Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 4024446" data-attributes="member: 10095">But that's not their marketing strategy. You're making that up. You're assuming because you can't seem to get through a simple video without getting insulted by it that they must be saying you weren't having fun before (which is totally ridiculous to claim).A lot of character used to only have one real option in combat, whether it was level one or level 20. Spellcasters, on the other hand, had huge increases in options as they leveled. So, while your level 1 spellcaster may have four or five options, your level twenty has dozens, while your level 1/20 fighters are still limited to the same one real option: full attack (if you don't move, that is).Now characters will always have a handful (or more) of abilities as real options at each level, instead of the incredible imbalance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Also, since abilities play off other things (opportunity attacks, Bloodied condition, etc), not all abilities will be part of the decision-making process on your turn (you can't use a Bloodied-only ability when you're not Bloodied).Just like &quot;monsters with player rules&quot; is a bug, not a feature, so your minotaur wizard example is just an example of a bug.See how that subjective dismissal thing works?That's your opinion, and it seems to be based on 3e's cheapening of rings into things like +5 bonus to a skill. 4e appears to be looking to it's influences, which almost all show magical rings to special items, not trifles. 3e was the only thing I can think of that treated them in such a mundane fashion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Little Raven, post: 4024446, member: 10095"] But that's not their marketing strategy. You're making that up. You're assuming because you can't seem to get through a simple video without getting insulted by it that they must be saying you weren't having fun before (which is totally ridiculous to claim). A lot of character used to only have one real option in combat, whether it was level one or level 20. Spellcasters, on the other hand, had huge increases in options as they leveled. So, while your level 1 spellcaster may have four or five options, your level twenty has dozens, while your level 1/20 fighters are still limited to the same one real option: full attack (if you don't move, that is). Now characters will always have a handful (or more) of abilities as real options at each level, instead of the incredible imbalance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Also, since abilities play off other things (opportunity attacks, Bloodied condition, etc), not all abilities will be part of the decision-making process on your turn (you can't use a Bloodied-only ability when you're not Bloodied). Just like "monsters with player rules" is a bug, not a feature, so your minotaur wizard example is just an example of a bug. See how that subjective dismissal thing works? That's your opinion, and it seems to be based on 3e's cheapening of rings into things like +5 bonus to a skill. 4e appears to be looking to it's influences, which almost all show magical rings to special items, not trifles. 3e was the only thing I can think of that treated them in such a mundane fashion. [/QUOTE]

Verification