Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5860158" data-attributes="member: 6668292">So you agree with me that "universal calls of a subjective feel need to stop on both sides, but voicing your subjective view on how something makes you feel should be okay"?Well, my 4e is rusty, but I remember defined combat maneuvers for bull rush and grapple, but not trip (although I could easily, easily be mistaken). If that is the case, is what you're offering right now a house rule? Because that'd be the Oberoni Fallacy.You could use page 42. Those guidelines should cover it, I would imagine. Still, you don't understand how someone could get their lines crossed when the rules don't give explicit explanation of how to use a completely mundane ability except for as an encounter or daily power?Ideally. But, my ideals account for many, many things that no edition of D&D has successfully accomplished, so take that as you will.I don't see any reasoning on why this can't be done at the same time, mundanely, at will. I could see it not doing any damage, too, but I also didn't see why "no damage" needs to be the case.Isn't that what at-wills are? Now, you just have like, what, three of them? (Though, to be fair, you would probably use your encounter powers first, letting you use 4-5 powers per combat... significantly above the Char-Op board trip Fighter.)Except that's exactly what's happening. The Wizard is using Fireball over and over again, and it's represented within the fiction as the Wizard using Fireball again. And, it takes him rest to get his spell back.Then, you switch over to the Fighter, and if people don't switch gears right, they expect the same thing, since they have the exact same resolution system with that character. Fighters (and other mundane characters) are more abstract, because their powers seem to be more dramatist; that is, they can achieve the perfect setup, etc. You're switching from someone who does in fact use the same power over and over (the Wizard) to someone who gets the same result over and over (the Fighter), and that can trip some people up (get it?).I'm sure that's some people, but I doubt your statement is true universally, and I'd guess it's off by a wide margin.Well, combats in my game take a long time. I like that. I enjoy them when they do pop up (maybe once every 10 hours of gaming). I think that our current conversation, however, on what Fighters/Wizards feel like to some people, is completely divorced from that. "Fighters" and "Wizards" in my game would use such a completely different resolution system that I doubt many people would say they "feel" the same, but I could see it from the fringe (the d20 mechanic in general to some people). As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />These arguments of "wrong people are wrong" and "biased people are biased" are true, but I think we all knew that. I think they're pretty much ignoring my point, which was that "universal calls of a subjective feel need to stop on both sides, but voicing your subjective view on how something makes you feel should be okay." How is that in any way objectionable? As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification