Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[Erechel]

That's an interesting way of putting it. I too really appreciate 5e's retro feel. I can run it very much like I did AD&D, free-wheeling, improvised - tossing, overriding and changing rules secure in the knowledge there's no delicate balance to upset - all in the service of the campaign I'm creating. And, yes, it is because many of the old flaws are back... Back but 'polished.' I like it.

I really don't think that the "old flaws" are back: totally the opposite. With old flaws I think of level unbalance (present in 4ed, flatted a lot in 5th); certain inescapable dissociated mechanics like HP (in 4th edition clearly an augmented problem, here a come back to old), certain munckinesque approach (a design decision on 4th, fighted against here giving roleplay a strong mechanical value: inspiration, advantage, backgrounds); stagnate party roles (other valid point in 4ed: defenders, strikers, leaders and the bag-of-all controllers are the "real" classes, much of the other is fluff; 5th give the class a role, but not necessarily a stagnant one); slow combat (5th ed manages to give a much faster combat without taking out strategy). And a super advantage: one does not have to be a master of rules to be a great, fast thinker and tactical player, because the rules are fairly simple and generalistic.

I think that all of the strong points are back, but without many of the flaws. The balance, as you put it, is not delicate, fragile, weak (the problem of 4th). Is strong, because is a balance of system, and thwart here and there a rule is actually counted in, and the system has enough flexibility to endure it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really don't think that the "old flaws" are back: totally the opposite. With old flaws I think of level unbalance

? Haven't heard that one before. What do you mean by 'level unbalance?' Surely not that characters of different levels aren't equal?

certain inescapable dissociated mechanics like HP

Not really a flaw, just a edition-war-twisted vision of abstraction as a problem rather than a reality of TTRPGs. But, 5e not only has hps, it has HD that provide between-combat healing, full healing overnight, and, well, plenty of 'dissociation' if that's something you want to obsess over. It's not alone.

certain munckinesque approach

While munchkinism gets kicked from player-empowering builds in 3.x, to DM-empowered magic item distribution & rulings in 5e, it's still there. You can go full-bore Monty Haul in 5e, nothing's more munchkin than that. But, unlike 3.x, it's entirely in the hands of the DM, so you simply don't have to go there... but you /could/.

stagnate party roles

The heal-bot cleric and beatstick fighter are back with a vengeance, yes, and the rogue's skill mastery is, perhaps, even a bit more niche-protected. The other classes are fuzzier, since there are kinda a lot of 'em, now.

'Roles' aren't really a flaw, though. The related 'flaw' that's back is that each class gets it's own distinct mechanics and niche-protected special abilities. Everyone's 'best' at something - what that something is isn't always clear, or always all that much better, but you get a real sense of the classes being unique as a result.

slow combat

Not what I'd consider one of the game's old flaws. Combat's didn't really start to slow down until 2e C&T, at the earliest - except, of course, for when the game bogged down due to rules arguments, particularly over spells, which is still a possibility in 5e, I suppose. Rather, combats in 5e 'suffer' from issues they had in classic D&D - combats needing to be frequent but minor to slowly chip away at resources instead of present a more dramatic challenge. That gives you the more exploration-focused classic dungeon crawl, punctuated by brief moments of action.

The balance is strong, because is a balance of system, and thwart here and there a rule is actually counted in, and the system has enough flexibility to endure it.

5e does go back to a DM-arbitrated spotlight approach to balance. I'd count that as one of D&D's old flaws, because, well, it's only as good as the DM is willing to twist his campaign around to force balance on the players - which is bad either way, either badly imbalanced, or a twisted, messed up campaign.

Indeed, it would be fair to say that class balance is D&D oldest, most persistent, and most severe flaw - and that 5e does not even stack up that well by D&D standards. 5e is clearly less broken than 3.5 with all it's late-edition bloat. 3.0 or early 3.5, it's not so obvious. It's clearly and vastly inferior to 4e AEDU, as well as Essentials and post-E less robust designs. 5e maps pretty strongly to 2e in a number of ways, including some caps on spells and very high fighter DPR. Whether that's 'better' than 1e, 0D&D or BECMI is questionable, though. The farther back you go, the more heavily the game tended to be modified.

And that's where the old 'flaw' turns around and becomes a retro 'feature.' Players have not choice but to trust the DM to manage things so that they each get their time in the sun. They can't just go off on build-tangents or make the items they need for some broken combo or other. It's /all/ in the DM's hands.

