D&D 5E 5e Fighter, Do You Enjoy Playiing It?

[MechaPilot]

Not just a 4e thing, but we saw it in 3e as well. People looking at their character sheet to see what they could do. In 3e, it was even worse because often they were discouraged from attempting anything because another player might have had a higher modifier. When I play my B/X games (especially with kids), they don't look at a character sheet. They say what they want to do, and many times it's very creative.

To use the whole sunder argument mentioned earlier? It was said that in 4e, it was easy because you had the daily power and just declared you were going to do it. What happens if you don't have that daily? Or had it but used it? Forget it right? Don't bother because you can't? Well, in my example of how I would handle it in AD&D, anyone could try. Just tell me what you want and we'll figure out a way to handle it. That's what I mean. It is objectively true that the more tightly you define how something works, the more limited outcomes you can have. It's basic math.

Well, what happens if you didn't have the power or already used it depends on the DM.

4e is my favorite edition, but it's certainly not perfect (no edition is), and one of the first changes I made was to separate uses of powers from powers known. For example, under my changed model if you knew two encounter powers, you had those two powers and two uses to divide between them as you saw fit. This meant you could use a power twice if you wanted to.

I also let people try to perform powers they didn't have or had already consumed all their uses on. I just adjusted the effects slightly so that people who spent an actual use on the power were more effective at it than people who just attempted it.

I also had to change the way the MC power-swap feats worked (you shouldn't have to spend a feat to trade two equivalent powers), but that's a different issue.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So your answer is "4e isn't more limiting, as long as you don't follow 4e's rules"?


Gotcha.

 

[MechaPilot]

So your answer is "4e isn't more limiting, as long as you don't follow 4e's rules"?


Gotcha.

No. My answer is the same as it is for every edition of D&D: if the rules don't say you can/can't do something it's a matter of DM adjudication, and that's going to vary from DM to DM.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But unlike the other editions, where you are coming up with a way to handle something that doesn't have a specific rule, in 4e you are explicitly overriding an existing rule and ignoring a core part of the game mechanics (how powers are assessed and the economy of how to use them) to achieve the same thing.

Certainly you can see that difference.

"make up a rule for something that's not covered" and "ignore and change the core mechanics" are not the same thing at all. If you have to change the very basic core of the mechanics to a game, then it's not a very good argument to say that it's just as much freedom as other versions.

 

[MechaPilot]

But unlike the other editions, where you are coming up with a way to handle something that doesn't have a specific rule, in 4e you are explicitly overriding an existing rule and ignoring a core part of the game mechanics (how powers are assessed and the economy of how to use them) to achieve the same thing.

Certainly you can see that difference.

"make up a rule for something that's not covered" and "ignore and change the core mechanics" are not the same thing at all. If you have to change the very basic core of the mechanics to a game, then it's not a very good argument to say that it's just as much freedom as other versions.

I am not overriding a rule. There is no rule that says you cannot attempt to replicate the effects of a power you don't have or have exhausted your uses of.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But the CORE mechanic of the game is balanced around the AEDU system. In fact, it's constantly being harped as one of the best things about 4e--being extremely well balanced. And your solution is to completely ignore that?

I stick by my assessment that if you have to completely ignore the core aspect of a game to argue that it's not more limiting, then it's a pretty weak argument.

 

[MechaPilot]

But the CORE mechanic of the game is balanced around the AEDU system. In fact, it's constantly being harped as one of the best things about 4e--being extremely well balanced. And your solution is to completely ignore that?

I stick by my assessment that if you have to completely ignore the core aspect of a game to argue that it's not more limiting, then it's a pretty weak argument.

No. My solution in 4e did not completely ignore that. To be perfectly blunt, all I've described is the most basic concept behind my solution. Do you know how I implemented it? Do you know what adjustments were made to the effects, or to the target numbers, or to the action costs? No. You know none of those things and yet you are making assumptions that my solution breaks the game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Either way, you're essentially rewriting the entire base assumption of the core mechanics. When the game is balanced around AEDU, and you completely change that so you can do a daily at will, or do a power you don't even have, regardless of how you are making those adjustments, you are doing a MASSIVE revision of how the core game plays. So no, you can't say it's not more limiting when you have to do massive revisions to how the core of the game works just to get there.

 

[MechaPilot]

Either way, you're essentially rewriting the entire base assumption of the core mechanics. When the game is balanced around AEDU, and you completely change that so you can do a daily at will, or do a power you don't even have, regardless of how you are making those adjustments, you are doing a MASSIVE revision of how the core game plays. So no, you can't say it's not more limiting when you have to do massive revisions to how the core of the game works just to get there.

I am not altering the assumptions about the core mechanics at all. Daily and encounter abilities are balanced by virtue of occurring less often than at-wills. I accounted for that. Again, you're commenting on the effects of a system of adjudicating improvised actions without knowing anything substantive about that method of adjudication. It doesn't do your argument any favors to speak from ignorance like that, and it makes me far less inclined to actually converse with you about it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So I ask you again. Crack the Shell is a daily 5th level ability in 4e. I've already said that in earlier editions, pretty much anyone can do something very similar, whenever they want. Not the exact same effect of course, but similar. If a player wanted to do that in 4e, they have to meet the criteria of of that power before doing so. That is more limiting, by the very definition of what "limiting" means. Your solution was to allow that ability to occur more than just daily, and to open up other defined abilities for use even if they PC didn't even have it. I'm assuming a game balanced as well as 4e implies that you should follow those AEDU guidelines. It's a HUGE part of the core mechanic of the game.

This isn't a position of ignorance of my position, because everything you have said clearly ignores that core AEDU assumption, and you're replacing a critical part of 4e's rule with your own houserules. There's nothing wrong with doing houserules of course, but you can't say version X is not limiting and basing that argument on the assumption of needed to completely redo the core mechanic.

The bottom line is this:

If a player wants to sunder the armor of an opponent in a game like AD&D, you come up with a ruling like I had done earlier. Anyone can attempt it at any time. It was stated that if you wanted to do that in 4e it was "easy" because all you had to do was use "crack the shell". However, that power is limited to fighters as a 5th level power that can only be done once per day. In what way is the 4e's version NOT more limiting than the AD&D version? It's not. Unless you change the rules and ignore the AEDU guidelines.