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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8411905" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Do you have any examples of specific 4e powers like this? Part of the reason many 4e fans are not keen on such responses is that one, and only one, specific group of classes actually gets subjected to them: martial classes. No one has any problem with the idea that a magical effect can only be used once per combat, but as soon as something is martial, it (for whatever reason) must be bound by what actual, literal human beings in our real, physical world can do. (Even though most people have a pretty bad understanding of the upper limits of human achievement, so it in practice ends up more like "what I, personally, think is possible for a human to do based solely on what I, personally, find difficult to do.")When the complaint unduly affects the one group within D&D design that has been consistently deprived of opportunities to play at the same level of power and engagement as other groups, it implies a concern about some abstract notion (such as "consistency," "verisimilitude," etc.) being more important than ensuring that most players' desired fantasy gets reasonable and effective representation within the game. Some would disparagingly summarize that as "I can't have fun unless casters are more powerful than non-casters." While that is obviously reductive, it does point to a serious, ongoing issue with D&D design, where anything that tends to be kind to non-casters without also being kind to casters, people find a justification to dislike, and anything that tends to be unkind to casters without also being unkind to non-casters is treated as a horrible affront.</blockquote>

Verification