In the future, you can use this spoiler tag: [sblock]Enter text[/sblock]
You just "[ sblock] enter text [/sblock]" and it should work for you
I think what appealed to me most about 4e is that, for me, it was very much about providing process, but not limitations. There were really relatively few straight up limitations that weren't attempts to make workable mechanics. A dwarf can be a wizard, and swing an axe.
Right. They've just eliminated nearly all forms of magic and races (and left you with Wizard and dwarf). Now, 4e when I've played it has had a very respectable number of options as far as races and classes and backgrounds go. So I'm not complaining there. I'm just pointing out that rules, by their very nature, limit things about the game. So, if rules in my hypothetical Epic-level RPG limit things... well, that's what they're meant to do. So my reaction to that is... okay? Working as intended.
Sure, ALL games set up a basic structure of limitations, but 4e did it as little as possible, very consciously. To the point where the places it failed to do it were irritatingly apparent, like swordmages being limited to swords, why can't I be an axemage? There's no actual real REASON beyond 'flavor' for that, if you remove that rule no breakdown of game balance or anything else happens. Things like all classes falling into an AEDU structure are in the same category, simple and coherent and thus enabling. When I DO want to inevitably go beyond what was in the book its very very simple and easy to do that. If a player had a good narrative reason why his fighter could cast Fireball as a level 5 daily, its dirt simple to make it happen, and it isn't having some impact on the relative strengths of the characters, he gave up 'Come and Get It' for the privilege and the game thinks that's probably a reasonable trade off.
A couple of things. First, I agree that taking Fireball or whatever would be fine instead, and shouldn't probably cost a feat (though some combinations definitely might be overpowered... there are, after all, thousands of powers).
Second, your point on limiting things for flavor (like swords and Swordmages) is exactly what rules are often used to do: that's why you have Wizards that work the way they do (Vancian casting) and Bladesingers that use swords (elven sword mage guys) and so on. Rules are specifically made to give certain people (like Swordmages) certain abilities for a certain flavor of game.
Expanding on my second point, this is exactly what I was pointing out about my hypothetical Epic-level RPG. Yes, my institution of rules would limit the narrative. As all rules do. Most likely for flavor reasons. As rules in RPGS are commonly used. Your reaction seems to be "but that's limiting." Again, my reaction to that is... okay. Working as intended.
The rules are silent on this. They simply tell you what the mechanics are and provide flavor text. If the monk's 'hammer' is mechanically a club then no rules have even been referenced, let alone had a say, IMHO.
Not in my opinion (since they have rules for hammers). But, it's not like I stopped the player from doing it. I'm okay with doing it, so it's kind of moot, for the most part, in my 4e game. (Again, though, this is me, as a GM, with the power to change things, not the player.)
I believe it does take 24 hours, yes. That seems OK with me. Especially given that it is a feature of an ED and not a power or even a feat it seems like it should be more open to interpretation though.
I don't like "open to interpretation" rules when they're pretty well spelled out. I imagine it is actually "walking" and it is fairly explicitly 24 hours. But yeah, I could see me houseruling it, too, if I wanted to. Hell, I houserule my own RPG from time to time (none of this or that allowed in this campaign).
Yeah, I think most everyone nowadays that comments on 4e is of the opinion that Page 42 should have been located in the PHB. Nothing is perfect. I suspect every edition has had some sort of similar 'duh!' sort of element.
Almost certainly, yep. But again, if nothing else, page 42 was still awesomely useful for me, as the GM.
Yes, athletics has a formula for the DC equated to different jumps. Obviously if you were to drastically rebase Athletics then you'd have to probably add some sort of non-linearity to that.
This is the "changing the rules" but I kinda implied when it came to jumping to the moon being impossible.
Generally the game DOES have a 'base'. Various materials are consistently indicated to be associated with various levels and thus DCs, as are certain terrain elements. Falling damage also helps to scale things concretely. Still, the system is very straightforward and everything works on the basis of consistent DCs, so rescaling isn't that hard. It may not be any harder in 3.x in theory either, except 3.x has this large array of little subsystems and modifier tables and such that all have to be addressed. 4e has a LOT less of that.
That feels like a lot less support for me when I'm playing (instead of GMing). I have to rely on my GM, table to table, to translate what I can do and how hard it is for me to do. That's a terrible feeling for me, as a player. That pulls me out of immersion constantly, since I have to stop often to assess if I think something is possible, then how hard it is (immersion retained so far),
then I have to think if the GM would think it's possible and how hard they think it is, and then I have to determine if I want to go through with asking about it, just going for it, or trying to make a case for what I think. And it's all of those last steps that pull me out of immersion, and they pop up often in broadly vague systems, in my experience. (For others, looking things up in the book will pull them out of immersion. It goes both ways.)
I tend to favor simplicity and then I'm always free to have some kind of loose system for something if I want. 4e for instance has personality traits and quirks for NPCs, they just don't have any mechanical significance attached to them. Obviously they COULD impact modifiers in some cases, but they are primarily narrative tools, as are PC backgrounds for the most part. Its also a question of setting independence. In my own 4e hack I can add in these sorts of things if I want and they might mesh well with my setting, but while 4e espouses 'PoL' as a CONCEPT, it makes very few assumptions in its mechanics. In fact there is a profound LACK of mechanics impacting these sorts of story considerations in 4e. I liked that myself.
It's a hard mix. I have some NPC traits that aren't mechanical, so I get the value. But at the same time, the more that's in the hands of the player, the more empowered they are to make decisions. So, if you have a skill that allows them to fish up personality traits of NPCs (like my system does), it gives insight into how to interact with that character (how to push buttons, what you need to bribe them, etc.).
13a of course really took this to even another level, but they also had to tie it much more into the assumptions of their campaign world. Its kind of a trade-off. 4e walked the line pretty well. Honestly earlier editions didn't do terribly badly here either. They had more of an assumption of a medieval type of society built in, but it was never really too hard to override that, except in equipment choices where players tend to resist being restricted.
I want my D&D to be in a "medieval type of society" setting anyway. There was a huge turn off moment for me and 13a when I heard of someone's OUT being a jetpack. But, I also despised the idea of Eberron mainly for the dinosaurs and noir and trains. And anything with steampunk elements (sorry EN World publishing).
But yeah, it's all preference, there. One of my players once joked about making a guy with a magical ring that made force green objects and TK-moved things and was worthless against yellow things. It's possible within my system, and just knowing that kinda made a deep feeling of regret bubble up inside of me for the briefest of instants. But it's okay; I don't have to use my game that way, even if it's possible. Everyone likes different setting conceits, and everyone likes different amounts of player involvement in making the setting. And that's cool with me (see my sig).