 

[Aribar]

You have some ego, dude, that's why I laugh. "I have talent for appreciating the unexpected". Only that, for me, 4 ed have some great ideas in a vast sea of meh. The "revolutionary" ideas (rituals, fighter maneuvers) were the better part of 4 edition. But the part I didn't buy is the whole concept of "build". It's a munchkinesque, slow and generally boring game. Is like a chess game without clocks or TEG (the argentinian version of ¿Risk, I think?) without time limits. I'll enumerate what things I disliked the most and why:

1) Rules heavy, optimization focused skirmish game

4) Exponential power grow

5) Inverosimilitude

I want to address some misconceptions I feel you have about 4E that Tony didn't cover. I feel like you've somehow gotten the wrong impression about some things in fourth edition.

I feel like 3E set the precedence on min-maxing, especially since before that (if I recall correctly) you needed sky-high stats to even get a minute bonus to things. 3E had tons of set-in-stone rules about stat allotment if you didn't want to suck. How is a 3E fighter supposed to have enough skill points to be lord of the land, or heck even know how to Jump, Swim, ride a horse, and use a rope, without penalizing themselves in combat? Hopefully one day D&D will either go back to the days where stats relatively don't mechanically matter (or heck, kill that sacred cow altogether), or they do something like in Pillars of Eternity and make all stats (almost) equally useful to all classes! Plus, especially compared to 3E, the gap between "beginner or average player" and "min-maxxing munchkin" is much smaller, making it so much easier for the DM to plan encounters and to keep players from being overshadowed.

I also feel like you've totally got the wrong opinion in point 4... One of the key strengths of 4E is being able to make and adjust monsters super easily. Want to increase that orc 10 levels? Bam! +10 to each defense, +10 accuracy, +10 damage, and +60, 80, or 100 HP depending on what role it is! Want to spice it up? Copy and paste a thematically appropriate ability from a similar level monster to it!

I don't understand your complaint that being stabbed in 4E won't kill you. They changed the average hits to kill and die so it wasn't such an unforgiving game of rocket tag. Monsters can actually put up a fight, and every first level character doesn't have to worry about a kobold getting a crit and killing them without being able to do anything about it. After a couple levels, in no edition of D&D was a single typical stab wound deadly. Nor do I see how point five has anything to do with 4E... Game mechanics causing weird effects to the story can happen in any game.

I do have to question why you think all 5E classes are balanced, or why you think the classes in 4E are fluff outside of their roles, among other things, but I'm not sure if that would lead to any decent discussion or if our opinions are just too different...

Edit: I don't want make it seem like 4E is perfect. It's not. It can still get stupidly complicated just every other edition of D&D besides Basic and maybe 5E, it still has awkward rules or failings, but it's still a very good game in my opinion.
Edit2: woah, missed several posts between the time I opened this up and finished writing... ah well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Edit: I don't want make it seem like 4E is perfect. It's not. It can still get stupidly complicated just every other edition of D&D besides Basic and maybe 5E, it still has awkward rules or failings, but it's still a very good game in my opinion.

It was as good, in a technical sense, as a game could be while still being D&D - maybe a little better, since there were those who felt it 'wasn't D&D.'

 

[Erechel]

I feel like 3E set the precedence on min-maxing, especially since before that (if I recall correctly) you needed sky-high stats to even get a minute bonus to things. 3E had tons of set-in-stone rules about stat allotment if you didn't want to suck. How is a 3E fighter supposed to have enough skill points to be lord of the land, or heck even know how to Jump, Swim, ride a horse, and use a rope, without penalizing themselves in combat?

I will explain myself one more time because I think I haven't been clear enough, probably because I'm not a native English speaker.

I say that 4th edition problems are NOT original from this edition: they are HISTORICAL D&D problems, only made worse. Of course, 3rd edition initiated a scalade of min-maxing, but this min-maxing was neither the "core" system, nor it was supported by it. Ultimately, the min-maxing broke the core game (like Pun-Pun build), and leaded to broken exploits. You can go in the core system with sub-optimal combat choices and you still will be useful in a fight (although you won't shine in it, like the bard, a classic diplomatic and support character).

Hopefully one day D&D will either go back to the days where stats relatively don't mechanically matter (or heck, kill that sacred cow altogether), or they do something like in Pillars of Eternity and make all stats (almost) equally useful to all classes!

