Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6881466" data-attributes="member: 996">Your 'definition' is wrong within the context of the game in question, which had it's own power Source definitions.  Within 5e's definition of magic, OTOH:  The EK casts spells, spells are explicitly magic.  EKs are explicitly a fighter sub-class.  They're fighters who use magic.  Not quite like a vancian spellcaster, no.  Classic D&D 'Vancian' casters memorized spells and used verbal, somatic, and material components to evoke their effects, losing memory of the spell - but could memorize the same spell more than once if they wanted.  No 4e (or 5e) classes actually did all that (even 3e classes stopped 'memorizing' and started 'preparing').  5e casters use spontaneous slots, like non-Vancian 3.x Sorcerers.  In 4e, only the Wizard memorized ('prepared') spells, but couldn't prep the same spell more than once.    So, it's really just x/day, and that's an entirely different issue.  Magic in genre (even in the works of Jack Vance) doesn't work a limited x/day like they do in D&D.  Most characters in genre, OTOH, don't display the exact same moves over and over - they have some 'signature' tricks and some others that get used less often, not necessarily with any explanation why.  D&D has used x/day limits for non-magical abilities before and since, as well.  3e Barbarian rage, for instance, was x/day, but explicitly (EX)traordinary.   The 5e fighter, BTW, also gets an x/day (as well as x/rest) ability...So it's not that everyone was 'using magic,' nor even that everyone had limited-use abilities, rather the distinction was that non-magic-using characters had limited-use abilities that rivaled those of casters in both availability and power (though not in scope or versatility).  Balance is what you objected to.  That's fine, not everyone has to like balance, and 5e has been doing quite well without much balance baked into it's system (DMs can always impose balance, afterall). True.  You could simply never use magic, regardless of class.  ;PAnd, you can free up a few classes from that 'burden' of actually being magical by simply banning the sub-classes that do gain spell slots.  Well, that is, if you do not extend your definition of 'use magic' to 'has limited-use abilities,' even when those abilities are not explicitly magical the way spells, rituals and ki are in 5e.  In that case you're still out of luck.I quite like it, myself.  You can dislike sushi all you want, but you probably shouldn't go around saying that it's all textured soy protein, because that's an outright lie, and disparaging to all the folks out there catching all that lovely fish and serving it at sushi bars.By the same token, you - like thecasualoblivion - may not like this or that RPG, or even this or that edition of D&D (defunct or current), which is fine but, you should still refrain from making false claims to justify that dislike.  Doing so isn't just offensive to people with different opinions, but makes you appear petty and dishonest, as well.  Why would you want to do that to yourself, even from behind a message board avatar?  Besides, it's not necessary to have, let alone 'prove' a reason for disliking something.  Disliking it is enough.Games do have a life cycle.  At any point in a games life cycle, you can deny criticisms (rather than actually answering them), by simply claiming that it's 'too early' in the life cycle to judge, or 'too late' in the life cycle to change.  Often, different apologist will do each, simultaneously.  This may be a little existential, but you can certainly judge the game once it's out of print.  And 5e's very much in print.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />That'd be unfortunate, as 5e's goals including trying to re-unify the fan base.They really aren't, at least, not with the system.  AL is certainly trawling for players, but at least as much returning ones as entirely new ones.A little easier for bookkeeping.  Class generation isn't all that simple - simpler than 3.x, more complicated than B/X or 1e.  What it is, though, is fairly familiar to long-time players./Less/ class balance than the last edition, to please fans of yet older editions.  Again, to please fans of older editions.Alignment has not been removed.Not so much.  Classes and races have been restored to their earlier 'feel,' FR has been re-set to be closer to what it was before the Spellplague. Lol.  It is at odds with the idea that 5e is aimed at giving new players a fun/gentle first play experience, and consistent with the game being primarily targeted at long-time and returning players.  That is what some so-called 'grognards' and returning players might expect.  Again, that points to the edition taking them into consideration, arguably, ahead of the potential for new players.And, it /does/ make sense.  Since the end of the initial fad in the 80s.  D&D has acquired new players via existing players bringing them into games and teaching them.  No matter how appealing new players might have found a less-traditional take on D&D, no matter how positive a first-play experience the designers could have contrived to provide via the mechanics, if existing players didn't whole-heartedly embrace the latest edition, they weren't going to be there to indoctrinate potential new players into it.  5e probably isn't as good at retaining new players as some more modernized version might have been, but it's better at getting old players to bring new players into the hobby.5e is prettymuch for the long-time and returning 'old' player.Case in point...Thanks.Yep.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Right again, my friend.</blockquote>

Verification