Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 6886308" data-attributes="member: 6834463">Nope, if your read my post it would be clear that this is not what it is based on, somehow you missed all of that...One would have to essentially ignore the guidelines entirely to have a meaningful situation where meeting the same task with the same DC was significant. Not to mention skill challenges, level appropriate skill checks, scaling defenses, which you seem to have skipped over for some reason<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />Of course, we both know that I was never talking about the fact that the DCs for a specific task did not necessarily change with level if the PC encountered them later, except where I expressly acknowledged that they occurred but were undeniably rare in the 4e system RAW and RAI.  Well, if you are going to argue that reading something and ignoring a major part of it is the same as reading something and picking up on something that is there, then this won't be productive, will it? Reading the 4e fighter class description doesn't make it clear that using a bow is essentially bad in the way or with the clarity that the 5e ranger class description makes it clear that rangers can cast spells. Yet you say it's a "perfect" comparison? Hard to believe that you could not see the flaws in that comparison...Probably the most interesting thing to me is this... despite the ridiculousness of the comparison, it almost makes the point even more clear. A ranger who chose not to cast spells would still not be as nerfed as a 4e fighter with a bow.Or, you know, you could actually read my post. Here again are the only parts I could find that are pertinent. Please try to read objectively. Now, if you can take that and say that;  "The only way to take what you said is that there are no non-casters." Or that I am somehow "coming around" to the fact that there are, then it gets very hard to believe you are arguing in good faith.No, I said the opposite, quite clearly and in plain English. I have no idea what definition of "martial" you are using in 5e, is it the only categorization in the book wherein a spellcaster is explicitly described as a "martial archetype"? Is it the actual English language definition wherein any character in 5e could be martial, regardless of class and subclass? Or is it one that applied in other systems?It isn't even about the fighter though, it is a result of the system. Because delineations such as "martial" are not baked into classes, and because spellcasting is available to any class, and because of bounded accuracy, and because of the fact that "basic" attacks are not terrible, the system is more flexible and less likely to lead to charachters that border on non-viable. For example, pretty much any class with reasonable DEX and proficiency can pick up a bow and be more effective with it (relative to the system), than a 4e fighter.</blockquote>

Verification