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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9151677" data-attributes="member: 2067">Exactly!It's also a different kind of game design. 1e is closer to "dungeon survival," with 5e being closer to a narrative kind of game (with a clear emphasis on combats). The 1e MU only does this if they find the right treasure, just as the fighter only lops of heads if they find the right treasure. The 5e Wizard does this if they want to, and the 5e Fighter should be able to basically do stuff like this if they want to, as well. Magically manipulate minds, fire arrows that burst into energy, create illusions, conjure items out of thin air (or at least a magical sack), turn invisible, teleport, change shape, etc. Give everyone those tools (more like 5e) or give no one those tools (more like 1e), but don't expect that you can put a "mundane" character without those tools in a game where wizards are promised those tools without seeing that discrepancy. It's not a problem of Big Enough Numbers or Enough Cool Options, exactly, it's more a problem of genre expectations. Yeah, it's a serious question! Because how "magical" something is can be a moving target. If using an explicitly magical sword every round is less magical than turning invisible, once, then we've got some handy guidelines to the aesthetics of magic.And a fighter who can turn invisible once a day is then not "mundane" anymore.But a fighter who can't turn invisible once a day isn't going to feel equal to a Wizard to a lot of people (no amount of Hide Real Good is going to match this vibe). So, I'm proposing, we just let the fighter turn invisible. Let's just be supernatural. She learns a rune she can scribe onto armor that lets her do that. Booyah.</blockquote>

Verification