Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8305503" data-attributes="member: 87792">Fighters and barbarians did not have fireballs. If you dislike the ability of fighters to attack people surrounding them then the whirlwind attack of 3.X must have been a problem. But I can not think of one single ranged area of attack power for the fighter.I have problems not seeing this as 100% spellcaster jealousy that other classes get toys at all rather than the casters getting to hoard the toys. So samey to you is "because I'm the wizard they roll a save rather than I roll an attack roll".To me samey is more in how you interact with the fiction than who gets to pick up the dice. In terms of how you interact with the fiction "I hit it" is extremely samey - and is no more different from a fireball based on who's rolling. Because historically (i.e. pre-4e) there have been just about no features for many classes other than spells. If we look at classes then the 3.5 sorcerer and cleric between them do not get one single class feature at above level 1. The wizard and fighter between them only get extra feats as class features at above level 1 - which are hardly unique mechanics because literally everyone gets feats. That's three of the core four classes not getting any unique mechanics other than spells after level 1. (And for that matter having very few unique mechanics at level 1). 4e made an end to the cookie cutter classes that had gone before. The fighter started off with the equivalent of about four unique feats (some pretty high level in 3.X) in order to be so dangerous that enemies couldn't take their eyes off them even if the barbarian hit harder. The wizard and the sorcerer were no longer sharing a spell list with each other.And even within a class two fighters would move differently. You could have slippery fighters, aggressive fighters that pushed people around, and fighters that would stay there like rocks.5e fortunately takes some (but not all) of the richness added by 4e.But all that differs between them is the spells. And far more unforgivably two wizards that swap spellbooks are pretty much interchangeable and even moreso two clerics or two druids that prepare other spells one day. The only mechanical difference is what they've bothered to prepare.The only versions of D&D that do that are 4e and 5e. In all other editions the difference between fully active and dead is so narrow that this gameplay can only happen despite the system. D&D was originally intended to be a gritty game about people grubbing around for hard cash with 1XP for each GP and where you went into the dungeon mob handed so some of you made it out alive. In 3.5 you died at a mere -10hp (which was a hell of a lot slacker than 0hp in the earliest editions). There's almost no room between being fit as a fiddle and being dead as a doornail. 4e was the first D&D to be able to do without a massive amount of fudging what you claim D&D is - and oD&D was almost the literal opposite of what you claim that D&D is.Once more you are defining fighters by what they can't do. To you a fighter is someone who can neither attack an area or kill someone fast and you're explicitly making it that Magic Must Be Special. It isn't just that it's magic and can break the laws of physics that makes it special. It's that it must be able to do the things that in the real world we can do with normal equipment so anything mundane that would work must be nerfed to keep magic as special. I know of no one who's died swiftly in the real world to magic - but plenty of people have to swords. So I suppose it does make magic more impactful to replace swords with boffer swords.There's nothing wrong with playing Mage: the Ascension, Invisible Sun, Ars Magica where mages are just better than everyone else and magic does solve most things. But all three games have one thing in common: they don't try to present mundane characters as on a level with mages. D&D does. I certainly won't go round killing players!</blockquote>

Verification