Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CuRoi" data-source="post: 5509962" data-attributes="member: 98032">Now I know you're pulling my leg! Yes, you've described the basics for a huge swath of RPGs in the above and those statements could apply to really any of them.  If you are rushing to the defense of whichever system you feel was affronted, keep in mind, its really unnecessary. I like and dislike both systems in some respects and I am only interested in discussing what each succeeded in doing and what each failed in doing on a constructive level. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> Just in case, again, to avoid offending anyone, I am not making a qualitative statement here. One way is not necessarily better and one way may work better for one group of people than another. I do feel though that each tends to more support a different style of play, thus the big raging inconsolable debate people keep having. By story, I am not referring just to "flavor text" of an attack. A Fighter can push back a foe with his shield while a Wizard pushes back a foe with thunder or something. Or in 3.5 a Wizard can stun a foe by waggling fingers while a monk can punch them in the head for the same effect. What I am referring to are the underlying assumptions of how these characters have arrived at, exercise, and deploy these powers whcih consequently is a part of the underlying story.  In one version, IMO, Swords and Sorcery are very different things at this level, in the other the line is not so clear.  In 3.5, it is more clear that the Spellcaster is engaging in a studied art for which there are clear means of practice that define it as specifically NOT being a martial concept. You study spells, they belong to schools, these spells can persist and be analyzed with various other spells, many can be utilized in a number of creative ways whether inside or outside combat, there is an internal strategy to use of these spells that does tend to exclude martial classes, the spells are by definition not like persistent feats which you can use at will - they are specifically "fire and forget". Spellcasting in 3.5, for better or for worse, is more clearly a realm of its own mechanically and what is required of a caster to interact with the game world.  For 4e, "Powers" are a broad description of what everyone can do. There is less feel for a solid difference between say a magic missile and an arrow fired from a bow - both do all the things you mentioned (attack rolls - which were not the norm for 2e/3e DnD spellcasters; damage; possible special conditions; the same usage rate and limitations; the same actions to exercise these abilities, etc. etc.) All classes now, for better or for worse, utilize one uniform system in order to accomplish their effects.  The biggest separation is the flavor text and the class "role" that helps define how these effects interact with the game world.  Again, is it a problem or an EVIL thing? No. Its just a very plain difference and consequently, IMO, it has an effect on how these characters will interact on a story level and even what the story will require of each.   Whether you find one way more mechanically sound or more mechanically pleasing is a moot point IMO. Ive come to the conclusion that all the raging debate on mechanics is just a smokescreen for the underlying issue. The real debate, from what I can see, rests at how these things fundamentally interact with the imagined world around them. Some people just -want- spellcasters to be a classification unto themselves who do happen to have abilities that are more...supernatural let's call it (don't read too much into this)...than a fighter's tactical command of the battlefield.   I personally, IMO, have found that I prefer the solid separation of the two concepts and it supports the way I tell stories best.</blockquote>

Verification