Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6834664" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think you have to be careful in projecting comments on what is, by design, a forum for discussion and debate into psychological states like "constant agitation".So let's turn from mental well-being to game design.5e makes a big deal of having different resource suites for different classes, and different mechanics as well. This is not an accident. As has been stated by the designers, and as in any event obvious, it is about evoking "feel" - especially the classic D&D feel. In this respect it is an obvious departure from 4e, which used highly symmetrical resource suites for all classes based around uniform mechanics.In 4e, differences in the fiction are only rarely expressed in the actual mechanical resolution method: in combat this tends to be "spend a power, roll a d20 to attack" and out of combat this tends to be "pile up any available bonuses, roll a d20 to determine movement within a skill challenge". The differences in the fiction are driven by outcomes: in combat, this is often about keywords and grid positioning; in a skill challenge this is typically about narration and fictional positioning.In 5e, though, difference in the fiction are very often expressed in the actual mechanical resolution method: there is a difference between making a weapon attack and casting a spell (eg anti-magic rules, attacks vs saves); there are different resource management rules (eg spell memorisation, rules for spell components, etc).To be a bit more concrete: in 4e you can't tell the difference between using a fighter close burst and a MU casting an AoE about him-/herself except by attending to the keywords (Arcane vs Martial; damage types; etc) and narrating the fiction on the basis of that; whereas in 5e the fighter's multi-attacks are mechanically based around the extra attack, action surge etc features (which treat each attack as a granular action declaration and then build baroque manipulations of the action economy on tope of that), while the MU's AoE will be resolved by the rules for spell areas in the magic chapter, via saving throws for enemies, etc.In this context, simply taking a suite of daily abilities and saying "they're not spells" is pushing hard against 5e's design paradigm. It requires pretending that those details of mechanical processes of resolution have no implications for the fiction; whereas the whole tenor of 5e (in contrast to 4e) is that those details do have implications for the fiction.</blockquote>

Verification