Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5823016" data-attributes="member: 2067">These comments -- and it's more than just Gort making them -- are befuddling to me. 4e fighters were also making an attack once per round. Every 4e attack power is a variation on &quot;I swing my sword.&quot; 4e wizard attack powers are all variations on &quot;I blow it up.&quot;90% of your character's abilities in 4e are just slight adjustments on &quot;I try and kill it.&quot; That hasn't seemed useful or interesting to me for 4 years. 4e wizards in combat could turn invisible, fly, and put up invulnerable walls (the other 10% of powers: combat utility powers), while fighers could not. Furthermore, 5e developers have been on record -- multiple times -- saying they don't intend to take away the more detailed 4e approach to &quot;I swing my sword&quot; for those who like it. And ultimately, the whole &quot;wizards are overpowered!&quot; meme isn't addressed by making &quot;I blow it up&quot; or &quot;I swing my sword&quot; more complicated. It's addressed by keeping the social/combat/exploration pillars of the game siloed away from each other, either by treating spells and magic items both as treasure or both as class powers, and by ensuring that choices are equitable. Basically, I don't quite understand the frothing paranoia about some return to some hypothetical dark ages of roleplaying just because 5e happens to probably include a fighter that can opt not to use 4e's complex attack powers. Sounds very...Chicken Little to me.A game system that can't handle multiple consecutive attacks against a single opponent is far too fragile and precious to survive any group that I play with. I don't believe it's as impossible as you seem to think it is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5823016, member: 2067"] These comments -- and it's more than just Gort making them -- are befuddling to me. 4e fighters were also making an attack once per round. Every 4e attack power is a variation on "I swing my sword." 4e wizard attack powers are all variations on "I blow it up." 90% of your character's abilities in 4e are just slight adjustments on "I try and kill it." That hasn't seemed useful or interesting to me for 4 years. 4e wizards in combat could turn invisible, fly, and put up invulnerable walls (the other 10% of powers: combat utility powers), while fighers could not. Furthermore, 5e developers have been on record -- multiple times -- saying they don't intend to take away the more detailed 4e approach to "I swing my sword" for those who like it. And ultimately, the whole "wizards are overpowered!" meme isn't addressed by making "I blow it up" or "I swing my sword" more complicated. It's addressed by keeping the social/combat/exploration pillars of the game siloed away from each other, either by treating spells and magic items both as treasure or both as class powers, and by ensuring that choices are equitable. Basically, I don't quite understand the frothing paranoia about some return to some hypothetical dark ages of roleplaying just because 5e happens to probably include a fighter that can opt not to use 4e's complex attack powers. Sounds very...Chicken Little to me. A game system that can't handle multiple consecutive attacks against a single opponent is far too fragile and precious to survive any group that I play with. I don't believe it's as impossible as you seem to think it is. [/QUOTE]

Verification