Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 8305514" data-attributes="member: 6796468">Wow. That's... Huh.So... First things first: That's 24 spells out of, like, 300. As compared to -all- 4e Combat spells just being an attack roll against a different type of Armor Class. Oh, I know they were &quot;Fortitude, Reflex, Will&quot; but it was just another target number for the wizard to roll against instead of AC. It's almost like 5e utilizes a -variety- of different methods, even within the same class, rather than making everything the -same-. Wild.Making the game easier to balance may seem important, but it's a bad reason to cut out granularity. Which is what I was getting at in the part you drastically misunderstood.No. 4e didn't have 10 spell templates and all spells followed them. The videogame I was referencing however does. Because I was making an Analogy of the &quot;Fighters don't do Fire damage!&quot; thing. Yeah. Fighters don't do fire damage. Neither does an Ice Focused Spellmaster. But if the mechanics for Fire and Physical and Ice and Lightning are the same (Or drastically similar) does it actually -matter- in terms of the playspace? And the answer is a resounding &quot;No&quot;. It's why people who complain about 5e doing a bunch of fire spells and then just kinda half-assing it on the rest of the elements with the option to &quot;Flavor Spells&quot; as whatever damage type you like have ground to stand on.Burning Hands as an Ice spell still lights flammable objects in the area on Fire. It doesn't light them on Ice. Because changing the Keyword doesn't actually mean a whole heck of a lot. The DM can of course rule that an Icy Burning Hands doesn't light things on fire, but it's still just changing the keyword without actually, y'know, having a different ice-based spell with it's own unique and interesting effects.Anyway... yeah. I'm done arguing about this. You like 4e? Great! I didn't. You're not going to retroactively convince me that it was great.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steampunkette, post: 8305514, member: 6796468"] Wow. That's... Huh. So... First things first: That's 24 spells out of, like, 300. As compared to -all- 4e Combat spells just being an attack roll against a different type of Armor Class. Oh, I know they were "Fortitude, Reflex, Will" but it was just another target number for the wizard to roll against instead of AC. It's almost like 5e utilizes a -variety- of different methods, even within the same class, rather than making everything the -same-. Wild. Making the game easier to balance may seem important, but it's a bad reason to cut out granularity. Which is what I was getting at in the part you drastically misunderstood. No. 4e didn't have 10 spell templates and all spells followed them. The videogame I was referencing however does. Because I was making an Analogy of the "Fighters don't do Fire damage!" thing. Yeah. Fighters don't do fire damage. Neither does an Ice Focused Spellmaster. But if the mechanics for Fire and Physical and Ice and Lightning are the same (Or drastically similar) does it actually -matter- in terms of the playspace? And the answer is a resounding "No". It's why people who complain about 5e doing a bunch of fire spells and then just kinda half-assing it on the rest of the elements with the option to "Flavor Spells" as whatever damage type you like have ground to stand on. Burning Hands as an Ice spell still lights flammable objects in the area on Fire. It doesn't light them on Ice. Because changing the Keyword doesn't actually mean a whole heck of a lot. The DM can of course rule that an Icy Burning Hands doesn't light things on fire, but it's still just changing the keyword without actually, y'know, having a different ice-based spell with it's own unique and interesting effects. Anyway... yeah. I'm done arguing about this. You like 4e? Great! I didn't. You're not going to retroactively convince me that it was great. [/QUOTE]

Verification