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: 5878305" data-attributes="member: 95493">They CAN reconcile conflicting desires. They CANNOT reconcile all conflicting desires with one specific desire. What would be your reaction if I said, from a pre-4e standpoint to someone.Unless 4e has all my requirements of 3e I'm not going to play it. I'm not going to give it a single chance. I'm not alone in my feeling and if it doesn't provide me with my expectations and requirements then there is ZERO chance of me playing. Because of that it failed in its target of making me play 4e.That is what you are saying about 5e. And I'm sorry to say that if you are completely unwilling to budge on everything that I'm glad you won't be playing 5e. It will leave more material for me to play in 5e. I'm not saying the game they are building is going to be one I'm going to like but at least I'm willing to give it a chance and evaluate it by itself as opposed to a new version of MY game.What's that expression I keep hearing lately? Fandom does not equal ownership. If you don't like the game that is being produced then don't buy it. If you do then do. If it is missing something either add it or adapt to not having it. Those are your choices. Sorry.WHY is it an at-will power? Why is it a power at all? Why can't it just be someone punching someone else in the face?Powers, at least in 4e, had power sources. Powers weren't just things you did they were things you did with power or energy from something/somewhere/a source. You couldn't just punch someone in the face without the at-will power source of "punch someone in the face". If you lacked the power/ability then you couldn't do it. You only got so many at-wills, dailies, utilities and encounters afterall, or am I missing something?A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But a flower that is yellow and smells like daffodils probably isn't a rose.The point is that yes previous editions had effects that 4e called At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies (but not utilities).The difference is that those "At wills" didn't require a power source. Most of them barely required training. You could know/use more than a set of them at a time. They weren't "powers" you needed to train up and use they were just things you did without name.With encounter powers at least we understood the power source and why they could only be used sparingly (I'm thinking of rage BTW as you say encounter powers are new). We knew the limits and understood where they came from. They weren't just things like shoving a guy back 3 squares and being unable to do it again, they were things that ACTUALLY tired you out and had tangible effects and reasons why they couldn't be performed. Generally speaking encounter effects LASTED all encounter as opposed to being performed once in a fight.Dailies, weren't needed to be called dailies, were things that required extraordinary effort and consumed resources. They weren't "draining" enough that a rest could cure them and they were VERY rare. You wouldn't have X of them to use in a combat, and they weren't used to hit a guy for extra damage. That would be insane by pre-4e standards on powers. With the exception of several monk powers I can think of almost no daily powers existing in 3e.All in all, if 4e had done a better job of conveying these powers, how they worked and their limits then I know I would have been better off excepting them. It is another example where I was excluded from the though process and had no idea what the final product was trying to do, outside of its mechanics. WotC did a very poor job not only with the explanations of things but with the development of things and this time they are trying a much more open and honest approach to game design. I am encouraged to see them trying - poorly but trying - to get feedback and realize what the game should look like BEFORE it is released. I love the examples you give. One of which is a class that is vertually unused and both of which are full fledged casters.I will explain this slowly so I only have to do it once.Non-magic should not resemble magic. Non-magic should not be a FORM of magic. Non-magic should observe the laws of nature. Magic should briefly disrupt or break the laws of nature. If magic existed it should not by itself make all other forms (which are non-magic) suddenly not obey the laws of nature. If magic existed it should not suddenly (without any connection or effect) make dogs suddenly start purring and cats walk on the ceiling.Now that is dealt with, back to your post <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" /> Binders and warlocks = magical people who use magical effects.Improved trip never mentioned At-Will. It allows you to trip people more easily and readily but it mentions not At-Will.Reserve feats were silly, but as I recall they dealt with magic too.Oh and Tome of Battle. I hate TOB, always have probably always will. They made non-magic into magic in order to balance things out. This may be my root problem with balancing things out, I am not sure. Either way I am not versed well enough with TOB to tell if At Will was used there. But I will say that non-magic should not equal magic - as I outlined above.</blockquote>

Verification