn't make it past the first minute.

"Rawr - art is disgusting! except these pics I'm gonna show, which are awesome... oh, except whomever painted the gnomes and halflings. wtf - that guy needs to be destroyed!"

"I'm gonna talk about a lot of 4th Ed stuff that has nothing to do with 5th ed, to show that this isn't 4th ed. Oh, and I hate elves, especially eladrin, oh and the dragonborn."

"I'm gonna rant on half-orcs because reasons for 5 minutes."

"Tieflings and drow are standard races! Omg, unbalanced! They're so powerful... ooh, shiny! I mean, dragonlance! I'm gonna monologue off tangent into what race examples from books were included... Where's Tasselhoff?!?"

"Drow are only in because of Drizz't... you can't play drow unless you have an EXTREMELY good backstory... or you're Drizz't. All hail the fanboyism!"

"I have a halfling foot fetish. OMG."

"They borrowed things from other games! How can they not be original?!? Race relations sidebar straight from White Wolf."

"There's no references to what classes are; how are noobies ever going to learn what they're supposed to do!?"

"I'm reading the paladin intro like a JCrew commercial. It's terrible! The whole thing is terrible. Just sucked. I'm going to see how the 2nd ed book talks about the paladin.. only talk about the art some more... Paladins are dorks! The 5th ed paladin looks angry and not holy! Finally get around to reading the 2nd ed description."

"Disgruntled scoffing of the description - I can't play the paladin like in 3rd ed; as a Lawful Stupid Stick Up Ass; there's no description of a code of honor - because I didn't read the whole class, but expect everything to be in the first paragraph."

"What's a gnome? A lawn gnome? Noobies won't know what these things are!!! Oh noes!"

"Why not use Bilbo ****ing Baggins as an example of a halflng!?! Is it because they don't have the license?" Yes, yes it is.

And that's the first 40 minutes, and I can't handle his retarded ways.

Really folks, do us all a favor - if you're going to vlog a critique of anything 1) Research your **** - you look like a fool when you're flipping through source material to find something you hate, only to stop 8 times and say 'this is really cool, but wait til you see the crap!' 2) Don't post your first take. Practice. Get your queues down, know what you're going to say, bookmark the important part, and don't monologue from disjointed point to disjointed part. 3) Know your audience. Anyone who's following you isn't going to be a noobie to what you're talking about. Anyone who links your vlog to appropriate forums also isn't a noobie to what you're talking about. Get to the point and stay on point. 4) Get a damn haircut, don't touch your face, certainly don't pick (or scratch) your nose on camera. You're perpetuating the greasy basement dwelling stereotype and it's not cool.

Thanks for the 45 minutes I'll never get back.

[EdokTheTwitch]

Honestly, I am a huge fan of Spoony. He has some amazing videos about D&D, Vampire, Shadowrun, and so on. But, he is obviously far from an optimizer. And I know, this site is completely correct, damage is rarely even that relevant, but, nevertheless, he is one of the "casuals", rules-vise (damage is op, clerics should heal, nobody can fly most of the time...). Therefore, when looking at the 5th, he only saw the things a casual player could see.

But, he does make some good points, if he didn't misread it. (I'm too lazy to look it up) Like, a Wizard being able to cast in a plate, if he multiclasses, kinda sounds weird. Next, the art really is a bit random, especially in the Small races department. And lastly, I agree with him that they could have been clearer with the race and class descriptions. The 3-4 paragraph intro explains nothing, most of the time.

His greatest downfall, IMO, is that he is still too much in love with AD&D. Every single one of his complaints was about something different from his favorite edition. (Wizards having too many spells... well, more than 1; death rules, though I agree that it's not the same chances for a CON 8 and a CON 18 guy, Drow shouldn't be a player race). As he himself put it, they cleaned up his messy room, made it have more sense, but he preferred it in chaos, because it was his chaos.

Honestly, he's a great storyteller. Listen to his other stories (I recommend the Thieve's World campaign), he really knows how to create, and maintain a campaign. But, all in all, he's simply a casual player, and there's nothing wrong with it

[EdokTheTwitch]

Wow... I can't believe how negative you guys got, so fast...
He does ramble, that's certain, but that's just the way he does things. Not sure how anyone thinks it's ok to be mad about that. His Vlog about the X-men movie was LONGER than the movie. And, as he put it: If you don't like it, DO NOT watch it.

I never expected such anger about someones opinion.... Well, at least on this forum

[Theodoxus]

Honestly, I am a huge fan of Spoony. He has some amazing videos about D&D, Vampire, Shadowrun, and so on. But, he is obviously far from an optimizer. And I know, this site is completely correct, damage is rarely even that relevant, but, nevertheless, he is one of the "casuals", rules-vise (damage is op, clerics should heal, nobody can fly most of the time...). Therefore, when looking at the 5th, he only saw the things a casual player could see.

But, he does make some good points, if he didn't misread it. (I'm too lazy to look it up) Like, a Wizard being able to cast in a plate, if he multiclasses, kinda sounds weird. Next, the art really is a bit random, especially in the Small races department. And lastly, I agree with him that they could have been clearer with the race and class descriptions. The 3-4 paragraph intro explains nothing, most of the time.

His greatest downfall, IMO, is that he is still too much in love with AD&D. Every single one of his complaints was about something different from his favorite edition. (Wizards having too many spells... well, more than 1; death rules, though I agree that it's not the same chances for a CON 8 and a CON 18 guy, Drow shouldn't be a player race). As he himself put it, they cleaned up his messy room, made it have more sense, but he preferred it in chaos, because it was his chaos.

Honestly, he's a great storyteller. Listen to his other stories (I recommend the Thieve's World campaign), he really knows how to create, and maintain a campaign. But, all in all, he's simply a casual player, and there's nothing wrong with it


Casual or not, doing a vlog and doing the things I pointed out (or not doing them, specifically) only hurts his image. Dude could be the christ of gaming, and I'm not gonna go back to his website because he's not willing to take the time to do them halfway decently. He started off talking about spending the money people sent him - so he obviously cares; if only he showed he cared.

[EdokTheTwitch]

Well, yeah, he does care... Just in a different way than other people
That's the way he does things, all the time. Reads things from the book, improvises 2-3 hour long videos, and goes off on approximately 5 tangents every 20 minutes.
And that has it's audience, as proven by him still maintaining his site

*Note: Not trying to argue, just presenting my opinion

[pwykersotz]

Finished part 1. His other points were:

The paladin doesn't give you a solid grasp on the concept within the first 2 paragraphs, and he compares it unfavorably to the first two paragraphs of 2e.
He believes it's confusing to brand new gamers.
2e books were badly organized and are not perfect.
Pathfinder rocks.
There are too many spells usable in 5e (such as infinite cantrips, he picked on Poison Spray).
A ton of content has been slashed, making it vague and cryptic.
He prefers the battle grid to theater of the mind.

I won't be watching part 2 tonight, as I have a 5e game to play. :smallsmile:
Maybe I'll get to it tomorrow.

[rlc]

so basically, this guy i've never heard of before in my life isn't worth caring about. gotcha.

[Sir_Leorik]

so basically, this guy i've never heard of before in my life isn't worth caring about. gotcha.

He's the Spoony One! Of course his opinion matters. Somewhat. Look, he was fantastic in To Boldly Flee!

Look, Noah has issues, but when he's got his head together he is an amazing reviewer of video games and tabletop RPGs.

[Mr.Moron]

Something weird about that review can't 100% put my finger on it. I dunno why but somehow that guy gives off the a creepy vibe. Like he'd be that guy in the game whose always interacting with the female characters just bit outside everyones comfort zone. If I work up the energy maybe I'll watch part 2 and get some insight. It's kind of long-winded too, a lot of just filler words.

[Theodoxus]

Well, yeah, he does care... Just in a different way than other people
That's the way he does things, all the time. Reads things from the book, improvises 2-3 hour long videos, and goes off on approximately 5 tangents every 20 minutes.
And that has it's audience, as proven by him still maintaining his site

*Note: Not trying to argue, just presenting my opinion

I was probably too harsh. I'm getting a bit long in the tooth to listen to people flit from point to point when they haven't had time to properly consume the content of their current fixation. His style isn't one I enjoy. I'm glad he has found success with people who do.

That said, I find it curious why he'd delve into 5th ed if PF is his preferred system. Did he feel obligated because of his audience? Kinda sad, that given his very obvious dislike of the new book, and his unwillingness to either read, or at the very least, not report on, the issues he is taking offense with (because really, ACF doesn't actually need to be a thing, and casters swapping out crossbows (boring!) for cantrips (genius - and something PF already did, though with less damage)) makes him look sad.

Every critique he had, has a codified reason, in the book. It's disingenuous of him to point out the 'flaws' of the differences without addressing their meaning within the context of the new game itself. As has been bashed into our brains on these very boards - this isn't a refluffing or core improvement to 3.x, it's a new game that needs to be taken as a whole. Comparing the two isn't overly productive; though again, I'm not absolutely certain that taking elements of 5th ed and porting them down to 3.x is game breaking or hazardous. But whatever. Shock jockery is alive and well.

[Sir_Leorik]

That said, I find it curious why he'd delve into 5th ed if PF is his preferred system.

Spoony's a (quasi-)professional game reviewer. Whether he likes the game or not, he felt he had to review it. Whether it was a fair review, is a separate matter...

[Vitruviansquid]

This is probably the worst review of anything I've ever seen for which I'm the intended audience.

He rambles, he looks things up during the video (despite having read over the book and made notes), and he makes these awful non-points about "this book doesn't show me what a dwarf is despite telling me what dwarves want, and how dwarves think" or "This old DnD book is messy, but it's great because I'm personally familiar with this mess."

It pretty much boggled my mind when he referred to the notes he made, because his presentation was so scattered and his points were either so nonsensical or so poorly articulated that I have a hard time believing he prepared anything at all for this video.

edit: But yes, the gnomes and halflings are super gross.

