NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7665616" data-attributes="member: 996">There's no question that 4e choose clarity and consistency in it's presentation, over natural language ambiguity.  It did make large sections of 4e read more like a rulebook or technical manual than like exposition in a novel.  A little dry if you try to plow through it in an evening, but nice when you're determining what something does.But, trying to suggest that the same presentation makes two things the same, and that's a problem in 4e, but in no other edition brings up yet another one of these inconsistencies.  Spells in each edition, are presented in the same format.  And, that presentation crosses both class and 'source' lines, with clerics, druids, wizards &c all using 'spells' rather than having any distinction between magic from the gods, magic from nature, or magic from arcane secrets.  Yet there's little complaint voiced that casters are all somehow 'samey.'  Even though they are not only presented in the same format, using the same format, but take it a step further and re-cycle the exact same spell in different class lists.  5e & 3e take that samey-ness another step further, by presenting all spells, for all classes not only in the same format, but all together, in alphabetical order.  Yet 5e and 3e casters classes aren't derided for being 'the same.'Only when 3.5 took it to the extreme of giving the Sorcerer and Wizard virtually identical spell lists were a few eyebrows raised.</blockquote>

Verification