NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5623303" data-attributes="member: 87792">Absolutely!  And this is one of the reasons I prefer 4e to any previous edition of D&D.  Even in the case of one of the supposedly disassociated mechanics, what happens mechanically models exactly what the PCs would expect.  The lead demon points, and orders his minions at the target backed up with a magical focus and they redouble their efforts, getting a bonus to the attack against that target.  This is exactly what the PCs would expect to see in the gameworld.  The mechanics support the narrative very strongly in precisely the case that Mr. Alexander cherry-picked as an example of dissassociation. As for it being dissassociated with no direct mechanical reason given, this is about as much of a worry as it never being defined exactly what is burning in a Fireball. 4e as a whole runs on a pretty consistent set of laws.  They are not, however, the laws of the real world.  They are more akin to Holywood Physics in which John McLane can be beaten to hell and back in one scene, spend a few healing surges, and be back in the fight.  A world where shotguns knock their targets backwards.  Or a mythological world where people bring out the big guns at the end rather than all the time and Hercules can wrestle a giant fire-breathing bull without being crippled by size and strength bonusses.  Tactical richness alone doesn't provide everything that is needed.  It provides the fundamental difference between 4e and previous editions.  For all I consider the 4e out of combat experience better, the difference boils down to one of tweaks rather than fundamentals.   Is roll high (3e/4e) better than roll under (2e).  IMO yes - but the difference is trivial.  Is fewer broader skills (4e) an improvement over more narrower skills (3e).  IMO yes but this is haggling about the price.  Is it better to get generally more competent as you level?  IMO definitely - and I've argued this repeatedly, but this is a minor issue.  Is separating standard skills from feats (4e, 3e) better than lumping them into one group as NWPs (2e) or not having them (1e)?  Long threads have been made on this.  But the edition war is not a 4e vs the rest one.  It's a 3e vs 2e vs 1e with 4e joining in on the side of 3e.In almost all cases it's haggling over the balance.  It's the tactical richness where 4e is most different from older versions of D&D and so that's where the arguments centre.  The rest (other than Vancian Magic) is simply a case of YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification