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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 3971729" data-attributes="member: 18490">This is possibly the worst case of spin I've seen, even on this forum. Not a single statement above is remotely objective.No one, aside from a few 4e haters, has said that wizards will be just evokers. It has been stated that the most powerful echantment and illusion effects are being reserved for other classes. Utility spells (e.g. phantome steed) have already been mentioned as still being in the game, as have non-evocation spells such as sleep.Fighters have powers, most of which would be better described as maneuvers. Anyone who has even skimmed the Book of Nine Swords (touted as a significant preview of 4e) can see that the majority of the powers listed in that book are not supernatural in origin.Per encounter abilities in no way equal button smashing. It is an alternate method of resource management that doesn't require a party to rest after a 15 minute work day. It also happens to simulate cinematic action (yes, even non-anime cinematic action) and traditional fantasy (i.e. fantasy not written from a D&D perspective) better than the current system.Anyone who thinks that monsters in D&D are one trick ponies hasn't been looking at the previews we've been given. Dragons in particular have been shown to have a wide range of abilities and attacks. If giving foes a tighter focus means no more giants with a strange mish-mash of abilities that don't work together, and are either too powerful or so weak as to be meaningless for a CR appropriate encounter, then I am all for it. It's what's called good game design.The only reason that the designers of 4e didn't implement some of the upcoming changes is that they were afraid of slaughtering too many sacred cows.</blockquote>

Verification