Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5983792" data-attributes="member: 996">The statement I was replying to, however, was directed against the 4e fighter, specifically.And, really, I'm not so sure a mechanic constitutes a 'style.'  If having a fighter with daily powers 'suppresses' the 'style' of not having daily powers, then d20 suppresses the 'style' of using a randomization technique with a normal distribution (while GURPS supports that 'style,' for instance).  That's just silly.  The same goes for a common advancement structure across classes somehow impeding styles.  While the specifics of that structure may do so, the mere fact of one does not - as the wealth of outright classless games (including universal and multi-genre examples) amply demonstrate.OTOH, whether an adventure covers a day or a few days or months of time in the imagined world /is/ a stylistic choice, and one that is constrained by the presence of resources pegged to the 24-hour day or 8-hour/12-hours-apart extended rests.  The more profound the significance of those resources, the greater the barrier to playing in other styles.  Traditional Vancian put virtually all of a caster's, particularly a wizard's, power in his daily spells, which made balancing them a matter of tightly restricting how often they could recover those resources.  4e merely took class balance out of the equation by giving everyone dailies, but only reduced the pacing issue by reducing the dependence on such powers substantially - it didn't eliminate it.  5e is going all-in, and stating explicitly that the game is to be played only in 'days' with prescribed amounts of challenge in each day - an obvious necessity to /try/ to balance the return of daily-power Vancian casters vs the return of power-less non-casters, but one that narrows the range of styles it can support. Here is what you said:Don't see a call for 'options' there.There's certainly a core to the D&D fanbase that rejects change, even when it's for the better.  While an edition that amounts to little more than a re-print or consolidation of past editions might appeal to that core, it also might fail as they continue to stick tight to their favored versions of the game.:shrug:  While I can't see the wisdom in it, I can see the motivation to /try/, and it's ultimately WotC's (Hasbro's) line, and their decision.  Just as it's our decision whether to buy into it or no.  What you said (quoted above) was that the 5e fighter didn't have powers because the 4e fighter was "anathema to more."  Sounds like you're presenting an (imagined) majority hatred of the 4e fighter as grounds for never presenting the option of a fighter with powers.</blockquote>

Verification