I agree with the last part. Throw the dump stats and make every stat count. I think that, although not perfect at all, the six saves are an approach to this.

Plus, especially compared to 3E, the gap between "beginner or average player" and "min-maxxing munchkin" is much smaller, making it so much easier for the DM to plan encounters and to keep players from being overshadowed.

As I said earlier, the problems in 4th edition are not exclusively 4th edition problems. 3rd edition has his own account on this, but the "core" experience (killing orcs/dragons/whatever with sword and sorcery) is pretty straightforward, with plain old hack&slash/ fireball spells. You don't need to know every power and see what is more effective. Now and then, the fast thinking can make you confront harder challenges.
And yet, you don't have to fill a specific niche to be useful in a fight. You can always support others that shine in it. A sub-optimal combat character, in 4th edition, is a hindrance to the party because the heavy combat focus. Aid in 5th edition, for example, is an action destined to help the most effective fighter to achieve his goal. And he can help you in your diplomatic efforts in many ways. Maybe as muscle intimidation.

I also feel like you've totally got the wrong opinion in point 4... One of the key strengths of 4E is being able to make and adjust monsters super easily. Want to increase that orc 10 levels? Bam! +10 to each defense, +10 accuracy, +10 damage, and +60, 80, or 100 HP depending on what role it is! Want to spice it up? Copy and paste a thematically appropriate ability from a similar level monster to it!

And from where they come from? They were summoned from thin air? Why the super-12 level orcs aren't destroying cities and empires, if they have a dragon ball-esque scalade of power, where a ten levels of difference are so huge that no one can touch you? This orcs can fight dragons mano a mano!
This is what i've said about verosimilitude. At least, other editions made "high level foes" defeatable by raw numbers, or Infernal, or draconic. But yet, 3rd edition has the same flaw. Flatter progress made numbers significant in a fight. So armies have a purpose: to deter the high leveled foes of going solo against entire cities. The mind flayers have to rely on politics or amassing power with orcs and goblins. Yes, a single 1/2 CR orc is not a difficult fight for a level 10 fighter. But ten well equiped, coordinated 1/2 cr orcs (they won't have to increase their stats: a simple shield and chainmail increase their CR to 1 or even 2, and heavier numbers can increase them further) can pose a several threat, and unwary decissions can turn the tides of an otherwise easy fight a total disaster.
That is what I say about level balance; you don't have to be from a certain level to fight a certain foe or pose a threat to them. The odds won't be on your side, but you can still manage to be useful. For throwing an example: in a gladiator fight, one of my players had a 4th level half-orc paladin, and fighted a Gladiator, a CR 5, but I gave the gladiator a better armor, so his CR go to 6. And the paladin have four previous fights, one against an ogre with chainmail that almost kill him until he used a spell to frighten him. And the paladin had a splint mail, not plate nor magical weapons. He won. Notice that the foe has two levels more than the whole party, and Nahuel fighted solo and without spells. Cunning, a certain amount of drugs (the character became an addict paranoid afterwards), a bit of luck, and grapple&prone made the trick. Yet, he had the most difficult fight in his life

I don't understand your complaint that being stabbed in 4E won't kill you. They changed the average hits to kill and die so it wasn't such an unforgiving game of rocket tag.

Tucker's Kobolds. Fight smart. There were several ways to lose a fight without die (if you reach 0 hp, you can go through 10 rounds alive). I've played for 5 straight years AD&D and my characters never had to use a Resurrection spell (unexistant in our world), althuogh they lose several battles. Further levels can make you more difficult to kill, but gritty realism is a great option to play. If you don't like it, begin in higher levels (an option present in the core books). But this point was made to prove the absurdity of HP, a valid criticism to D&D, but ultimately a lesser evil to make fights easier and shorter than tracking specific wounds.

I do have to question why you think all 5E classes are balanced, or why you think the classes in 4E are fluff outside of their roles, among other things, but I'm not sure if that would lead to any decent discussion or if our opinions are just too different...

Every class is useful one way or another in any given situation, although all of them shine on certain aspects and have very different approach on how to handle a problem.

As I said earlier, generalistic rules with specific exceptions are a more fluid approach than closed-niched combat roles. Yes, a thief is better at opening chests and finding traps than a cleric or a fighter, but they can make the trick (slower, true, and without such grade of effectiveness). A fighter can tear apart a door or a chest lock with an axe, or try to use a lockpick anyway, with a chance of success. Why classes are not that fluffy-over-roles in 5th edition is a long conversation, that we can discuss in another time. In short terms, a cleric is an excellent spellcaster, but the roleplaying approach of this class is a mechanical factor: you don't follow your god's rules (praying, for example), you have not anymore powers (or at least that is was used to be in AD&D). See the Oathbreaker paladin in the DMG.

