Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7465554" data-attributes="member: 6801845">[MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION],Ok, I admit it.&nbsp; I considered 4E's martial powers to be effectively spells and supernatural.&nbsp; Not that they were Spells(TM) or Supernatural(TM) as defined in the book, but spells and supernatural as a layman not into gamer-speak would define them.&nbsp; For better or worse, even though I've played D&amp;D pretty much since it started, I don't do gamer-speak.&nbsp; In addition, I was disappointed from level 1 that my 4E fighter couldn't be just a straight-up mechanically mundane fighter.&nbsp; He just wasn't.&nbsp; Many people I played with expressed the same opinion.That didn't make it a bad game.&nbsp; I had quite a bit of fun playing my supernaturally talented (again, not Supernatural(TM)) fighter for quite a while.&nbsp; But he never felt like my 3E fighter.&nbsp; He lived in a cartoon/anime/superhero universe where all heroes could do things that weren't physically possible, even accounting for the simplified representation of the universe required by a game.&nbsp; It bugs me that people won't accept that in my opinion, no amount of fluff could justify that without <s>magic</s> <s>supernatural</s> mystical* abilities he could not have done much of what he did encounter after encounter.In 5E, I can play my fighter again.&nbsp; A Champion that doesn't need anything other than his blazingly fast trusty sword.&nbsp; Or I can play a rogue that relies on skill and talent to get the job done.&nbsp; There are some martial archetypes that have capabilities that are borderline mystical in nature (or of course the Eldritch Knight that is explicitly magical).&nbsp; Which is also fine.&nbsp; As long as there's room for my completely mundane fighter that has no supernatural or Supernatural(TM) capabilities.I don't intend or mean any of what I just said as &quot;bashing&quot; 4E.&nbsp; The game was what it was, I played it from inception to release of the 5E starter set.&nbsp; The problems I had with it were only partly because my fighter could not fit an archetype of the fighting man that had always existed in previous editions.&nbsp; I'm just happy that in 5E I can get back to playing that completely mundane fighter.&nbsp; Now that I'm done with my arcane trickster, and after my paladin, my monk, maybe a barbarian ... hmm.&nbsp; It may be a while before I have the opportunity.&nbsp; But at least it's there.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />*mystical is OK, right?&nbsp; I don't think it was ever defined as a game term anywhere in 4E</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7465554, member: 6801845"] [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION], Ok, I admit it. I considered 4E's martial powers to be effectively spells and supernatural. Not that they were Spells(TM) or Supernatural(TM) as defined in the book, but spells and supernatural as a layman not into gamer-speak would define them. For better or worse, even though I've played D&D pretty much since it started, I don't do gamer-speak. In addition, I was disappointed from level 1 that my 4E fighter couldn't be just a straight-up mechanically mundane fighter. He just wasn't. Many people I played with expressed the same opinion. That didn't make it a bad game. I had quite a bit of fun playing my supernaturally talented (again, not Supernatural(TM)) fighter for quite a while. But he never felt like my 3E fighter. He lived in a cartoon/anime/superhero universe where all heroes could do things that weren't physically possible, even accounting for the simplified representation of the universe required by a game. It bugs [I]me[/I] that people won't accept that in my opinion, no amount of fluff could justify that without [S]magic[/S] [S]supernatural[/S] mystical* abilities he could not have done much of what he did encounter after encounter. In 5E, I can play my fighter again. A Champion that doesn't need anything other than his blazingly fast trusty sword. Or I can play a rogue that relies on skill and talent to get the job done. There are some martial archetypes that have capabilities that are borderline mystical in nature (or of course the Eldritch Knight that is explicitly magical). Which is also fine. As long as there's room for my completely mundane fighter that has no supernatural or Supernatural(TM) capabilities. I don't intend or mean any of what I just said as "bashing" 4E. The game was what it was, I played it from inception to release of the 5E starter set. The problems I had with it were only partly because my fighter could not fit an archetype of the fighting man that had always existed in previous editions. I'm just happy that in 5E I can get back to playing that completely mundane fighter. Now that I'm done with my arcane trickster, and after my paladin, my monk, maybe a barbarian ... hmm. It may be a while before I have the opportunity. But at least it's there. :) [I]*mystical is OK, right? I don't think it was ever defined as a game term anywhere in 4E[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification