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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pentius" data-source="post: 5680740" data-attributes="member: 6676736">Those are two very different things.  Not to mention that there was boatloads of 3.x material, even just first party, which makes me skeptical that you had really used it all so thoroughly that you couldn't keep playing without new stuff. That sounds like distinctly a problem with the store, not the edition.  Every game has jerks.    So, does that mean I could get Pathfinder shoved down my throat?  [/snark]Actually, the Fighter in my group is an Essentials Knight, so he does "basic fight", assuming by that you mean he uses basic attacks.  Using a different mechanical system to represent combat doesn't make it not fighting, though.  Just like in 2e, when they switched to ThAC0 instead of attack tables, Fighters were still fighting.  Or in 3e, where they switched to BAB and High Ac being better, Fighters were still fighting.  Each edition had somewhat different ways of determining success when the Fighter ran up and rang an orc's bell with his warhammer, but the end result is always fighting.I thought people played wizards because they were interested in their wizard character concepts.  Huh. I really don't like this argument.  Everyone works on a similar underlying mechanical framework in 4e.  So what?  My group's fighter isn't the guy that inscribes spells in a book for later use.  My group's Wizard isn't running at the enemy with a warhammer.  In 3e, everyone got HP, and AC, and save bonuses, and standard/move/minor actions on their turn.  They also got their abilities largely via class features.  Did this make them the same?  No.  The Ranger and the Sorcerer both got spells, did this make them the same?  No.More like wizard battle might take a couple weeks if a turn were a day.  But the comparison was that spells were refreshed in a set amount of time.  It doesn't so much matter what length of time.I don't know.  The planeswalkers always bored me, to be honest.  I enjoyed the card game as a card game.  I also enjoyed the artwork, and once I looked into it at all, the settings.Yeah, that part always sucked. The colors are pretty much spell schools, just not the D&D ones.  Each color specializes in different effects and approaches.  For what it's worth, you may have felt more like a wizard if you played Blue.  Red is really about creatures and damage spells.  Blue is where you start getting your metamagic/enchantment/abjuration stuff in. That does suck, but that isn't really a problem of exception based design(everything breaks the rules).  That kind of game comes up when different deck concepts(or classes, or builds) wildly outshine others, which is something wizards tried to reduce in 4e. Boo for a bad economy, but since TTPRGs aren't going away either way, yay for TTRPGs!</blockquote>

Verification