Initiate of the Old Faith

[Kingreaper]

Really? The 20th level weak guy is better than the strong guy at arm wrestling, climbing and lifting weights because he saved the world?

The 20th level weak guy who channels magic through his muscles?
Sure

The 20th level weak guy whose god imbues him with supernatural strength?
Sure

The 20th level weak guy who has the very bones of the earth aiding him?
Sure

The 20th level weak guy who can telekinetically lift a house?
Sure.

 

[Piratecat]

We don't particularly care whether you agree or disagree with other members, but we expect you to be able to discuss it without being condescending, snippy or insulting. Time to stop being rude, please.

 

[mneme]

tx, PC.

Re skills: Look at it this way: The 20th level wizard is not, in fact, stronger than the 1st level fighter (well, clearly not). But he's capable of dealing with athletic challenges that give the 1st level fighter trouble. Why? Well, maybe because he's using magic to deal with those challenges -- that's just flavor; the important thing is that when he needs to, say, climb a tree or jump a 5 foot crevasse, that he has a way of reliably doing so--the fact that he's using magic to do so (in your universe, anyway) is just flavor, not mechanics.

Note, btw, that the same wizard is -not- capable of avoiding damage from a height -- because unlike climbing or jumping (which anyone can do), using acrobatics to avoid falling damage requires that you be trained! Similarly, a 20th level Barbarian knows a bit about magic and can make some guesses -- just look at Conan! But he can't detect magic -- because that's something you actually have to be a mage (eg, be trained at) to do!

 

[brehobit]

Sorry if I was over the top.

I do find significant faults in 4e and everyone I play with and have discussed the game with agrees with those faults. I agree they can be papered over with flavor (telekinetic lifting etc.) that are not otherwise found in the game. And I can certainly see that not everyone would see the same faults. But please accept that I, and what I think is a majority of folks (though I could be wrong due to sampling error) do find those things a bit wonky.

Again, I like 4e. I'm planning on running a game in a few weeks and am choosing to use 4e. But parts of it drive me mad. The trade offs to get the balance and cool tactics are painful to me. Worth it? Mostly. But painful.

 

[Jhaelen]

But please accept that I, and what I think is a majority of folks (though I could be wrong due to sampling error) do find those things a bit wonky.

Again, I like 4e.

I agree with the sentiment.
I, too, like 4e (quite a lot actually!). But some things _are_ plain stupid, and it enervates me when 4e fans are getting overzealous to defend 'their' edition from any kind of criticism no matter how merited.

Yep, it's a great edition but it's _not_ perfect.

 

[the-golem]

While I was initially all boohoo about bird forms not being able to fly, a quick check on myself made me see a bit more clearly. Take for example, David Edding's Belgariad. Now, I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but at one point, Belgarath discusses learning to shapechange for the first time. The whole process is actually quite hard, and according to him even, flying is quite hardsauce. Not to mention the insane amount of skill it took him to get the form right.

That said, some birds are quite large. Not counting the ostritch and the emu, an albatross once had a record-breaking 11ft wingspan.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really? The 20th level weak guy is better than the strong guy at arm wrestling, climbing and lifting weights because he saved the world? If that's as much common sense as you'd indicate, you'd think other games would have shot for it. Is it a problem that no other RPG (I know of) models this in the way you seem to think is obvious?

Again, 4e has a lot of great things going for it (I think it's the best group tactics RPG on the market and maybe better than any board game at it) but I don't see why people argue that the bugs are features.

This is a total non-issue. Why pray tell is a 20th level Wizard having a wrestling match with a 1st level player character? This will never happen. In the 20th level party the Wizard is also NOT going to be able to lift the plot significant rock which is so big that the 20th level fighter can barely lift it. If the 20th level Wizard, by some twist of fate, decides to arm wrestle an NPC then that NPC will simply be strong enough to give him a serious challenge, since conveniently there are no arbitrary rules for NPCs. Obsessing over this kind of thing just doesn't make sense to me.

4e strikes a pretty good balance. Player characters do advance in their 'off' skills to pretty high levels of performance by epic tier but the alternative would be even worse. Supposing the party fighter isn't available to pull off some epic feat of strength at least the other PCs can make a credible attempt at it.

D&D overall IS a level based system. You can argue the flaws of level based systems and compare them to skill based or dice pool systems all you want, but those systems have equally egregious problems of their own. Having played most of the major systems at least a time or two over the years I'd say that overall 4e is at least on a par with any of them taken as a whole in terms of both story telling RP facility and overall mechanics. There simply IS no perfect system which is simple enough mechanically to be playable.