About dissociated dynamics and vancian magic: I don't see how don't you see that Vancian system is still used in 4th ed, only that in every class and in a tigher frame. Instead of having magic powers by day, you have martial powers by encounter and day. Blast me if they aren't micromanaged vancian martiality. How "balance" 3rd edition the vancian system from 2 edition? By giving more daily powers. How do it 4th? by giving a more limited timeframe... and encasing every class in them, even when it have not sense at all (see Martial daily powers and dare to say to me that they are not "vancian" in the terms 4vengers seem to hate from prior editions). This is not "cooldown", this is plain old vancian magic .

As I said: the problems remain the same, only explicitly in front plane. And I certainly don't see GMing as a flaw, but a core part of the game. The GM is there to interprete the rules when the players want to think outside the box. Give them back control over their tables is not a bad thing: I'm playing 5th edition since it came out, and I only change one rule: I permit to stack inspiration.
And the rules are there to have fun, not to convert your games into a trial and your players into lawyers. Is interesting how many 4th edition fans seem to hate every rule that is not a combat mechanic but a roleplaying mechanic, as Alignment (that wasn't as straight a jacket as many may think; it is a general guide of behavior and personality; it has sense that a paladin has to follow a certain code rules, because as a fact their powers came from them). And you always have always Dark Paladins (as much as I hated them over the years).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I will explain myself one more time because I think I haven't been clear enough, probably because I'm not a native English speaker.

I say that 4th edition problems are NOT original from this edition: they are HISTORICAL D&D problems, only made worse.

Maybe it's an issue with the use of negation in English, but you're saying the opposite of what's true. 4e was very different from other versions of D&D, precisely because it eliminated so many problems that D&D had historically. It was the elimination of these "sacred cows" that was the crux of it's problems. While it didn't do that with every historical problem in D&D, most of 4e's problems stemmed from what it did to fix historical problems (and the reaction of the fanbase to those fixes), not the few perennial issues that it failed to address.

As I said earlier, the problems in 4th edition are not exclusively 4th edition problems. 3rd edition has his own account on this, but the "core" experience is pretty straightforward, with plain old hack&slash/ fireball spells. You don't need to know every power and see what is more effective.

Again, the opposite of what's true. 3e required far more 'system mastery,' and had far greater rewards for the same, than 4e, which was, in that way, perhaps, and over-reaction to 3e.

And yet, you don't have to fill a specific niche to be useful in a fight. You can always support others that shine in it. A sub-optimal combat character, in 4th edition, is a hindrance to the party because the heavy combat focus.

Again, you have it neatly backwards. Optimization in 3.x would leave sub-optimal characters essentially non-contributing. In 4e, the gap between 'optimal' and merely viable was much narrower.

Aid in 5th edition, for example, is an action destined to help the most effective fighter to achieve his goal. And he can help you in your diplomatic efforts in many ways. Maybe as muscle intimidation.

Aid is very nice in 5e, because Advantage is such a dramatic bonus, yes.

And from where they come from? They were summoned from thin air? Why the super-12 level orcs

In 3.x, the assumption would have been that they gained levels - in fact, you'd build them that way, by adding levels of warrior or a PC class to them, not a quick & easy task. In 4e, 'leveling up' a monster was simpler, FWIW, but the rationale wasn't explicit. Whatever reason the DM had for having more powerful orcs - experience, being infused with demon blood, orc special forces school, whatever - the same simple process could be adapted.

This is what i've said about verosimilitude. At least, other editions made "high level foes" defeatable by raw numbers, or Infernal, or draconic. But yet, 3rd edition has the same flaw. Flatter progress made numbers significant in a fight.

Well... D&D had struggled with making armies relevant. 3.5 finally hit upon the trick of grouping a large number of lesser creatures together into a single figure, like a 'swarm.' 4e used it also. 5e didn't drop the swarm, but it didn't apply it to individually non-trivial creatures, using Bounded Accuracy, instead.

Bounded Accuracy is certainly one point, BTW, where 5e is not harkening back to past flawed or problematic mechanics, like THAC0 or attack matrices. It's closer to 3e or 4e, but with smaller numbers.

