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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6052037" data-attributes="member: 17106">I do, and they do. The problem with fighters using the spellcasting mechanic is that it's a spellcasting mechanic, and is inappropriate for nonmagical tasks.And the structure is also an issue. There is no reason why all characters should gain their learned abilities at the same rate or that all of them should be functionally equivalent, nor is that what I'm advocating. The play experience of 3e and earlier editions could easily be preserved while breaking down the existing classes in their constituent elements.One character is a fighter who chose combat skills and weapon focus feats. Another is a wizard who chose evocation as a skill and magic missile as a feat, the feat being usable only a few times a day through some mechanism or other. The characters function the same way as they did in AD&D, but now it's possible to build a fighter/mage hybrid who chooses both without all the misery of multiclassing.I think a lot of the functionality of spells could be duplicated with skills replacing caster level, and feats providing the ability to cast a certain spell.Depends who you ask. I agree that it would be different from earlier editions (though very similar to 3e's standardization and consolidation of disparate mechanics). However, any substantial revision is going to be "not D&D" in some sense.Given that many people do consider 4e to be D&D, and others feel that it is a departure but has independent merit, I see no problem with advocating change, particularly what I think would be change for the better. My point being: people are flexible.</blockquote>

Verification