Next comment I see about CAGI as representative of 4e is going to be met by a diatribe housecats and the way they can slaughter commoners and first level wizards as representative of 3e/PF. CAGI is a (rare) example of the mechanics falling short of the fluff. And there's a reason it's the one always brought up.
But, any good system should strive to create as accurate a model as possible. And, to me, this is far more important than the presence or absence of fudging.
Accurate or precise? Because I'm more than happy to give up some precision even with a little accuracy. (I own GURPS vehicles).
Again, roleplay on top of any system is not the question. The question is: how well does the system model the roleplay?
The question to me is: How well does the system
support the roleplay. Modelling is just one of the steps towards supporting.
I don't play RM or Serenity, so no comment there. But I've been running 3E for a decade now. Your concerns listed don't apply, so they don't add to this conversation.
OK
Yes, a lot of things in D&D are not realistic, but they make sense in context of how things in the D&D universe are supposed to work. A lot of things introduced in 4E are not only not realistic, but are completely disconnected from how things are supposed to work in D&D.
And there we have our problem
4e is a new game.
I believe the term for this is versimalitude, and it is something that I find almost completely lacking in 4E.
And I find it far more present there than in many other games including 3e and PF - as I've mentioned, the default ability to move people when you do relevant things rather than have them just stand there goes a long way.
The pertinent question, IMHO, is "Does a game support this base idea, or not?" For example, if the game has problems if a power only works when it makes sense within the context of the setting, then that game does not support the idea that the system serves the setting.
And again, I'm pointing out the kinaesthetics, and wizards
not needing crossbows. Oh, and fighters being able to protect people.
An example of this is the oft-mentioned CaGI
See above. And no one IIRC came up with a decent alternative to CAGI on the unrealistic power stakes.
(In the case of this last question, I have heard "Perhaps it was always there"
How do you yell a dying man back on his feet.....
Break him out of shock. And see Rocky for details of yelling someone dropping unconscious onto their feet.
And, once that initial surge of adrenalin is gone, why doesn't he collapse again?
The shock's gone and the blood's now flowing.
The real problem, IMHO, is that, in prior editions, the DM was supposed to adjudicate the rules in order to correct these problems. In 4e, over and over, I have heard that the DM who corrects these problems is doing something wrong.
Nothing WotC has put out indicates anything other than an expectation that the setting will shift to match what the mechanics do.
And very little of the 4e mechanics affect things outside a 100 yard radius of the PCs. 4e runs on Holywood Physics.
Or, if they have adjusted this philosophy, I haven't seen it.....And would like some info on where to find it.
I think Dark Sun's giving it a go. I'll be interested in the output.
OK.. tide of iron can do it better. Or least, can do it before. But this does not demostrates that there are things that 3.5/PF cannot do compared to 4th (the original point). You can say Tide>BR, not Tide>Shield Slam. And BR can be a good substitution if played smart.
BR is
not a good substitution. Because BR does something fundamentally different - it prevents you hitting people with your sword. BR is for throwing people around, not for almost unconscious bullying.
Moreover, once a shield fighter hit level 6, he can full attacks. It can be immediately 2 "tides" per round. Think about a Shield Slam + Whirlwind Attack. I prefer 3.5/PF because if well combined, 2 "powers" become 4, 6 basing on the situation.
Yes, I get it. Pathfinder Fighters are combat beasts. It's not effectiveness I'm talking about here - it's mechanical support for the way your character actually moves and thinks.
You mean, you got more things at level 1 in 4th. Fair.
Not the point. I mean that the PF fighter is incapable of fighting the way
I fight with sword and board. The 4e fighter can - almost effortlessly. If a supposedly professional fighter is worse at a type of fighting than I am, something is going wrong.
Not sure at the same rate. But this is, of course, a thing connected to the math of the game. I prefer more swingy combats, but, again, a matter of tastes.
I meant that the 4e fighter would kill someone faster than he otherwise would if they try and escape. Not comparing the two fighters.
See above. About disarm, myself, I remember an epic intimidate check of a Fighter in a former campaing. Made after 7 guardsmen disarmed in the same round. I can see how disarm should be difficult (so a feat/power depending from the edition) but IMO relegate it to fluff is way too much. Again, your tastes, that I respect.
It's not all gone - I've regularly disarmed people using attacks meant to knock them prone (and instead they dive to pick up their weapon.)
OK - but a favor is not a spell (see the DC 30 lore check). So, assuming that they ae both plot devices (well, ANYTHING should be, following this reasoning), they will work differently. If they do not, I risk to kill my player immersion.
Or you just give Efreets Wishes.
