Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6069702" data-attributes="member: 17106">Well if you're really playing the role of the character, both will go hand in hand. Of course D&D is not "purely" a roleplaying game in that sense; there is typically a third-person element to it as well. However, it is nonetheless fairly typical that a character's and players perceptions and decisions will mirror each other, particularly in tactical situations.This whole metagame mechanic thing drives a wedge between the two, of course.So you're saying that a 4e fighter doesn't know when he's used his powers? What does he think about that one great attack he just did? How did he do that? Why doesn't he try to do it again?Clearly, magical characters know how many spells they have. I can't see why (under the 4e paradigm), other power sources are different.I think you've just explicated why saving throws were changed to reflect more tangible qualities, and why hit points should be too.I get that. I also get that it's really bizarre that a player chooses directly between having the character do something that is completely explained within the context of the game world (such as a basic attack) and something that isn't.Given that D&D is for both the some and the others, I'd say it's worth considering.Yes, however, rpgs are very different from novels. In an rpg, characters can do what they want. They have more freedom, and more time, to push the limits of the world. They ask more questions, try more things, and not infrequently do so with a specific angle on world domination. It's much more important for a DM to understand why the world works the way it does than it is for an author (and for an author it's still important).Okay, that works for you. I need more than that. My players need more than that.The OP, the D&D designers, and more.I'm not talking about removal. I'm talking about restriction. My ideal wizard can theoretically do anything that a 3e wizard can do. It just isn't so easy.For example, the latest 5e draft simply took the teleport spells from 3e and pushed them back a few levels. Nothing wrong with that, but there are a variety of other restrictions and costs, including some with D&D precedent (spell learning used to be much harder, for example) and some without.Well, I've also advocated for a lot more modularity in magic systems than what we've seen, but I don't see any evidence that nerfing casters will irritate as many people as making fighters quasi-magical. And anyway, one can significantly reduce the scope of a 3e wizard's power while still preserving a pretty high magic game, in the grand scheme of things.No. All the other reasons that myself and others are giving kind of put a damper on that, though.</blockquote>

Verification