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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amrynn Moonshadow" data-source="post: 4049658" data-attributes="member: 382">the fundamental shift from 1e/2e/3e to 4e is really in nomenclature.rangers will not have "spells" as they are defined in 4th edition. that does not mean that they will not have abilities which produce effects that are amazing -- if not technically magical.look at the basics of D&D -- on any given round, you are either a) moving somewhere, b) swinging / shooting at something, or c) doing something else (healing an ally, drinking a potion, casting a spell, using a wand, etc).in the first 2 editions the classes that did a lot of B were not so great at C. The classes that were great at C were not so hot at B.Then in 3rd edition this continued, however more C was added accross the board. (backstab became sneak attack, rangers had more rules, and so forth). eventually everyone got more stuff to do in column C . . . except the winners of the column B -- the fighters.in 3.5 we got an amazing book, which gave a lot of C to martial characters (book of nine swords). as that's a preview for 4e I think we can agree that now all classes have an option to do A, B, and C each round.a fighter move (martial power) that hits someone for 3d6 damage, on the spreadsheet level, seems to be a lot like a wizard casting lightning bolt.so all classes will have 'spells' as they were known in the first few editions, but since 3.5 things have changed, and now 4e is trying to equalize the power on every level, and as a result, everyone may have abilities that are amazing, but not technically 'spells' . . .personally I didn't hate rangers with spells, but instead of some of the more clericy ones, this 4e ranger appears to have a different spell list. (more woodsy stuff, less clericy ones -- and they aren't called spells anymore)that's my impression. what do you guys and gals think?</blockquote>

Verification