[Sir_Leorik]

The main problem I have with Spoony's review is that he hasn't played a single session of 5E yet. He openly admits as much. He'd never review a video game based on reading the instruction manual, so why couldn't he get some friends together and run a single session before recording the review? :smallconfused:

[Caelic]

I do, however, completely agree with him on the halfling art. The halfling racial picture looks like a constipated Cabbage Patch Kid.

[Hazuki]

Oh no! The ad hominem attacks! They're too much! Ahhhhhhhhh!

Oh, and FYI; the review is meant for people who haven't purchased 5E yet. He said as much in his Twitter (Though I get why many wouldn't be aware of that), and it's a big part of why I'm watching it.

I think he made some good points. Art is creepy, too much fluff, Drow shouldn't be a standard race, unrecognizable iconics... Cantrips seem OP on the face, compared to what I'm used to, but maybe the system is balanced for that. Then again, maybe not, if the playerbase I'll be joining is filled with so much hatred.

[obryn]

Cantrips seem fine, compared to the rest of the system.

It means your magic dudes don't need crossbows. That's it.

[Scirocco]

*points out that halflings and gnomes have always been creepy*

[da_chicken]

I made it about 10-15 minutes into part 2 before giving up. Too much rambling (which is typical of Spoony) and too many points that were just, well, wrong.

I don't get how he can hate on 3e (which he's done more often in other videos (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-the-conga-line-of-death/)), hate on 5e, but absolutely love PF. Seriously the distance between these three games is ridiculously small.

I'm amused by him going off on at-will cantrips when at low level they're often outclassed by crossbows. Cantrips don't really start to compare until 5th level, and then they just keep up!

He goes off on Paladins not being well defined without realizing that Paladins don't have to be LG Knights anymore, so they can't just use the 2e definition anymore. It's a much broader defined class, so the description has to be much broader.

He always has this bizzare Sorcerer = blaster mage mentality. I never get where that's coming from. They share the same list. They ain't that different. I think he has very, very narrow definitions.

I agree about the Halfling art. I liked when they just looked like scaled down humans. They now look pretty distorted. They almost look like Kithkin, not Halflings. I mean, it's obvious when the picture is a Halfling now, but... that's not compelling enough to me.

He's right that modern gamers whine about balance too much.

I love the guy's Ultima reviews and I find his Final Fantasy deconstructions amusing. Overall, though, the guy's review style is "the 80s/90s were better" which gets tiresome after awhile. There are nuggets of truth, but they're buried behind his nostalgia goggles.

It is clear he didn't research the game before reading it, but that doesn't bother me all that much (beyond having to listen to 30 minutes on topics that are irrelevant or misinformed). It is going to be how most people who pick up the game and read it will react because they neglected to put the Bounded Accuracy article in as the foreword. I consider it nearly criminal that the game designers neglected to tell us why they designed the game. It's like they had to suspend belief that this edition was the only one that there's ever been, which is needless and stupid. New players can skip it, and old players can read it and appreciate it.

[HorridElemental]

Most of my 3.P brethren has complained about to few spells, which is why they hated the play test.

Some of them are still weary of 5e because they listen to crap like from spoony. It is one thing to not like something but to trash it on misinformation and because it is different from your favorite game is not only sad but unprofessional.

[Caelic]

He gets MAJOR points in my book for the shout-out to Skullduggery, though. He has Thom Haverstock's "I want to play the Warlock!" down pat.

[Lord Raziere]

He's right that modern gamers whine about balance too much.


In my view they don't complain about it enough to be satisfactory and thus still get exploitive imbalanced badly designed systems that should be straightened out. any imbalance could potentially ruin the fun and therefore the game.

[Caelic]

any imbalance could potentially ruin the fun and therefore the game.


...and yet, imbalanced systems continue to be successful and popular after forty years. Pathfinder is hardly balanced; it's the most successful system currently on the market. World of Darkness stuff has NEVER been balanced, and continues to have a solid following. Magic is unbalanced by design, and continues to rake in the cash after two decades.

Meanwhile, painstakingly balanced systems seem to generally come and go without making much of an impact.

Are you sure rigorously-balanced systems are what gamers in general want, Lord Raziere? I'm not.

[Vitruviansquid]

I don't really understand how someone can hate balance.

I can understand it when people say "balance shouldn't be a big priority" or "we shouldn't pursue balance when it comes at the expense of X other thing I like" (where "X" isn't "imbalance"). On its own, however, balance is a good thing. Given the simple option between having balance and not having balance, it seems obvious to me that you'd only want to have balance.

[Yorrin]

Wow, that was a lot of ranting to endure through. Basically his points boil down to "I don't like it because they made DnD too easy/tidy and took out all the math." Which is hidden in a rant about how he has mixed feelings about the art style and how he seems absolutely flabbergasted at what they did or didn't include (races, weapons, multiclassing, etc). I think Tengu's opening post got it right here- the guy is complaining about all the wrong stuff, specifically the stuff that's actually good about the edition.

[da_chicken]

I don't really understand how someone can hate balance.

I can understand it when people say "balance shouldn't be a big priority" or "we shouldn't pursue balance when it comes at the expense of X other thing I like" (where "X" isn't "imbalance"). On its own, however, balance is a good thing. Given the simple option between having balance and not having balance, it seems obvious to me that you'd only want to have balance.

It's because people tend to put game balance on a pedestal. "If only the game were balanced," they say, "it would be a perfect game." It's as if game balance were both necessary and sufficient for a good game. 4e is, in many ways, a monument to the folly of that belief. It's fantastically elegant and extremely balanced... and yet is generally regarded as a failure.

"Oh, but balance isn't the reason the game failed! It's because of X and Y and Z!"

Exactly.

If games that are balanced can fail and are discontinued, and games that are unbalanced can succeed and endure, then game balance is merely one element of game design and it's one that's significantly less important than we might think.

[Theodoxus]

Agreed, Chicken. Balance only only needs to be realized in a PvP setting. If you have a very weak class against a much stronger class, then people get very angry and demand balance, or quickly leave the game. In a non-confrontational game, balance is much less important than good mechanics and meaningful gameplay. When people realize there's no 'winning' in an TTRPG, that some classes are inherently better at moving hundreds of miles in the blink of an eye, or charming the nubile princess to come to bed with you, or slicing the ravaging beast in half than others, and are ok with it - then it's fine. Sometimes you get to play the all-powerful wizard. Sometimes you're stuck being the talky man. All have their pros and cons. All have their strengths and weaknesses.

What's funny to me, I'm one that doesn't find much satisfaction in being the all-powerful wizard type. I quickly find myself paralyzed by analysis and not wanting to spend resources now, for fear of needing them later - 5E alleviates some of that with the various recharge mechanisms available, but not enough to make me enjoy a spellcasting class. I also don't like being the talky man, as I'm fairly introverted. But give me the goon status - the thug that protects the mage; the sneak that gets people to notice the talky man because I suddenly have a dagger at their throat - that's the role I enjoy.

Flash and bang and gloryhounding aren't my style, man. And having an unbalanced game, where I don't have to pull the weight of the wizard every combat, is quite nice.

[Chaosvii7]

So, I'm the only person who likes the new Halfling and Gnome art? :smallfrown:

I can actually get some of these points; I have people in my circle of friends who are just barely starting to understand the balance of 3.X and when my 5e friends and I bring up some of the new stuff in the system, they look at us like we're aliens because the things we talk about are far and beyond the stuff they're still dealing with.

I must say, as the only person who actually bothered to learn anything about the games beyond what the books say it's a bit hard existing in the same relative space as others who think damage is important and don't understand overland travel. I'm glad they're starting to learn but I do wish they wouldn't be so close-minded about it.

Also, I've never heard a single person complain about Drow in the Player's Handbook thus far. Spoony's totally right about it - it's a bit gimmicky because it's mostly banking on the popularity of Drizzt - but nobody I've talked to has been upset about that fact.

[Hazuki]

*points out that halflings and gnomes have always been creepy*Mazzy Fentan. I hereby accept your retraction.



Also, I've never heard a single person complain about Drow in the Player's Handbook thus far. Spoony's totally right about it - it's a bit gimmicky because it's mostly banking on the popularity of Drizzt - but nobody I've talked to has been upset about that fact.I don't like it, because I'm a huge fan of the Drow. And making them the standard encourages ignoring the best parts of the race - the scheming, the religion, the matriarchal society, all tied up in delicious evil bow. Making them standard is going to encourage people who know nothing about them to make Drow PCs, ignoring all of that fluff in favor of having a dude with blue skin because it looks cool.

[Tengu_temp]

My view on Spoony is as follows - most of his non-Counter Monkey videos, and vlogs, are pretty good. There are some exceptions here and there, especially among older ones.

When it comes to Counter Monkey, there are three kinds of videos - those where he's just talking about interesting stories from his games, those where he reviews stuff, and those where he's giving gaming advice. From those three, the first tends to be fun, the second is a mixed bag, and the third tends to be awful, as he gives ridiculously old-fashioned advice that makes no sense if you're not playing a dungeon crawler with a killer DM. We're talking about a guy who literally said that when you're in a town, you should go in groups of 2-3 everywhere or else you'll get attacked.

As for everyone who watched the 5e review and now feels like they wasted 2 hours of their life they're not getting back, I can only say one thing... I warned you!

[tensai_oni]

We're talking about a guy who literally said that when you're in a town, you should go in groups of 2-3 everywhere or else you'll get attacked.

You forgot to mention that players should fear invisible assassins who could be anywhere (not because they made powerful enemies, the assassins are there and after them just because). And that every single female NPC is the devil and out to get them, a thief at best and a succubus at worst. No unfortunate implications there!

[Lord Raziere]

...and yet, imbalanced systems continue to be successful and popular after forty years. Pathfinder is hardly balanced; it's the most successful system currently on the market. World of Darkness stuff has NEVER been balanced, and continues to have a solid following. Magic is unbalanced by design, and continues to rake in the cash after two decades.