That is what I say about level balance; you don't have to be from a certain level to fight a certain foe or pose a threat to them. The odds won't be on your side, but you can still manage to be useful.

Oh, I see. Yeah, that was an issue for D&D for a long time, and more pronounced in 3e. It was easy to miss the solution 4e came up with. You had levels for monsters, but also secondary roles. A relatively week monster that needed to outnumber the party to be a threat was modeled as a similar-level minion, instead of a same-level standard monster, a more powerful one would be an elite or solo. Now, a 'minion' facing a high-level party might be /the exact same monster/, in the fiction, worth the exact same number of exp, it's just fighting differently when facing mighty heroes than when terrorizing villagers. Similarly, a much higher level standard monster could be statted as a same-exp-value Elite or Solo when toying with a much lower-level party.

About dissociated dynamics and vancian magic: I don't see how don't you see that Vancian system is still used in 4th ed, only that in every class and in a tigher frame.

The wizard used the 'prepped' version of Vancian, and other Arcanists could be said to, based on one side-bar in the PH. All other classes: no memorization, preparation, or spellcasting. Not 'Vancian.' Daily resources, sure, Vancian or even 'casting spells,' no. Each Source had a different reason for having it's resources recharge with short or long rests.

Mechanically, though, Daily powers are often problematic, something that D&D has always wrestled with. 4e dealt with the issue by giving all classes a comparable number of such resources. 5e deals with the issue by recommending specific pacing - 6-8 medium/hard encounters per day.

And I certainly don't see GMing as a flaw, but a core part of the game. The GM is there to interprete the rules when the players want to think outside the box. Give them back control over their tables is not a bad thing

Indeed, that's another way in which 5e is very retro and very exciting. 3.0 ushered in this bizarre era of 'RAW' before all else, and 5e has finally dragged D&D out of it.

I'm playing 5th edition since it came out, and I only change one rule: I permit to stack inspiration.

Keep at it, you'll get the hang of it.

Is interesting how many 4th edition fans seem to hate every rule that is not a combat mechanic but a roleplaying mechanic, as Alignment (that wasn't as straight a jacket as many may think; it is a general guide of behavior and personality; it has sense that a paladin has to follow a certain code rules, because as a fact their powers came from them).

Alignment was certainly an RP straightjacket of sorts, tough how tightly it was laced varied over the years, from edition to edition and DM to DM. There's a distinction between mechanics that aid RP - which is most of 'em, really, as knowing what your character is capable of is helpful in RPing it - and those that restrict it (generally much fewer in number, and sometimes used in an attempt at 'balance'). Alignment is restrictive, codes of behavior are another. Inspiration, OTOH, merely encourages, neither restricting nor aiding, but rewarding.

 

[Bluenose]

2) Dissociated mechanics: Linked to the above, the dissociated mechanics are idiotic. No, maybe not idiotic, but in the better scenario, they are the lesser evil (hp, for example). There are tons of articles explaining this (Justin Alexander is one of those). You will expect a certain amount of it, because at a certain point they are inevitable, but 4th ed was a game actually made of dissociated mechanics.

Under every definition of dissociated mechanics Justin Alexander managed to write, Power Attack from 3e was either dissociated or utterly ridiculous.

3) Straight-jacketed party roles: You expect certain amounts of party roles, but at least give them certain fluidity. A fighter can be a leader; the party negotiator; the defender; the tactician; the lightining bruiser; or the skinny, apparently frail dude that uses a bow to knock down knights in charge with the speed of light. But no... not even the "mighty glacier". Not even the "Lightning Bruiser". You are a tank (not a real, fast, heavy artillery from real life, but the party role from LoL). A slow meatshield. Boring.

My character concept is a good archer. OK, 4e can deliver that. My character concept is a good archer who's good at negotiating with people. That too. My character concept is a good archer who's good at negotiating with people and has the label Fighter floating over their head. Congratulation, you're metagaming.

 

[Aribar]

I will explain myself one more time because I think I haven't been clear enough, probably because I'm not a native English speaker.

I say that 4th edition problems are NOT original from this edition: they are HISTORICAL D&D problems, only made worse.

I understood you, but I don't believe it's as bad as you say. Compared to 3E, 4E made great advances towards allowing all characters to be good in combat and out of combat. Not perfect as you indicated with the "3 good stats / 3 dump stats", but sub-optimal characters aren't as ineffective all around.

