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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5873343" data-attributes="member: 95493">I want to know what the opposite of this is, apparently what you prefer?Do you want all options to be tied to a class when you immediately take it? You want every fighter to be able to be the best archer, sword and boarder, cavalier, rager (barbarian), knight, warrior, lancer, clansman, hunter and ranger all the way through his class? Don't get me wrong, that would be awesome but it seems like a lot. I would much rather have a base fighter who can fight well, then add things to make him into a good archer, clansman, etc. Adding flavour and ability instead of having all flavour and abilities baked in.From the long conversations I've had about how encounter and dailies work. I think it has almost nothing to do with fatigue. I mean I know fatigue is the official reason, that is why resting briefly restores the ability, but when you look at the power themselves there is better explanations.For example, I forget the exact power as this conversation was months ago, there were a number of encounter powers we were discussing and how they didn't make sense. How, we asked, could a power only be good only once per encounter but work in every encounter? The answer we were given more closely resembled that it worked because it did X, and that because it happened the other creatures saw X and wouldn't be fooled. That is a fine, but kind of silly, explanation. It just barely works because it does a much better job of saying why something should be encounter. It doesn't work because it is not the explanation given in the book and should have no effect on rest or fatigue. Just my 2 cents on that one topic <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />These two are very related to I'll address them as one.First, I'm sure that these examples are how games went for both of you, in your respective games, but it is NOT what I have had and what I have seen around as the typical way that occurs.A. I never "thought about playing wizards first and then jumped over to sorcerer." In fact the couple of times where I played either class I chose them for flavour reasons not mechanical reasons.B. I HAVE seen that wizards are by far the more preferred class, sadly.C. Never had the "wands" thing you seemed to, in my 6-10 casters (including druids and clerics too) I have only ever carried wands in 2-3. Of those they were ALL clerics who wanted to maximize healing after their own/bigger spells were done.D. Not sure what these posts have to do with the topic.Ok, few things. I agree that I see no reason to combine them. I agree that the party CAN stop after every fight to let the wizard rest. I don't agree that every party DOES or even should do that however.Also, I am one of those who didn't enjoy 4e's switch to powers and probably "cried out loud" with the rest of them. I didn't especially want to see them change it back to Vancian as Vancian has its own problems too. Vancian, IMHO, is just better than 4e, so I'm glad to see them switch back. It's like politics. You may not thing your preferred party is the best, but it is certainly better than the other guy.Next, what is AEDU?Oh, and agreed on the "why are there spells in a non-spell book" thing.</blockquote>

Verification