Meanwhile, painstakingly balanced systems seem to generally come and go without making much of an impact.

Are you sure rigorously-balanced systems are what gamers in general want, Lord Raziere? I'm not.

tradition and nostalgia has always stood in the way of progress. it is frustrating like that.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

His player advice can seem old-fashioned, but his GMing advice, when taken from a narrative standpoint is very sound.

[TheThan]

Anyone care to summarize beyond what Tengu said? I couldn't make it past the first minute.

Yeah: “Spoony hates everything!” :smallbiggrin:

I have friends that fall in to the “old grognard” category, so his tangent strewn rants are familiar and I enjoy them for what they are, tangent strewn rants.

That being said, I feel that someone shouldn’t have to “research” a game book before being able to judge it after reading through the book. A core book should be able to stand on its own merits and define what the game is designed to be and what it can and cannot do without the reader having to go and dig up additional information on it. A core book should also be playable out of the box without any additional supplements (splat books) attached to either fix the rules or fill in missing rules that ought to be there. Spoony address this saying the book has overly flowery text that doesn't seem to quite explain things (like what a paladin is), and being overly vague in some areas and very specific in others (the character death example). These are valid critiques about the book and I feel they stand. He also explains why he doesn't like the book, that's very subjective but that is the nature of the liking/disliking something.

So while he does go on a tangent strewn rant about the game. I feel that his points are valid as both an objective review of a product and a subjective review of a product. whether you agree or disagree about his opinion is entirely up to you.

(i am very neutral about this version of DnD. I have not been following it, and i can't say whether I'll like it or not. i'd have to play it and see)

[Durazno]

Comments like "Magic {the Gathering} is unbalanced by design" make me think that different people are coming at the debate with different definitions of "balance." Magic is intricately balanced in set after set to ensure that the colors are all viable, and their failures to do so are infamous. Nobody is arguing that the classes should all be the same, just that, like the colors in Magic, they be allowed to shine in their areas of expertise without having some nerd in a bathrobe throw guano at the problem and make it poof away. The colors are all good at different things, but none of them are useless; sounds balanced to me!

[da_chicken]

Comments like "Magic {the Gathering} is unbalanced by design" make me think that different people are coming at the debate with different definitions of "balance." Magic is intricately balanced in set after set to ensure that the colors are all viable, and their failures to do so are infamous. Nobody is arguing that the classes should all be the same, just that, like the colors in Magic, they be allowed to shine in their areas of expertise without having some nerd in a bathrobe throw guano at the problem and make it poof away. The colors are all good at different things, but none of them are useless; sounds balanced to me!

The only imbalance in Magic is that rares and mythics are more aggressively costed or generally more powerful than commons. That's really the only imbalance in that game currently, and it's not even absolute. Sets prior to, oh, 2000 really don't count since they hadn't balanced the game yet. The cards that get banned today really are mistakes that didn't get caught by design or testing, and the cards would usually be fine at slightly different costs.

[Ramshack]

His review is ill thought out, rambling, and makes a judgement about the game based on silly arguments about the fluff and artwork in the book instead of the core mechanics. after 45 minutes of watching this non-sense his only comment on the game play is that he hates that everything is balanced. Though I suppose that's all he can complain about as he states he is going to review the game system without having played it first.

This will be the one and only video of his I'll waste my time on.

[TheOOB]

Ehh, about 1/4 of his critique was old grodnard elitism(players are so coddled now), about 1/4 of it was just wrong(pretty much everything he said about the skill system), and 1/4 of it was legitimate complaints that were buried in the remaining 1/4 of rambling.

Spoony makes an entertaining negative review show, but he has never been the most informed or fair reviewer.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

His critique of the Advantage system held some water, to me at least, in that it is an all-or-nothing affair, and could encourage argument.

[da_chicken]

His critique of the Advantage system held some water, to me at least, in that it is an all-or-nothing affair, and could encourage argument.

Absolutely, but in my mind it's a strength.

First, situations where you get multiple instances of advantage or disadvantage are fairly rare. It's much more common to have a situation where you have advantage or you have disadvantage and that's it.

Second, situations where you have a large number of stacked modifiers are win-more situations. You're going from a 50% to an 70% to a 90% chance of success. That means that the modifiers are what win the battles, not the die rolls. If one side is at a major disadvantage, they're going to lose anyways. All the situational modifiers in the world don't change the outcome. My limiting how much situational modifiers benefit or penalize a side, you actually give any underdog a fighting chance. The die roll still matters.

Third, it's fast. It's so fast. I will take slight weirdness at relatively uncommon points to not have to deal with tracking 10 or more fiddley modifiers. "I have +30 to Hide at level 4!" is stupid, and I'm glad it's dead.

Edit to add: In the end, the simple advantage/disadvantage is fast and easy and mirrors what the old situational modifiers used to do in a majority -- possibly an overwhelming majority -- of cases in actual play. Furthermore, it does what we want situational modifiers to do: increase the chances of success/failure without making the d20 totally irrelevant to the game. If we make the d20 irrelevant so much we might as well just play Amber.

[obryn]

Yeah, seriously, the whole point of Advantage/Disadvantage is collapsing all of those fiddly modifiers into a much simpler system. The moment you start trying to track how many instances of each you have, you're pretty much ignoring the whole point. You're also making it even more complex to track than 3e/4e, since now you're tracking both the +/- modifiers and +adv/-adv levels. That's two axes, not one.

If you want to start tracking multiple levels of advantage/disadvantage, you're better off converting them into static modifiers (call them +/-4 each) and just stacking them with all the other static modifiers.

[TripleD]

Spoony can be great when he edits his videos. When he doesn't take the time to edit, you get this.

Totally disagree with him about Gnomes and Halflings. They are alien and weird in this edition, which is something I enjoy. Personally I wish they'd scap the "humans in different sizes" altogether, bid Tolkien a fond farewell, and get really out there with PC races, but I know I'm in the definite minority on that one.


tradition and nostalgia has always stood in the way of progress. it is frustrating like that.

Or it could be that dead ends are littered with the corpses of those convinced they were moving forward.

I'm not usually big on "the market will decide", but generations of gamers have, repeatedly, voted with their wallets for games that may or may not have been "balanced" in the sense that each character was of a roughly equal power level, but nonetheless captured that lightning in a bottle quality of "fun".

Things will change, that is beyond question. By the time we're toothless old people strapping on our 10e "immersion helmets" the game will have changed in ways we probably haven't even considered. I'm just not convinced bringing everyone to the same level of power (as opposed to same level of narrative) will be a part of that.

[TheOOB]

The problem with Spoony's grips about the advantage system is that it's based on incomplete information. Most of the caqses that cause advantage or disadvantage in the PHB and fairly specific, and the existence of modifiers is shown with cover. Without the DMG we can't know what all the rules for modifiers are.

[Durazno]

And a lot of people in the thread there is complaining about how it's the "for babies" edition because of death saves, which is hilarious because low level PCs in this edition are made of cheese cloth. In fact, if anything, I'd think that having a buffer between 0 and death is more brutal, because it forces the rest of the party to decide if they're going to try and save you or not. Most groups I've played in would without a moment's thought... which in Hoard of the Dragon Queen, at least, could very easily result in everyone going down trying to defend the unconscious body.

The balance discussion is so frustrating because D&D is in such an incredibly gonzo place, and I think it distorts every discussion about it. Either you have the edition where it takes player skill on the part of the druid to avoid doing the fighter's job better than them, or the edition that has every single class following exactly the same format. If you object to one, it becomes easy for other people to assume that you must be a partisan of the other.

[Tengu_temp]

I'm not usually big on "the market will decide", but generations of gamers have, repeatedly, voted with their wallets for games that may or may not have been "balanced" in the sense that each character was of a roughly equal power level, but nonetheless captured that lightning in a bottle quality of "fun".


Or it's just that DND is the most recognized RPG because it's the first and the most heavily marketted. It has a big and established fanbase that will buy any new edition because of brand loyalty, and newbies are most likely to buy it than any other system because it's the only tabletop RPG they heard of.


And a lot of people in the thread there is complaining about how it's the "for babies" edition because of death saves, which is hilarious because low level PCs in this edition are made of cheese cloth.

In AD&D you rolled for HP on every level (it was very likely to have a level 1 fighter with 4 HP), and as soon as you went down to 0, you died. Grognards will call anything more lenient than that "for babies".

[Slipperychicken]

I watch spoony a lot, and I think this is one of the worse reviews he's done.

He normally does (or seems to do) a lot more prepwork than he did here, taking only 24 hours with the book. This surprises me because he normally takes a lot more time before posting videos to do things like research and editing which add to his reviews. I think he should have delayed this and done some more work on it.

Spoony isn't that good with rules or optimization. It comes up across many of his dnd-related videos (things like ranting about some race being OP because of its +4 strength). He's typically more focused on storytelling stuff, and has a number of amusing anecdotes, but rules-lawyering isn't one of his strong suits.

He's something of a grognard , having played a lot of older editions. This seems to occasionally manifest in the macho-DM posturing we see here.

He also took a lot more time in the video than usual to consult his notes, probably because he didn't give himself enough time to prepare. I felt kind of disrespected during those bits, as if he doesn't think the audience's time was worth enough to prepare better or at least edit out the dead space and release an 'uncut' version later if anyone cared.

I usually like his Counter Monkey series and video game reviews. They tend to be more funny than this one was.

[Cybren]

Comments like "Magic {the Gathering} is unbalanced by design" make me think that different people are coming at the debate with different definitions of "balance." Magic is intricately balanced in set after set to ensure that the colors are all viable, and their failures to do so are infamous. Nobody is arguing that the classes should all be the same, just that, like the colors in Magic, they be allowed to shine in their areas of expertise without having some nerd in a bathrobe throw guano at the problem and make it poof away. The colors are all good at different things, but none of them are useless; sounds balanced to me!

1) the colors in magic wax and wane in powerlevel in modern magic sets. The only thing they actively try to keep balance is powerlevel in limited environments.
2) magic colors and RPG classes aren't analagous. Magic is a competitive game and D&D is a cooperative game. Balance is less important because each character can have a particular area of specialty.

This is really one of the central problems with D&D and D&D balance is that everyone in D&D is supposed to be good at fighting. It makes classes that are only good at fighting hard to balance.

[tarrin4ever]

So I haven't gotten my Players Handbook yet, is what he said about Mages and plate armor true?

[Sartharina]

tradition and nostalgia has always stood in the way of progress. it is frustrating like that."Progress" and change have always been trampling over tradition, comfort, and consistency. It's frustrating like that.

[Giant2005]

So I haven't gotten my Players Handbook yet, is what he said about Mages and plate armor true?

Mostly.
Mages can cast spells in any armor that they are proficient in is indeed true however he put far more emphasis on that than what is warranted. He made it seem like madness to not multiclass as a mage so you can wear armor when casting and there is a good case to be made for multi-classing a Wizard but that isn't one of the reasons. I'd consider it more mad to be multi-classing a mage if armor was all you wanted - the Mage Armor spell is one of the most capable armors in the game and is on par with Plate if your Dex bonus is good. Delaying all of your spellcasting abilities, special abilities, ability bonuses and possible feats by a level and denying yourself the potential for the Wizard captone ability in order to be able to wear armor that is weaker than what you already have access to is far more mad than the alternative.

[Lord Raziere]

"Progress" and change have always been trampling over tradition, comfort, and consistency. It's frustrating like that.

the tradition of DnD you speak of, has already been superseded and done better by video games. both the old school and the optimizer are methods better done by videogames, since both seem to care little about the lore itself.

the comfort of DnD you speak of, only seems to foster arguments and legalistic rules lawyering.

the consistency of DnD you speak of, does not exist. DnD is one of the most badly designed and imbalanced systems ever, such that I would say it is one of my last choices to use as an RPG. the fact that it is the most played rpg is irrelevant. much like how just because a soda is popular, doesn't mean it is good for you.

so far, the only consistency I see in DnD is 4e, the only possible comfort I can see in DnD is 4e, and yet people cared not for it, because they wanted the same system over and over again without any of the problems fixed, while no cared for the people who actually wanted these problems fixed. and the only real tradition I see in DnD is people clinging to their familiarity without any flexibility, and getting into arguments that only divide the fandom over editions.

I will not be satisfied with DnD until I can have a warrior that can take on any wizard with only their sword and win, can leap over mountains, fight armies and do other such feats worthy of a legendary hero. I am not sympathetic to people who want to "just hit things with a stick" there are a lot of videogames devoted to that where you can do it faster, with better graphics without needing a party to aid you.

I see no evidence for your argument.

[Falka]

the tradition of DnD you speak of, has already been superseded and done better by video games. both the old school and the optimizer are methods better done by videogames, since both seem to care little about the lore itself

the comfort of DnD you speak of, only seems to foster arguments and legalistic rules lawyering.

the consistency of DnD you speak of, does not exist. DnD is one of the most badly designed and imbalanced systems ever, such that I would say it is one of my last choices to use as an RPG. the fact that it is the most played rpg is irrelevant. much like how just because a soda is popular, doesn't mean it is good for you.

so far, the only consistency I see in DnD is 4e, the only possible comfort I can see in DnD is 4e, and yet people cared not for it, because they wanted the same system over and over again without any of the problems fixed, while no cared for the people who actually wanted these problems fixed. and the only real tradition I see in DnD is people clinging to their familiarity without any flexibility, and getting into arguments that only divide the fandom over editions.

I will not be satisfied with DnD until I can have a warrior that can take on any wizard with only their sword and win, can leap over mountains, fight armies and do other such feats worthy of a legendary hero. I am not sympathetic to people who want to "just hit things with a stick" there are a lot of videogames devoted to that where you can do it faster, with better graphics without needing a party to aid you.

I see no evidence for your argument.

... Yeah, exactly. That's exactly the problem. Some of us don't play DnD to experience a videogame where we win and get an ego-boost. At least, I, and several friends - we play RP games because we like to play along with a fantasy story, develop characters and be part of a narrative experience. It's not about winning. It's not about being great, capable of beating all the bad guys. It's about interacting with a fantasy world that 'feels' kind of real (read verisimilitude here) and see how our actions fit into it.

I believe that you like 4e precisely because it doesn't make so much emphasis in the RP part and it's more 'gamer-friendly', or at least caters to that mentality. I'm sure that you would loathe AD&D, yet it has the best lore and inmersive settings ever published for DnD.

But yet again, if you don't give a crap to lore and stories, then you will probably think that's rubbish.

What you expect from DnD is precisely not one of the aims of the game. It's not about ONE person. Not one legendary badass hero that does everything alone. No, it's about a GROUP of heroes that fight against the odds - that somehow, manage to be part of something greater - and not necesarily need to be flawless.

I'm sorry but videogames cannot emulate the experience. I sure tried looking for that in a videogame, but it's been like 20 years already and I never found it. :p

[Mr.Moron]

... Yeah, exactly. That's exactly the problem. Some of us don't play DnD to experience a videogame where we win and get an ego-boost. \

...

What you expect from DnD is precisely not one of the aims of the game. It's not about ONE person. Not one legendary badass hero that does everything alone. No, it's about a GROUP of heroes that fight against the odds - that somehow, manage to be part of something greater - and not necesarily need to be flawless.

I'm sorry but videogames cannot emulate the experience. I sure tried looking for that in a videogame, but it's been like 20 years already and I never found it. :p

This post seems to be a bit bizarre to me. I can certainly understand not enjoying video games, different strokes for different folks.

However, if you've been looking at video games for 20 years I'm not sure how you could walk away with the impression video games are about winning for an ego boost only, or never deal in themes other than a bad ass doing things alone.

[Falka]

This post seems to be a bit bizarre to me. I can certainly understand not enjoying video games, different strokes for different folks.

However, if you've been looking at video games for 20 years I'm not sure how you could walk away with the impression video games are about winning for an ego boost only, or never deal in themes other than a bad ass doing things alone.


I meant that none of the games I've played allow me to enjoy a narrative, inmersive experience with a group of people. Of course, there are a lot of fantastic narrative games out there. My favorites related to D&D are Mask of the Betrayer and Planescape: Torment.

But these are solo experiences.

[Morty]

Mask of the Betrayer and Planescape: Torment are well-written stories despite the rules they're saddled with, not because of them. D&D, in any of its incarnations, isn't exactly terribly good at verisimilitude or story-telling.

[Kalmageddon]

You forgot to mention that players should fear invisible assassins who could be anywhere (not because they made powerful enemies, the assassins are there and after them just because). And that every single female NPC is the devil and out to get them, a thief at best and a succubus at worst. No unfortunate implications there!
Spoony is known for being an actual misogynist, not in the "doesn't think women are never to blame" tumblr bs kind of way, he's an actual misogynist who only comments on women to sexualize them or make rape jokes.
I don't know if he does so maliciously, unknowingly or as failed attempts at humor, but it's pretty obvious if you have been following his site for some time.


My view on Spoony is as follows - most of his non-Counter Monkey videos, and vlogs, are pretty good. There are some exceptions here and there, especially among older ones.

When it comes to Counter Monkey, there are three kinds of videos - those where he's just talking about interesting stories from his games, those where he reviews stuff, and those where he's giving gaming advice. From those three, the first tends to be fun, the second is a mixed bag, and the third tends to be awful, as he gives ridiculously old-fashioned advice that makes no sense if you're not playing a dungeon crawler with a killer DM. We're talking about a guy who literally said that when you're in a town, you should go in groups of 2-3 everywhere or else you'll get attacked.

As for everyone who watched the 5e review and now feels like they wasted 2 hours of their life they're not getting back, I can only say one thing... I warned you!

I pretty much agree on this.
I mostly watch Spoony's game and movie reviews, those tend to be quite funny, but anything where he tries to make a point just doesn't work for me.

[Mr.Moron]

Spoony is known for being an actual misogynist, not in the "doesn't think women are never to blame" tumblr bs kind of way, he's an actual misogynist who only comments on women to sexualize them or make rape jokes.
I don't know if he does so maliciously, unknowingly or as failed attempts at humor, but it's pretty obvious if you have been following his site for some time.


Wow, really? I knew something was up when I was watching the video earlier, I just couldn't put my finger on it exactly. Good to know my creepdar is working, I guess when someone is a bad person it just shines through. Really all the more reason to ignore what he has to say.

[Lord Raziere]

... Yeah, exactly. That's exactly the problem. Some of us don't play DnD to experience a videogame where we win and get an ego-boost. At least, I, and several friends - we play RP games because we like to play along with a fantasy story, develop characters and be part of a narrative experience. It's not about winning. It's not about being great, capable of beating all the bad guys. It's about interacting with a fantasy world that 'feels' kind of real (read verisimilitude here) and see how our actions fit into it.

I believe that you like 4e precisely because it doesn't make so much emphasis in the RP part and it's more 'gamer-friendly', or at least caters to that mentality. I'm sure that you would loathe AD&D, yet it has the best lore and inmersive settings ever published for DnD.

But yet again, if you don't give a crap to lore and stories, then you will probably think that's rubbish.

What you expect from DnD is precisely not one of the aims of the game. It's not about ONE person. Not one legendary badass hero that does everything alone. No, it's about a GROUP of heroes that fight against the odds - that somehow, manage to be part of something greater - and not necesarily need to be flawless.

I'm sorry but videogames cannot emulate the experience. I sure tried looking for that in a videogame, but it's been like 20 years already and I never found it. :p

You misunderstand.

3.5 is the videogaming mindset.

Imbalance is antithetical to roleplaying in a group.

If the Wizard can solve all the problems the fighter can and more, there is no need for the Fighter. With imbalance alone you make them superfluous and unnecessary, because there is no motivation to make one. If there is no motivation to make such a character, there is no motivation to roleplay them.

Without motivation, no roleplaying happens. There is no interesting character or world, because none is made to exist.

I can only roleplay and tell a good story secure in the knowledge that that everyone has got a fair deal, that one isn't playing somebody who completely sucks while another plays something who completely rocks for completely arbitrary and stupid mechanical reasons. If one player person has far more power than the others, that wreaks havoc with player agency, it limits the potential character options they could use, and it makes them the very "one legendary badass hero" that you speak out against.

furthermore, the optimization mindset of 3.5 person is little different from the optimization mindset of a videogamer. they are both trying to break the system and use it how they want. its 4e that goes AWAY from videogaming, as it makes sure the videogame mindset of optimization is not encouraged, and that playing with a group is encouraged, sure it did so a little haphazardly by giving them specific roles, but its far more believable to me that it promotes the teamwork based play you speak of than 3.5 where the wizard has basically become a mythological figure that can win at everything.

Even a "support wizard" is a wizard solving everything through their allies being made awesome beyond what they're actually supposed to do, not the group solving everything, because the wizard is clearly still more important.

A universe where all the heroes are equally powerful is far more believable to me than a universe where they aren't. if a hero is not as powerful as another, they're not really a hero, they're just a sidekick or servant to the real one. what importance is Rock Lee when Naruto has basically become a divine reincarnating spirit demigod? As any person currently watching or reading Naruto can tell you: none at all.

Balance is the only way to get rid of the very problems you are talking about so that good roleplaying can be done. Believe me, I love the narrative, the story, the characters and so on, its what I roleplay for above all. I don't want to have to deal with optimization or some exploitable system that could wreck that with bringing me out of the game or coming up with some shenanigans that don't make any sense in the story. those are not conducive to roleplaying at all. Its why Fate has everyone use the same character creation: its whats balanced and makes for a better story, as that is what its meant to do.

[Kalmageddon]

Wow, really? I knew something was up when I was watching the video earlier, I just couldn't put my finger on it exactly. Good to know my creepdar is working, I guess when someone is a bad person it just shines through. Really all the more reason to ignore what he has to say.

I don't know if that alone makes him a bad person. As I said, it might be something he isn't even truly aware of. And as far as I know, he never hurt anyone.
Personally, I consider him to be quite funny when he does his movie/video games stuff, I just wouldn't take advice from him. I don't care about passing moral judgement. I dislike his attitude towards women but I don't feel like that alone makes him "bad".

[TriForce]

You misunderstand.

3.5 is the videogaming mindset.

Imbalance is antithetical to roleplaying in a group.

If the Wizard can solve all the problems the fighter can and more, there is no need for the Fighter. With imbalance alone you make them superfluous and unnecessary, because there is no motivation to make one. If there is no motivation to make such a character, there is no motivation to roleplay them.

Without motivation, no roleplaying happens. There is no interesting character or world, because none is made to exist.

I can only roleplay and tell a good story secure in the knowledge that that everyone has got a fair deal, that one isn't playing somebody who completely sucks while another plays something who completely rocks for completely arbitrary and stupid mechanical reasons. If one player person has far more power than the others, that wreaks havoc with player agency, it limits the potential character options they could use, and it makes them the very "one legendary badass hero" that you speak out against.

furthermore, the optimization mindset of 3.5 person is little different from the optimization mindset of a videogamer. they are both trying to break the system and use it how they want. its 4e that goes AWAY from videogaming, as it makes sure the videogame mindset of optimization is not encouraged, and that playing with a group is encouraged, sure it did so a little haphazardly by giving them specific roles, but its far more believable to me that it promotes the teamwork based play you speak of than 3.5 where the wizard has basically become a mythological figure that can win at everything.

Even a "support wizard" is a wizard solving everything through their allies being made awesome beyond what they're actually supposed to do, not the group solving everything, because the wizard is clearly still more important.

A universe where all the heroes are equally powerful is far more believable to me than a universe where they aren't. if a hero is not as powerful as another, they're not really a hero, they're just a sidekick or servant to the real one. what importance is Rock Lee when Naruto has basically become a divine reincarnating spirit demigod? As any person currently watching or reading Naruto can tell you: none at all.

Balance is the only way to get rid of the very problems you are talking about so that good roleplaying can be done. Believe me, I love the narrative, the story, the characters and so on, its what I roleplay for above all. I don't want to have to deal with optimization or some exploitable system that could wreck that with bringing me out of the game or coming up with some shenanigans that don't make any sense in the story. those are not conducive to roleplaying at all. Its why Fate has everyone use the same character creation: its whats balanced and makes for a better story, as that is what its meant to do.

im sorry i need to strongle disagree here


Without motivation, no roleplaying happens. There is no interesting character or world, because none is made to exist. motivation IS roleplay, and balance has absolutly nothing to do with any of it. yes, a wizard can do anything a fighter can do, but only if the player build it that way. if you have a player thats intend on doing everything better then another player, balance is not your main concern.


I can only roleplay and tell a good story secure in the knowledge that that everyone has got a fair deal, that one isn't playing somebody who completely sucks while another plays something who completely rocks for completely arbitrary and stupid mechanical reasons. If one player person has far more power than the others, that wreaks havoc with player agency, it limits the potential character options they could use, and it makes them the very "one legendary badass hero" that you speak out against.
well i kinda feel bad about that, since again, in my view thats a player attitude problem. roleplay in DnD also includes giving the spotlight to your friends, even if you could solve something faster. even in a completly balanced game, having to choose "optimal" choices, even if they wouldnt be "natural" for the character, simply because the rest of the group does it and will take the spotlight otherwise, doesnt really sound like a fun experience to me.


furthermore, the optimization mindset of 3.5 person is little different from the optimization mindset of a videogamer. they are both trying to break the system and use it how they want. its 4e that goes AWAY from videogaming, as it makes sure the videogame mindset of optimization is not encouraged, and that playing with a group is encouraged, sure it did so a little haphazardly by giving them specific roles, but its far more believable to me that it promotes the teamwork based play you speak of than 3.5 where the wizard has basically become a mythological figure that can win at everything. well, i agree that 4th is more balanced then 3.5, and i also agree that 3.5 gives muchkins way too much options to break the game, however, they "solved" it by severly hindering the customization. its like stopping people from breaking in your house by removing every door and window, its stops it, yes, but not because the cause is gone.


A universe where all the heroes are equally powerful is far more believable to me than a universe where they aren't. if a hero is not as powerful as another, they're not really a hero, they're just a sidekick or servant to the real one. what importance is Rock Lee when Naruto has basically become a divine reincarnating spirit demigod? As any person currently watching or reading Naruto can tell you: none at all. is superman just as powerful as batman? are you just as strong or smart as me? people are inequal, thats just how it is. however, even if they are not equal, they ARE equally important in their own way.

[Agrippa]

In AD&D you rolled for HP on every level (it was very likely to have a level 1 fighter with 4 HP), and as soon as you went down to 0, you died. Grognards will call anything more lenient than that "for babies".

The funny thing is, most Grognards would see some of the standard rules of 1st. Ed. AD&D and Gary Gygax's house rules as "for babies." Like 4d6 drop the lowest die, automatic re-rolls until all ability scores were at least 6 and two of them were at least 15 and then assign to taste. Death at -10 in AD&D and death at the better of -10 or your character's Constitution score in Gyagx's house rules. In fact he wrote the Tomb of Horrors after someone called him "too soft" on PCs. It was intended as a deliberate departure from Gygax's typical DMing/adventure module style.

[Lord Raziere]

is superman just as powerful as batman? are you just as strong or smart as me? people are inequal, thats just how it is. however, even if they are not equal, they ARE equally important in their own way.

ah. but Superman is the fighter, and the Batman is the wizard- even though Superman is the one with magical alien powers and Batman is the normal guy with a few gadgets. Batman's flexibility comes at a price for not being as powerful as Superman, while Superman's great power comes at a price of not being flexible as Batman.

this is not applicable to wizards and fighters.

Wizards have both more power and more flexibility than fighters. not only can they do more things, but they can do them bigger. not only can the fighter do only one thing well, it doesn't nearly have as much impact as the Wizard.

if say, the Wizard could do a lot of things but ultimately could not affect anything a bigger, more world-breaking scale like Batman, and the Warrior could do his one fighting thing just as powerfully and world-breakingly as Superman- THEN you'd have an argument! but as is, the warrior is so far away from Superman that its laughable because the warrior cannot take on anything Superman can, while any Wizard content with being the small time utility belt person is not being imaginative enough with the great power at their fingertips, because they can do far more than mere Batman.

Batman and Superman are far better designed than the classes- Batman has the power of a fighter but the flexibility of a wizard, while Superman has the power of a wizard but the flexibility of a fighter. they are not comparable.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Let me be clear: I love Spoony. He's easily my favorite internet personality, and I check his site almost religiously. But his 5E review actually made me RAGE. It took me five tries to get halfway through Part 2, and I'm still slogging through more out of obligation than anything else. Every single thing he says is WRONG. It's not just misinformed, he's obviously just hating for no reason other than the book doesn't say AD&D on the front. No other reason.

But the last straw was when he got to the rules on character death. While I somewhat agree on this (one) point of his, he then decides to belittle and outright insult everyone who disagrees with him. He proudly declares that he's Hardcore, and that everyone else is a *****. I don't even recognize him this way. He's just being an ass.

[Vitruviansquid]

He's just posturing to make a more entertaining video.

[Tengu_temp]

Then I guess he's failing miserably, because there's nothing entertaining in this one.

[Ramshack]

Then I guess he's failing miserably, because there's nothing entertaining in this one.

Completely Agree, I've never seen any of his other video's and now I have no desire to thanks to this video.

[Tengu_temp]

While I agree that this video is probably the worst pile of turd Spoony has produced since... ever, probably, I must say that judging everything he produced just through its lens is very premature. Especially since this is a vlog and most of his videos are scripted instead.

If you want to watch good Spoony, watch his Ultima reviews. Or the various training video riffs.

[HorridElemental]

While I agree that this video is probably the worst pile of turd Spoony has produced since... ever, probably, I must say that judging everything he produced just through its lens is very premature. Especially since this is a vlog and most of his videos are scripted instead.

If you want to watch good Spoony, watch his Ultima reviews. Or the various training video riffs.

I wouldn't want to support someone, or give them views, based on this video no matter how good their other stuff is.

If this was his very first video then yeah I could see saying "maybe he will get better and he was just nervous or whatever" but the guy knows how to be professional and rational and yet chose not only to be neither but decided to post this steamer on the net.

If you hate something and making a review then at least be smart about it.

This shows me that the unscripted spoony, the real (or more real) spoony is not someone I want to support in any way ever again.

[Mr.Moron]

I don't know if that alone makes him a bad person. As I said, it might be something he isn't even truly aware of. And as far as I know, he never hurt anyone.
Personally, I consider him to be quite funny when he does his movie/video games stuff, I just wouldn't take advice from him. I don't care about passing moral judgement. I dislike his attitude towards women but I don't feel like that alone makes him "bad".

Misogyny hurts people. It's a harmful thing, if he is a known misogynist he is by definition a harmful person.

[Metahuman1]

So, does anyone know if Iron Liz has had anything to say about 5E yet?

[da_chicken]

Let's not turn this thread into a witch hunt or jump to conclusions because someone on the Internet said he's not a nice person.

The guy made a review of questionable quality that I happen to disagree with. That doesn't make him literally Hitler.

[Raimun]

Let's not turn this thread into a witch hunt or jump to conclusions because someone on the Internet said he's not a nice person.

The guy made a review of questionable quality that I happen to disagree with. That doesn't make him literally Hitler.

Hitler was a game reviewer!

[Talakeal]

I feel I am one of the few people who likes Spoony while still disagreeing with him as often as not.

I found his "character death speech" to be hilarious, but I still would never play in a killer game like he describes, and even in 1E / 2E we always used the optional death's door rules.


As for his misogyny, I haven't really seen it aside from an occasional tasteless joke. Still, even if he does hold some reprehensible views (and almost every person on Earth holds a few), that doesn't mean his opinion on games is wrong or that he can't be entertaining. To demand an artist or entertainer be morally spotless to appreciate their work is both unrealistic and a classic ad-hominim fallacy.

[Snowbluff]

Spoony is a funny game reviewer, but his d20 knowledge is laughable. I mean, he likes PF better than 3.5, calling it "fixed 3.5."

[AuraTwilight]

Spoony is a funny game reviewer, but his d20 knowledge is laughable. I mean, he likes PF better than 3.5, calling it "fixed 3.5."

In his defense, his 3.5 exposure is tainted by such third party content as the WWE d20 supplement. I think he can be given a bit of slack, there.

[Kalmageddon]

Misogyny hurts people. It's a harmful thing, if he is a known misogynist he is by definition a harmful person.
*shrug* I just don't think that's reason enough to judge him so harshly. If he has a problem with women that's not going to win him any points with me, but contrary to most people on the Internet, I'm not a wannabe witch hunter. I'm content with disliking that particular aspect of his on a personal level, without going on a crusade to stop him from thinking things I don't like.

Also, this:

Let's not turn this thread into a witch hunt or jump to conclusions because someone on the Internet said he's not a nice person.

The guy made a review of questionable quality that I happen to disagree with. That doesn't make him literally Hitler.
For all you guys know I might be completly biased or misinformed. Think with your head instead of taking every statement at face value.

[ambartanen]

Spoony is a funny game reviewer, but his d20 knowledge is laughable. I mean, he likes PF better than 3.5, calling it "fixed 3.5.

Why is that laughable? Isn't that what PF aims to be? Sure, it fails to fix many of the big issues but you couldn't fix those without totally redesigning the system anyway.

I opted to skip the 5e review and started watching the Ultima reviews. So far I am up to Ultima 6 and they are quite entertaining. As for the misogyny (and transphobia?), if you are particularly sensitive to the subject there are a few jokes that you probably won't find funny* but that makes up all of fifteen seconds of about an hour of reviews I've watched so far. I cannot be absolutely positive but I can say with a high degree of certainty that he is not, in fact, literally Hitler.

*I don't think they were particularly offensive either, they just fell flat to me.

[AuraTwilight]

Why is that laughable? Isn't that what PF aims to be? Sure, it fails to fix many of the big issues but you couldn't fix those without totally redesigning the system anyway.

Yea, let's just leave it there. It fails to fix most of the big issues. Barely any. This is objectively true regardless of preferences.

Spoony calls it fixed 3.5

Therefore, he is laughably incorrect by pure mathematical margins. Let's not edition war.

[Snowbluff]

I love his Ultima reviews.

"What's a paladin?" is one of the most quoted lines at my tables.


Therefore, he is laughably incorrect by pure mathematical margins. Let's not edition war.

This.

[Slipperychicken]

Yea, let's just leave it there. It fails to fix most of the big issues. Barely any. This is objectively true regardless of preferences.

Spoony calls it fixed 3.5


It needed to copy/paste as many parts of 3.5 as it could. That's because its goal was to steal market-share by reducing switching costs (that is, the time, money, and effort required for a user to switch to a different product and learn how to use it) while still differentiating itself as a product (using things like the consolidated skill system and class tweaks). It did both of these things successfully.

As a result, what you see isn't an attempt to create a totally-fixed, bug-free game. Instead, it's a system designed to take advantage of the SRD's success and win over gamers who had a strong, unsatisfied demand for new and mechanically-sound 3.5 material.


It's easy to see why spoony calls it 'fixed 3.5', since it is pretty much 3.5, plus some patches over issues which adversely impact actual play (Mostly things like damage-scaling, dead levels, XP costs/penalties, and skill rank weirdness. Obscure shenanigans like Pun-Pun and Simulacrum stuff don't really have much direct impact on actual play, so I think that's one reason they didn't get a high priority), plus some much-needed support for character concepts which were lacking from, or poorly-supported in 3.5 (such as the gun-user, sword-mage, and alchemist concepts which were each turned into new classes).

[AuraTwilight]

It needed to copy/paste as many parts of 3.5 as it could. That's because its goal was to steal market-share by reducing switching costs (that is, the time, money, and effort required for a user to switch to a different product and learn how to use it) while still differentiating itself as a product (using things like the consolidated skill system and class tweaks). It did both of these things successfully.

As a result, what you see isn't an attempt to create a totally-fixed, bug-free game. Instead, it's a system designed to take advantage of the SRD's success and win over gamers who had a strong, unsatisfied demand for new and mechanically-sound 3.5 material.

Yea, I'm not disagreeing with you. But this is exactly why you can't call it a fixed 3.5; it's objectively not.




It's easy to see why spoony calls it 'fixed 3.5', since it is pretty much 3.5, plus some patches over issues which adversely impact actual play (Mostly things like damage-scaling, dead levels, XP costs/penalties, and skill rank weirdness. Obscure shenanigans like Pun-Pun and Simulacrum stuff don't really have much direct impact on actual play, so I think that's one reason they didn't get a high priority), plus some much-needed support for character concepts which were lacking from, or poorly-supported in 3.5 (such as the gun-user, sword-mage, and alchemist concepts which were each turned into new classes).

So it's "Slightly less broke-ass 3.5"

it's still not fixed 3.5; it can't be by definition of what you said about, so Spoony is objectively, empirically, demonstratably wrong.

That doesn't mean Pathfinder isn't a good game, or that Pathfinder SHOULD have fixed anything, or whatever else. All it demonstrates is Spoony's ignorance and visible hypocrisy in his criticisms.

[pwykersotz]

Yea, I'm not disagreeing with you. But this is exactly why you can't call it a fixed 3.5; it's objectively not.



So it's "Slightly less broke-ass 3.5"

it's still not fixed 3.5; it can't be by definition of what you said about, so Spoony is objectively, empirically, demonstratably wrong.

That doesn't mean Pathfinder isn't a good game, or that Pathfinder SHOULD have fixed anything, or whatever else. All it demonstrates is Spoony's ignorance and visible hypocrisy in his criticisms.

http://ofmusingsandwonderings.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/you-keep-using-that-word1.jpg

There's nothing objective about what you're claiming. 'Fixed' implies 'Broken' which means the game is not operating as it should. But the whole thing about D&D is that it's based around subjectivity with no right or wrong. Heck, the Tippyverse works just fine with 3.5, what's broken about that? Even if crit fumbles were a thing, even if all characters were required to wear silly hats, even if the air was made of swiss cheese, it's still not 'objectively broken'. Define exactly what a fixed game would be, get it validated by creators, and then you can claim objectivity. Until then, you're just throwing these words away uselessly.

Don't get me wrong, I technically agree with you that Pathfinder fails to address what I consider to be major play issues, but I disagree entirely with claiming objectivity.

[AuraTwilight]

There's nothing objective about what you're claiming. 'Fixed' implies 'Broken' which means the game is not operating as it should. But the whole thing about D&D is that it's based around subjectivity with no right or wrong. Heck, the Tippyverse works just fine with 3.5, what's broken about that? Even if crit fumbles were a thing, even if all characters were required to wear silly hats, even if the air was made of swiss cheese, it's still not 'objectively broken'. Define exactly what a fixed game would be, get it validated by creators, and then you can claim objectivity. Until then, you're just throwing these words away uselessly.

Sigh.

Mechanics A in Text B is perceived to exist. Whether Mechanics A subjectively or objectively is truly a problem is academic. Text C is written in response to Text B, and Mechanics A still exists within it. Regardless of the objective nature of Mechanics A, it is objectively incorrect to say that Text C has addressed or 'fixed' the issue in any capacity; Mechanics A still empirically exists.

Now get that Oberoni Fallacy bullcrap out of here. My criticism is that Spoony is demonstrating hypocrisy because something that exists in two different texts is fine in one but allegedly not in the other. It doesn't matter how flawed 3.5 and Pathfinder ACTUALLY ARE, what people consider to be problems exist in both of them in about equal measure.

