Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 4137329" data-attributes="member: 537">People seem to be conflating "the rules are incomplete" with "the rules are constricting".From what I've seen of 4E, the possible set of codified actions is perfectly sufficient for 99% of the things you'll do in the game. Unless, of course, actions taken as part of your class abilities now don't count as "codified". I guess they're spontaneous expressions of the creativity of players, which just happen to be written down in 9-point serif type.You can do this in 4E. Heck, you don't even need to worry about the nonproficiency penalty, because it's implicit in the lack of an attack bonus.Ah, so improvising a decision on the spot in 3E is a "fair judgement", but doing it in 4E is "relying on tender mercies". It's good to know that distinction. And: Str/Dex/Int/skill/whatever vs  AC/Fort/Ref/Will. If you can't find a way to work it into that framework, give up now.The wonderful thing about perceptions is that, being independent of reality, they can be changed by a simple act of will.So feel different.The problem with 3E's profusion of options is that most of them are false. Disarming is pointless the vast majority of the time, for the vast majority of people. Tripping ditto, grappling ditto, bull rushing ditto. This makes it a bad ruleset if what you really want is options. Consider examining the game as it is played, rather than this platonic ideal you seem to have constructed in your copious free time.And therefore this is your problem, not anybody else's.</blockquote>

Verification