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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgoroth" data-source="post: 6051691" data-attributes="member: 6674889">..Disagree, the AEDU unified mechanic, especially across say, the Fighter vs the Wizard, did in practice make the classes seem too uniform. Sure, that's how they balanced those core classes, but most people, in fact, did not in the end like it.I detested that I couldn't memorize two of the same daily spell. What if I'm building a wall for fortifications and need an extra Wall of Stone instead of a Fireball today? Cannot do. What if today I don't need any utilities and it's final-battle time and I foresee really needing that extra fireball? Cannot do that either. The system was an annoying kludge compared to previous editions. They fixed the wizard by giving him a four-button etch-a-sketch instead of a pad and box of crayons, and thought to themselves, hey...let's do the same to fighters!!! yay... //I liked 4e, because it reminded me of a tactical turn-based videogame, NOT because it was a good ruleset to allow me to colour outside the lines. It actively penalized you for even attempting to do so.Now in Next, with maneuvers and EDs, I re-read them all last night, and can say simply :I want more!! More maneuvers. But let us all playtest the crap out of them to find out what's broken. We don't want all wizards grabbing one level of fighter just for Parry, or stuff like that. I think martial classes should multiclass better amongst themselves, mechanically, and EDs allow that mechanic to scale with level regardless of whether you do a 2e / 3e or 4e style MC system, as someone else so aptly mentioned here.+1 to maneuvers! I love me some Parry action. Always wanted that in a D&D edition. That said, if one can apply a variable DR every round, why not a fixed one with armor? //do not understand</blockquote>

Verification