Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Garthanos" data-source="post: 8421326" data-attributes="member: 82504">Because people did not have platforms of rage to express on when they went from 2e to 3e would be one reason. The rage was there but the ease of expressing its religious zeal were not. Gygax had a platform and i would say "freaked out" even on the minor changes in 2e.Actually I think OMG they changed it was a primary actual cause and issue,  4e was the largest design shift probably ever and they were willing to do so arguably in part because they needed fresh IP not bound by the Open Gaming license, not saying it was completely for that reason but rather that was an enabler for change that was too sudden for many people.The sharing of spell lists across the board for every bloody class in 5e makes them feel far more the same to me it strips them of many points of subtle uniqueness, and does it unabashedly without even flavor differences. And mechanically My Swordmage in 4e feels utterly different than a fighter and isn't taking the same bloody sentinel feat to do defender tricks that the fighter does nor same spells easily accessed by other classes. (see also, sometimes class specific feats that modify powers distinctly in 4e but not 5e) To me there were more distinctions thrown away but not in the name of balance.D&D has a long history of using the same mechanics or incredibly near the same for things that could have been made distinct . In stormbringer for instance they made divine intervention another trick all its own instead of spell casting. Similarly in RuneQuest divine magic were utterly distinctly than spirit magic more like miracles but oops they are really just spells very often ones shared without even bare flavor differences in the latest D&D.The basic ability can indeed be just renamed but exists in a context and be affected elsewhere transformed by by different class specific feats and abilities for instance. And further I do not see simple renaming as pervasive as you are presenting.I am sure is that somehow bad thing oh right if its very different but still balanced it must be bad.Funny how you make that a negative. The term I use i actually balanced environment, after decades of utter imbalance and careless design it is a complete breath of fresh air. D&D is and has always been schizophrenic in its game language with to hit not meaning hit (not really) and damage not meaning damage. People become used to such over time except when you do not want to... 1 to 4 hours and a trivial amount of healing and a day will get you up and running regardless and your terrible terrible wounds are poof. There are people that do not like that either but you let yourself just ignore that no problem. Realistically people die of shock even sometimes from what might be relatively minor injury a hero pushing past that on their own or with the help of Warlords primitive and empowered psychotherapy is just a really minor thing to me. yes  (only misses one element book dependence) this is an aside of anything else... but its very close to the Jack Vances writing  in terms of how many spells are known.I didnt find it difficult to explain at all the shrug was deprecative (ie it was saying it is no big deal for me). For me complexity of thought being in common between martial types doing their trickiest moves and non-martial doing their trickiest moves is a perfect parallel. Where as the treating martial as I hit it with my sword triviality is one of the things I hate more than a little in other editions and interferes with the way I envision both reality and fantasy worlds.  Is that exactly about balance?Further I actually love the ambiguity expressed in the descriptions of Martial Power, as it connects to ancient legends and myth and fantasy and the mechanics try to follow through. For me It drips with real awesome. I mentioned earlier that early legend and myth has both things like "Warrior" or "Craftsman" magic and the asian Ki and similar where ambiguity between mundane and martial things and magical things is the norm.The ambiguity between heroes and gods is also expressed in 4e supported with the ongoing attribute advancement and epic destinies and similar. The lack of which in 5e messes with my fantasy. Hero in Greek Myth virtually meant half god, I say virtually because the literal meaning is defender.In the common fiction. Heck kings being or having their own kind of subtle magic you see in the Lord of the Rings where an oath to a king becomes a binding that goes beyond death and can give Aragorn an army of the dead or allows the king to use a weed as a healing herb. He is not casting a "healing spell" just like everyone else does off a common spell list.In "explicitville" unsubtle 5e one could make a feat Call it Kings Blood, that allowed temp hit points granted by the character to be treated as healing and normal hit points if the subject is not at full hit points. (add in a few other things that really matter mechanically).To me 5e is very much crude/unsubtle with martial types treated as simplistic.(even the Battlemaster with its drab unpoetic abilities that are each and every appropriate for level 3) demonstrates it.</blockquote>

Verification