[midnightq2]

Alright, I’m going to try this one last time.

Originally Posted by Menchi

I've already pointed out how you claim repetition of powers - but you did not provide accurate examples of repetition, nor did you show with an example that 3.5 didn't have this repetition.

You mean other than the nine examples I gave in the review? As far as "accurate," I addressed that in a previous post. If anyone wants to post the complete text of all nine powers with explanations of the terminology, go right ahead.

Also, I never claimed that that 3.5 had less repetitious powers, because 3.5 didn't have powers in the same sense. The closest equivalents were class features, most of which weren’t chosen, and feats, some of which were somewhat repetitious, but there weren't as many of them, and they weren't a central feature of the game. I wasn't specifically comparing 4e to 3.5 here.

You claimed that Wizards and Clerics are almost the same, but then didn't provide any examples that proved this - whereas reading the book shows that mechanically they are different.

The similarity lies in the basic structure of the classes. All classes now have the same number of powers, the same number of which are once-per-day, once-per-encounter, etc., and most of which are combat attacks. Individual powers are different, but their basic purpose and structure are the same. I don't know how to "prove" this, other than quoting several entire chapters.

You claim that spell-casters are hurt by the new game system - but then cite comparing the rules of 3.5 without really explaining that while a Wizard in 3.5 might have access to a lot of spells - he's limited to the number of spells he can cast, whereas in 4e a Wizard will *always* have spells.

Actually, I did note all of those things, albeit briefly. My point was, I’d rather have a limited number of spells each day and a larger number to choose from. The new edition does not provide the option of playing this way.

I notice that you didn’t give any examples of other reviews that satisfactorily “prove” their points.

Heck, you complain that the warlord never got to use his special abilities. My question is why? If you used the sample scenario in the DMG, then the warlord should have been very busy.

First, I didn’t use the sample scenario in the DMG. Second, the warlord’s problem was that for most of the combat, he wasn’t close enough to any allies who would be able to take advantage of his powers (see examples in the review).

You still haven’t given any specific examples of misunderstandings. What rules do you think I misunderstood? Am I wrong in thinking that many of the warlord’s powers require him to be close to an ally? Your reasoning seems to be that if I didn’t enjoy the game, it must be because I didn’t understand it.

I’m not going to bother further addressing the issues of “bias” or of being “incomplete.” These issues have been exhausted.