Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7665450" data-attributes="member: 996">I have enough trouble finding anyone who was outraged by healing in 4e, off-line.  I won't go looking. "Fighters cast spells."  A favorite edition-war-era h4ter lie, much repeated as a reason to hate 4e.  5e comes along, and fighters - specifically with the Eldritch Knight archetype - /actually/ cast spells.  Nobody cares.  Because it's not the detail, it's the context and what's accomplished.  Fighters using exploits and wizards using spells in 4e, all under the common AEDU framework, allowed the classes to be better-balanced than ever before (and, obviously, better balanced than they appear to be in 5e).  The power-block format also made how each exploit, prayer, & spell worked mechanically, much clearer, reducing the need for ad-hoc rulings to keep the game flowing.In stark contrast, the EK actually casting spells has none of those effects.  Spells have one sort of write-up, totems another, manuevers and ki powers yet others, and so forth.  There's not even an appearance of balance among the classes.  In spite of the similarity (fighter casting spells), the differences are clear, and preferences can be formed accordingly.  Does that really matter, though?  It's not the many details, but the overall effect that matters.  It's easy to break a balanced game.   It is very vocally so, yes, one of the things that mitigates it's mechanical failings.  Of course, nothing stops a DM from house-ruling any system, even a more robust one like 4e.  Well, nothing except a Cult of RAW like the one that grew up around 3.x, in spite of its explicit 'Rule 0' language, that is.  Players are not so entirely powerless as all that.</blockquote>

Verification