System mastery is a very bad problem in most editions of D&D. 3E was absolutely terrible with the countless splatbooks of feats, classes, magic items, and spells. 4E, where Fighters or Wizards can have over a thousand Powers to choose from, can be very painful as well. I believe 5E has gotten this back down to somewhere between Basic to AD&D levels of complexity, which is very nice.

And from where they come from? They were summoned from thin air? Why the super-12 level orcs aren't destroying cities and empires, if they have a dragon ball-esque scalade of power, where a ten levels of difference are so huge that no one can touch you? This orcs can fight dragons mano a mano!

I think we have vastly different views of how the game supports play here and won't convince the other side of anything. Personally, I don't believe D&D has ever supported the style of world building you've discussed. I view the numbers as a game construct, not the laws of physics in the game world. As a DM, I can set the level scale however I like. I can set the tone that levels 1-15 are gritty, beginner adventurer levels where kobolds and orcs are scary, monstrous things to fight even with a number advantage. I can say that at level 1 the players are champions and can take on dragons and armies of orcs. Either way works in 4E, I can just adjust combat difficulty and monster stats to make it happen, or even make it not a combat at all but a series of skill check to avoid or escape an "unbeatable" foe.

I completely accept that your explanation of level balance is a valid way to play the game. It's not a style of D&D I prefer, though.

About dissociated dynamics and vancian magic: I don't see how don't you see that Vancian system is still used in 4th ed, only that in every class and in a tigher frame. Instead of having magic powers by day, you have martial powers by encounter and day. Blast me if they aren't micromanaged vancian martiality. How "balance" 3rd edition the vancian system from 2 edition? By giving more daily powers. How do it 4th? by giving a more limited timeframe... and encasing every class in them, even when it have not sense at all (see Martial daily powers and dare to say to me that they are not "vancian" in the terms 4vengers seem to hate from prior editions). This is not "cooldown", this is plain old vancian magic .

Apologies, I would never deny that the 4E power framework is based on Vancian magic. The whole thing is based on having a set amount of powers for a set timeframe after all. I felt that the magic system in every edition but 4E was unbalanced because it was very easy for the spellcasters in the party to determine how long the "adventuring day" is. One player run low or out of spells? They'll want to rest. Compared to 4E, everyone runs on the same resource pool and will want to rest at the same time. Additionally, in every other edition except kind of 5E, Vancian magic is an all-or-nothing affair. My only way to balance spellcasters is to either disrupt their rest and they can't regain ANY spells... Or let them rest and they have all their spells back.

And the rules are there to have fun, not to convert your games into a trial and your players into lawyers. Is interesting how many 4th edition fans seem to hate every rule that is not a combat mechanic but a roleplaying mechanic, as Alignment (that wasn't as straight a jacket as many may think; it is a general guide of behavior and personality; it has sense that a paladin has to follow a certain code rules, because as a fact their powers came from them). And you always have always Dark Paladins (as much as I hated them over the years).

I totally agree with your statement on rules. If I have to pay $150 or more for a bunch of rules to play elf games with my friends, they better be easy to understand and fun to use! However, I'm not sure where the combat/roleplaying mechanic thing came from to an extent... D&D has always had few or poor out of combat rules in my opinion, and 4E is no exception there. 4E just focused on the part of the game that most of the rules are about, combat, into something fun compared to the pain I feel it is in other editions. Personally, I've never been a fan of alignment because it's just caused problems in my group. One person tries to justify being an annoyance to the party (in-game and out of game) by saying they're Chaotic Neutral. I get told "my character wouldn't do that!" like someone else knows my character better than I do because I'm Neutral Good instead of Lawful Good. I feel like backgrounds and such do a much better job of describing characters than alignment.

 

[Wicht]

Under every definition of dissociated mechanics Justin Alexander managed to write, Power Attack from 3e was either dissociated or utterly ridiculous.

I don't get that. You decide to put more focus into swinging really hard then you do aiming. Why is that ridiculous? Or dissociated from what the character might actually attempt? What am I missing?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I understood you, but I don't believe it's as bad as you say. Compared to 3E, 4E made great advances towards allowing all characters to be good in combat and out of combat. Not perfect as you indicated with the "3 good stats / 3 dump stats", but sub-optimal characters aren't as ineffective all around.

But this is just preference, not advancement. I realize some people absolutely don't see the point of having characters who are weak in combat but strong outside of it. However for a lot of us that is a very important thing for a system to contain.