[Durazno]

Unless the incremental changes that Pathfinder made to 3.5 made it perfect for you and your group. If somebody's perspective were that 3.5 was just the system for them except that they disliked dead levels and thought characters didn't get enough feats over the course of their career, then hey, they would be correct in calling Pathfinder "fixed 3.5." They identified the problems that were important to them and Pathfinder did away with them.

[HorridElemental]

Unless the incremental changes that Pathfinder made to 3.5 made it perfect for you and your group. If somebody's perspective were that 3.5 was just the system for them except that they disliked dead levels and thought characters didn't get enough feats over the course of their career, then hey, they would be correct in calling Pathfinder "fixed 3.5." They identified the problems that were important to them and Pathfinder did away with them.

Man A makes a bucket. The bucket has holes in the side of it and let water out (some people call it broken, some people call it a pouring feature). The bucket can only hold halve it's height in water before it starts pouring out.

Woman A makes a bucket based on the design of Man A's bucket. This bucket also has holes in the side, but the bucket she makes has a handle so you can carry it around with one hand. The bucket's holes are made up higher, you can hold 3/4 of its height in water before it starts coming out the sides.

Now both buckets are indeed broken, they have holes in them. They can still be used but they are indeed broken. Even with the addition of the handle the Woman As bucket still had the same flaw as Man A's bucket.

People can like both buckets, people can buy both buckets, people can prefer either bucket to the bucket that doesn't leak, but the buckets still have flaws and are still broken.

Liking something or preference to something doesn't mean an item isn't broken. Just that you don't care if it is broken or your inability to see said broken part.

One of pathfinders stated goals was in deed a fix, they abandoned that goal quickly when they realized they didn't have the ability to do so (seriously they suck with actually creating mechanics and can only make fluff) they made the same game by copying and pasting the good bad and the ugly from the original design.

Holes on the side of the bucket and all. You can like or hate something all you want but that doesn't change how flawed it is.

But now we have a new bucket, one where there may be holes on the side, but they are smaller holes and they are near the very top. I think we should focus on this new bucket and stop brining the baggage of 3.P along with us as we use our new bucket.

[pwykersotz]

Sigh.

Mechanics A in Text B is perceived to exist. Whether Mechanics A subjectively or objectively is truly a problem is academic. Text C is written in response to Text B, and Mechanics A still exists within it. Regardless of the objective nature of Mechanics A, it is objectively incorrect to say that Text C has addressed or 'fixed' the issue in any capacity; Mechanics A still empirically exists.

Now get that Oberoni Fallacy bullcrap out of here. My criticism is that Spoony is demonstrating hypocrisy because something that exists in two different texts is fine in one but allegedly not in the other. It doesn't matter how flawed 3.5 and Pathfinder ACTUALLY ARE, what people consider to be problems exist in both of them in about equal measure.

And here is where our worlds unify and we agree with each other wholeheartedly. *hug*

The rest of your first paragraph and your second paragraph are objectively incorrect. :smallwink: Maybe the only thing someone who looks at Pathfinder is worried about is the Polymorph rules. Maybe he likes the new ones. That would have 'fixed' his issue. Also, I never said it's not broken because the DM could fix it. I said it wasn't broken. Drown healing, omnipotent wizards, truenaming, I'm suggesting that for some people (who post with alarming regularity to advise new players) these things aren't broken at all but merely a style of play.

Also, just know that despite my sarcastic tone, I'm just playing devil's advocate because it's possible that you have a point that I've missed and I'm enjoying deconstructing both yours and my arguments to learn more about both. I really don't mean to cause you any frustration, and I apologize if I do.


Man A makes a bucket. The bucket has holes in the side of it and let water out (some people call it broken, some people call it a pouring feature). The bucket can only hold halve it's height in water before it starts pouring out.

Woman A makes a bucket based on the design of Man A's bucket. This bucket also has holes in the side, but the bucket she makes has a handle so you can carry it around with one hand. The bucket's holes are made up higher, you can hold 3/4 of its height in water before it starts coming out the sides.

Now both buckets are indeed broken, they have holes in them. They can still be used but they are indeed broken. Even with the addition of the handle the Woman As bucket still had the same flaw as Man A's bucket.

People can like both buckets, people can buy both buckets, people can prefer either bucket to the bucket that doesn't leak, but the buckets still have flaws and are still broken.

Liking something or preference to something doesn't mean an item isn't broken. Just that you don't care if it is broken or your inability to see said broken part.

One of pathfinders stated goals was in deed a fix, they abandoned that goal quickly when they realized they didn't have the ability to do so (seriously they suck with actually creating mechanics and can only make fluff) they made the same game by copying and pasting the good bad and the ugly from the original design.

Holes on the side of the bucket and all. You can like or hate something all you want but that doesn't change how flawed it is.

But now we have a new bucket, one where there may be holes on the side, but they are smaller holes and they are near the very top. I think we should focus on this new bucket and stop brining the baggage of 3.P along with us as we use our new bucket.

Why must you hate on my overflow mechanism? It's clearly RAI! :smalltongue:

[Talakeal]

Doesn't PF fix a lot of the problems with 3.X?

They at least tried to buff the weaker classes (whether or not they were successful...)

But they also fixed some of the bigger stuff, didn't they? Polymorph type spells are weaker, they put limits on Genesis' planar traits, Ice Assassins, Aleaxs and Sarrukhs don't exist, etc.

[Nagash]

Man A makes a bucket. The bucket has holes in the side of it and let water out (some people call it broken, some people call it a pouring feature). The bucket can only hold halve it's height in water before it starts pouring out.

Woman A makes a bucket based on the design of Man A's bucket. This bucket also has holes in the side, but the bucket she makes has a handle so you can carry it around with one hand. The bucket's holes are made up higher, you can hold 3/4 of its height in water before it starts coming out the sides.

Now both buckets are indeed broken, they have holes in them. They can still be used but they are indeed broken. Even with the addition of the handle the Woman As bucket still had the same flaw as Man A's bucket.

People can like both buckets, people can buy both buckets, people can prefer either bucket to the bucket that doesn't leak, but the buckets still have flaws and are still broken.

Liking something or preference to something doesn't mean an item isn't broken. Just that you don't care if it is broken or your inability to see said broken part.

One of pathfinders stated goals was in deed a fix, they abandoned that goal quickly when they realized they didn't have the ability to do so (seriously they suck with actually creating mechanics and can only make fluff) they made the same game by copying and pasting the good bad and the ugly from the original design.

Holes on the side of the bucket and all. You can like or hate something all you want but that doesn't change how flawed it is.

But now we have a new bucket, one where there may be holes on the side, but they are smaller holes and they are near the very top. I think we should focus on this new bucket and stop brining the baggage of 3.P along with us as we use our new bucket.

This bucket has holes in the side, is it objectively broken? If not, shut it.
http://www.pd4pic.com/images/ewer-watering-can-pot-water-happy-pour-garden.png




Doesn't PF fix a lot of the problems with 3.X?

They at least tried to buff the weaker classes (whether or not they were successful...)

But they also fixed some of the bigger stuff, didn't they? Polymorph type spells are weaker, they put limits on Genesis' planar traits, Ice Assassins, Aleaxs and Sarrukhs don't exist, etc.

Yeah its pretty much a better game in every way except the ridiculous option overload that came with all the 3X splats.

[HorridElemental]

Doesn't PF fix a lot of the problems with 3.X?

They at least tried to buff the weaker classes (whether or not they were successful...)

But they also fixed some of the bigger stuff, didn't they? Polymorph type spells are weaker, they put limits on Genesis' planar traits, Ice Assassins, Aleaxs and Sarrukhs don't exist, etc.

Nope, there are so many botked things in PF that it is just sad.

Hell, drowning people to heal them is still there! Haha.

Some things were toned down sure, but all the same flaws in the system are still there.

Outside of specific optimization, most classes lower than tier 3 can't keep up with the game. The higher tier classes, 1-2, have ways of no matter what optimization level you play at to be useful and able to keep up with the game.



This bucket has holes in the side, is it objectively broken? If not, shut it.
http://www.pd4pic.com/images/ewer-watering-can-pot-water-happy-pour-garden.png


Now I didn't say "installed a spout" did I? You can get cute all you want but I said a "hole" in the side not a "cylinder extension meant for allowing water to slowly and systematically pour from the bucket".

Nice try though, really.

I never thought I would run into someone who thought hole meant spout. Guess I learn something everyday.

[TheSethGrey]

Now I didn't say "installed a spout" did I? You can get cute all you want but I said a "hole" in the side not a "cylinder extension meant for allowing water to slowly and systematically pour from the bucket".

Nice try though, really.

I never thought I would run into someone who thought hole meant spout. Guess I learn something everyday.

Not gonna lie, I thought you were talking about a Watering Can as well...

[MadBear]

Not gonna lie, I thought you were talking about a Watering Can as well...

same....

then again a bucket with a hole in the side, really is just the beginning of a rudimentary watering can.

[Durazno]

But if you needed a watering can with a handle that could just hold a little bit more water, I guess you would be objectively wrong to claim that the second bucket somehow addressed your concerns. Ah well.

[HorridElemental]

And pathfinder attempted to make that hole a spout and many people want it to be a spout, but in actuality it is the same rusted/rotted hole that 3.5 had that is being sold and proclaimed as a spout.

[LaserFace]

This has simply gone too long.

Enough with the Bucket. There is no Bucket. The Bucket is a lie.

[Lord Raziere]

And pathfinder attempted to make that hole a spout and many people want it to be a spout, but in actuality it is the same rusted/rotted hole that 3.5 had that is being sold and proclaimed as a spout.

Seconded. Too much imbalance and glitchy stuff. 3.5 feels more like one of those old glitchy clunky videogame full of holes and unnecessary minigames and such that no likes to do than anything I'd want to play. y'know, the ones without any streamlining or smoothness to them, it just....isn't a system I consider functional. 5e, while still holing onto to some outdated concepts, at least functions, or at least looks like it functions.

