A "naysayer's" review of 4E

[Fifth Element]

Just because there are some fantastic things in it doesn't mean that that fantasy should defy all physical laws we know like 4E does (circle = squares, etc.)

I know that English is not your first language, but for this example please look up the definition of "abstraction".

And "hyperbole".

 

[hong]

Not so much "abstraction" but "simplification".

 

[babomb]

As for magic, I like the idea of rituals but I don't like the way they've been done. Some things should just not be rituals. Tenser's Floating Disk is the most glaring example. If a wizard can conjure rams of force energy at first level I don't think it's a stretch to think he might be able to make a floating disk of force. I understand that wizards did have to be taken down a notch in terms of power to balance things a bit more appropriately (this has been the case since 2nd edition or earlier - I mean, there was a reason wizards progressed more slowly than any other class in that edition).

The reasoning for Tenser's Floating Disc being a ritual is that they don't want to make a wizard player pick between having a utility spell and having combat spells, which was a problem sometimes in previous editions. 4E puts the utility and combat spells into separate silos so that one doesn't affect the other.

Is it verisimilar? Maybe not. But it's probably more fun for the wizard player.

Which reality that involves elves are you trying to simulate?

Why do people always have to make this nitpick? When people talk about "realism" with regard to D&D, they mean "verisimilitude". Just because there are elves doesn't mean one has to throw all of the rules out of the window. Their world is based on a different set of assumptions than the rules of our world, but those assumptions can still be internally consistent, and things that happen in the world can seem plausible given that set of assumptions. That is what is meant by "realism" and "simulationism" in this context.