Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5957126" data-attributes="member: 95493">Game balance can be achieved any number of ways. And I specifically said what my objections were, and they weren't that wizards were brought down more than one notch. Quite the opposite. Compromise isn't the only way to do it. I propose limitations, but there are a number of other solutions. If the only solution you can see is the starved balance of AEDU then we clearly need to stop this conversation because I can't reason with YOU.There are disadvantages to a common structure too. With the AEDU system it doesn't allow any specific class to excel at any time. It allows even advancement. There are different tricks that can be performed but these are in line with different positions on the baseball diamond. If you don't want to play any of the standard positions in baseball and instead want to kick the ball, or use a tennis racket or tackle people then AEDU isn't the system for you.It isn't about innovation or stagnation at all. It also isn't what I am talking about at all Tony and it would help if you replied to the FULL passage instead of only a part of it. I think I give a better example of what I'm talking about (especially MY views on the flaws of 4e) instead of what you think I'm talking about.The comment about essentials was more to do about a common power source than anything else. So I don't get what you are saying here.I am unfamiliar with TTFRPG, so you'll have to excuse me on that part.As far your comments though - you should have quoted the entire part as it was all relevant to what you are talking about here.But, when the rules state magic should work a certain way then it should continue to work that way and not change its mind. This is clearer with the rest of that part you cut off - that fireball should fry you if you take the hit instead of letting you live this one time. It has more to do with the nature of the game then anything else.As far as mythological examples then I can perfectly understand the niche situations where something else happens, those are rare and mythological. I was talking about more standard FICTIONAL accounts of how magic should work.Think about the highlander series, they are immortal and have a number of restrictions. If you start having them violate those restrictions without cause or explanation then you are going to encounter problems. As, surprisingly I know <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" />, the highlander series DID.Once again, this comment only works about the mechanics of DnD, because that's all you quoted. That isn't what I'm talking about at all. For the sake of argument I'm going to answer this though. Why can magic missile hit unerringly (or most people prefer it to) while fireball (may) have to hit a square, and rays need touch attacks but regular attacks roll against full AC? There are certainly inconsistencies that we accept in the game, mechanics-wise, that are present throughout the game. They've always been there. Again, this isn't what I was talking about, but you get me so annoyed that I had to respond. I need to stop doing that.Um... my position, which you should have fully quoted, what that BOTH fighters and wizards should have limits. Not that the wizard should have unlimited power, nor that they should only be limited in risk and resources. My point is that it doesn't make sense for both groups to not have limits. Removing limits from both doesn't address the problem, it just means that both are equally broken. Reducing the wizard, similarly, to be in line with the fighter doesn't address this problem either. Limits and reducing power addresses it much more easily and simply. Wizards can get unlimited power if they work towards it, so can fighters. That is my point here.Cutting half the paragraph helps you make your point ONLY because it is basically the same thing I say in the latter part of the paragraph you cut.I said that all classes should have avenues to get great power. I suppose it is my fault because I gave examples of how they could do this. I also said that my examples should only be one of several ways they can get there and that they can mix and match.What you IGNORED is that wizards shouldn't have godly powers unless this happens. What you also ignored is that NO ONE should have godly powers unless they get there. Anyone and everyone should get them if they work towards it, it shouldn't be tied only to one [category] class, but it also shouldn't be automatic. The automation is where I think 4e really really dropped the ball.This is my favourite part. "When it needs to happen" is in no way the same as "daily power". That is the problem. Daily power is a power that can be done once, or is supposed to be only done once. When it needs to happen is exactly what I said. It happens whenever it needs to happen, be that once ever, once per day, or a hundred times that day or even that fight. It is a mechanic that should occur when conditions are met, perhaps a child is stuck under the car and the fighter (or anyone) needs to move it. That would make sense for the fighter getting strong enough to move the car and they shouldn't have to pay for it by burning a daily slot.Now you could tell me this is a Page 42 example, but page 42 isn't normal rules and is IMO BETTER than normal 4e rules.What is more, daily powers are just as they sound too. They are a resource that can be expended once every day. What happens when the fighter needs to do something a second time? No good. Why can the fighter do it once every day? Again another explanation needed. That is the problem with that argument Tony.Sidenote: Tony all your posts and replies do is frustrate me. For that reason I'm going to set you to ignore so I don't have a heart attack in the next year just from reading your comments. Have fun.</blockquote>

Verification