[HorridElemental]

seconded. Too much imbalance and glitchy stuff. 3.5 feels more like one of those old glitchy clunky videogame full of holes and unnecessary minigames and such that no likes to do than anything i'd want to play. Y'know, the ones without any streamlining or smoothness to them, it just....isn't a system i consider functional. 5e, while still holing onto to some outdated concepts, at least functions, or at least looks like it functions.

NES Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ...

[pwykersotz]

NES Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ...

Donatello beat everything on that game.

[Dominuce2112]

Now, I must say I'm not a very big fan of 5e (but not a very big hater either), and I usually like Spoony. However, his approach to RPGs is sometimes embarassingly grognardy, and he's completely disattached from the community (this is a man who thought 3e wasn't a popular edition, for ****'s sake). And that shows in this video like nowhere else; watch as he hates on 5e for all the wrong reason! Observe as he complains wizards dealing 1d12 damage as an at-will ability are overpowered, or that the game is dumbed down because there's not enough fiddling with dozens of tiny modifiers!

Language warning, also very long videos:
http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-dd-5th-edition-review-part-1/
http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-dd-5th-edition-review-part-2/

Enjoy, and comment.

Thats what spoony does. Thats who he is. He rants, he bitches, he rarely praises anything. I do hate the stuff he bitches about just to bitch about but when I also hate the things he does, its kind of entertaining to watch him go at it. (im looking at you ff10)

[Chained Birds]

Just watched everything and I have to say this is one of Spoony's more... interesting reviews.

I say "interesting" because I can just nod along with what he is saying and either agree or disagree with some points, until he got to half way through part 2. The death and point buy stuff.

I just don't understand why he is so mad at these systems when point buy and 0 below have been around since 3.5 (maybe earlier as I have not played before that) and I don't quite understand his reasoning behind hating such systems. Like, I've played with rolls and had to live with lower stats as a norm due to poor rolling prowess, but it usually doesn't matter too much unless someone does roll extremely well. It always sucks when you want to play a Melee character with poor stats, and your fellow PC has 18s across the board and is being a Wizard but still more likely to hit and do more damage than you.

As for the death system, I like it more as a way to make more dramatic fight scenes, where a character is brought down while his allies try to help him or speed up their own battles so they can save their friend in time. Although I really don't mind if my character dies (Had a killer DM as my first DM), it is more annoying trying to introduce a new character to an established party.

[Tengu_temp]

Thats what spoony does. Thats who he is. He rants, he bitches, he rarely praises anything. I do hate the stuff he bitches about just to bitch about but when I also hate the things he does, its kind of entertaining to watch him go at it. (im looking at you ff10)

I know what Spoony does. I've been following him for years, and watched almost every video he produced. The difference is not whether you like what he's complaining about or not - I actually don't really like 5e. What makes the difference is that sometimes his bitching is entertaining, while other times he's talking out of his ass and spewing nonsense. And this is the latter.



I just don't understand why he is so mad at these systems when point buy and 0 below have been around since 3.5 (maybe earlier as I have not played before that) and I don't quite understand his reasoning behind hating such systems.

It's the RPG equivalent of a grumpy old man waving his cane and complaining about how kids these days are spoiled because back in the day they didn't have video games or TV and had to make their own fun. And by "back in the day", I mean the nineties - 3e didn't even exist back then.

[da_chicken]

Donatello beat everything on that game.

Except the dam. Raphael and Michelangelo beat the dam.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I've got a bucket at home with a hole about half an inch from the bottom. I can attach a spout to it, and use it for bottling beer. Most of the time I use it to hold solids, but without that hole near the bottom it would be a much ****tier bucket...

I also have a bucket with an airtight locking lid, but it has a minor defect and can let fumes out. This leak almost killed me when I was driving with it full of some dangerous chemicals, and I started violently puking. Without that tiny defect, that I can't even visually see, it would be a much better bucket.

If you're using your RPG books as buckets, you really need to make a trip to Home Depot.

[Lord Raziere]

I've got a bucket at home with a hole about half an inch from the bottom. I can attach a spout to it, and use it for bottling beer. Most of the time I use it to hold solids, but without that hole near the bottom it would be a much ****tier bucket...

I also have a bucket with an airtight locking lid, but it has a minor defect and can let fumes out. This leak almost killed me when I was driving with it full of some dangerous chemicals, and I started violently puking. Without that tiny defect, that I can't even visually see, it would be a much better bucket.

If you're using your RPG books as buckets, you really need to make a trip to Home Depot.

and if there was a big hole in the latter one, you wouldn't have gotten that bucket in the first place, because people are smart enough to build buckets that function properly around dangerous chemicals and thus if you have a bigger hole, you would've died faster.

while the people who made the bucket with the former, clearly didn't care enough about making that bucket good enough to not get a big hole in it, and its only because of your creativity that makes it better, which says nothing about how good of a bucket it is. it shows us how good you are at making it a beer bottler and watering can, which is not its intended purpose at all. the fact that it can be repurposed so thus makes it a bad bucket.

[Jacob.Tyr]

and if there was a big hole in the latter one, you wouldn't have gotten that bucket in the first place, because people are smart enough to build buckets that function properly around dangerous chemicals and thus if you have a bigger hole, you would've died faster.

while the people who made the bucket with the former, clearly didn't care enough about making that bucket good enough to not get a big hole in it, and its only because of your creativity that makes it better, which says nothing about how good of a bucket it is. it shows us how good you are at making it a beer bottler and watering can, which is not its intended purpose at all. the fact that it can be repurposed so thus makes it a bad bucket.
Oh no, I bought it with the hole. That was, in fact, a feature that greatly impacted my bucket purchasing.

[SiuiS]

Then I guess he's failing miserably, because there's nothing entertaining in this one.

Yeah. I got through twenty minutes of board games and didn't care, so I stopped. I'm one if the lucky ones.

[MadBear]

all this talk of buckets has me wanting to order myself a bucket of KFC. And the wax coating is definitely a feature on this one :smallbiggrin:

[TriForce]

ah. but Superman is the fighter, and the Batman is the wizard- even though Superman is the one with magical alien powers and Batman is the normal guy with a few gadgets. Batman's flexibility comes at a price for not being as powerful as Superman, while Superman's great power comes at a price of not being flexible as Batman.

this is not applicable to wizards and fighters.

Wizards have both more power and more flexibility than fighters. not only can they do more things, but they can do them bigger. not only can the fighter do only one thing well, it doesn't nearly have as much impact as the Wizard.

if say, the Wizard could do a lot of things but ultimately could not affect anything a bigger, more world-breaking scale like Batman, and the Warrior could do his one fighting thing just as powerfully and world-breakingly as Superman- THEN you'd have an argument! but as is, the warrior is so far away from Superman that its laughable because the warrior cannot take on anything Superman can, while any Wizard content with being the small time utility belt person is not being imaginative enough with the great power at their fingertips, because they can do far more than mere Batman.

Batman and Superman are far better designed than the classes- Batman has the power of a fighter but the flexibility of a wizard, while Superman has the power of a wizard but the flexibility of a fighter. they are not comparable.

im sorry, but this responce is basically ignoring everything i said before my quote. the point of my post was not to argue superman vs batman, i used it as a example.

lets replace it with another example then. the sentry (marvel) and captain america. does the existance of the sentry (who is objectivly more powerful then capt america) mean that cap is useless? or that his story has less value? ofc it doesnt.

now my point, if you want to respond to my post i would appreciate it if you argued this instead of wich superhero is a wizard: if balance problems in a system prevent you or others from roleplaying, its a player problem, not a rules problem. if one of your players is intend on doing everything better then the rest, then even in a perfectly balanced game, he would still try to do that, forcing your other players to do the same by NEEDING to optimize (since even in a perfectly balanced game, not every choice is equal). THATS what will inhibit roleplay, not the rules themselves.

[Lord Raziere]

im sorry, but this responce is basically ignoring everything i said before my quote. the point of my post was not to argue superman vs batman, i used it as a example.

lets replace it with another example then. the sentry (marvel) and captain america. does the existance of the sentry (who is objectivly more powerful then capt america) mean that cap is useless? or that his story has less value? ofc it doesnt.

now my point, if you want to respond to my post i would appreciate it if you argued this instead of wich superhero is a wizard: if balance problems in a system prevent you or others from roleplaying, its a player problem, not a rules problem. if one of your players is intend on doing everything better then the rest, then even in a perfectly balanced game, he would still try to do that, forcing your other players to do the same by NEEDING to optimize (since even in a perfectly balanced game, not every choice is equal). THATS what will inhibit roleplay, not the rules themselves.

The Sentry can't exist without the Void existing as well, any actions of good are counterbalanced by all the bad the Void does, and therefore the Sentries usefulness is a net zero, therefore Sentry is powerless.

Captain America is not useless, because he is objectively more powerful than the guy who always has an evil clone there to counter his every move and therefore render all his actions null.

systems are there to balance things and make sure we are not making god characters who can do anything, not to allow imbalance to happen. if it does not do its job, then its not a good system now is it?

[Durazno]

Maybe Thor would have been a better example.

[HorridElemental]

Except the dam. Raphael and Michelangelo beat the dam.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6HZ5V9rT96M

[Sir_Leorik]

It needed to copy/paste as many parts of 3.5 as it could. That's because its goal was to steal market-share by reducing switching costs (that is, the time, money, and effort required for a user to switch to a different product and learn how to use it) while still differentiating itself as a product (using things like the consolidated skill system and class tweaks). It did both of these things successfully.

I think there may have been legal issues as well. Paizo may not have been able to veer too far away from the d20 system SRD before running into legal trouble.

EDIT: Can we stop waging an edition war? Please? Spoony is entitled to prefer Pathfinder to 5E, he's not entitled to make misogynist comments about fellow reviewers, and I found his review of 5E lazy.