D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[billd91]

The fact he has a Rubik's Cube is lowering his badassery...

It's a solved Rubik's Cube!

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

It's a solved Rubik's Cube!

And it's intended as a "gift" for He-Man. The kind that He-Man will remember every time he sits down.

 

[jadrax]

It's a solved Rubik's Cube!

Pah, he's just holding it so you can only see the one side he has done!

 

[billd91]

It'd 'fix' it in the sense of addressing one of the 'dissociative' complaints about it. That'd've only helped to the extent that those complaints were sincere, in the first place. The last errata the power received also 'fixed' it in the same sense by making it an attack vs Will to pull. You can see how everyone stopped complaining about it after that.

You're assuming that was the only problem people had with it. As important as that fix was, the power is still encapsulates one of the worst aspects of the 4e power structure. It lacks nuance. While intended to make powers easy to implement without a GM's judgment getting in the way, one size fits all solutions don't allow for contextual differences. There are reasons RPGs have GMs and that's to adjudicate situations that require a more nuanced view. Why exactly is a sorcerer going to meekly step forward to get whacked by the fighter? Is the mere mechanical effect of having beat the Will defense enough to override the target player's objections to falling for that power?

Both sorts of objections can be completely sincere no matter how much contempt you have for them or the people who express them.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Well, it's good to see that a six year old edition war is still going strong!

 

[Remathilis]

... And that, Kai Lord, is how you met your mother.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're assuming that was the only problem people had with it.

I'm just pointing out that one complaint - be it phrased as realism, dissonance, dissociation or whatever - /was/ addressed. And the /same complaint/ kept coming up, anyway.

There were other complaints that were addressed in the same changes, and did drop off, I'll happily admit.

the 4e power structure. It lacks nuance. While intended to make powers easy to implement without a GM's judgment getting in the way, one size fits all solutions don't allow for contextual differences.

The wiggle-room's still there, it's just in how you describe the power rather than how you resolve it, mechanically. Which is nice as it makes the mechanics clearer and the balancing of them more robust.

Why exactly is a sorcerer going to meekly step forward to get whacked by the fighter? Is the mere mechanical effect of having beat the Will defense enough to override the target player's objections to falling for that power?

I don't see why not. There's a resolution mechanic that takes into account the ability of both the attacker and defender. If the initial Will attack hit, the trick worked - if it missed, it didn't. You can't RP 'not falling for a combat trick' anymore than you can RP 'not falling in a pit.' You can't go "nah, my character would never fall in a pit, he caught himself on the edge, instead, even though he failed the save that would have let him do so." You can stay away from the edge of a pit - or out of range of CaGI - pretty easily, though.

 

[Kraztur]

... And that, Kai Lord, is how we h4ters made peace with the 4vengers, gave up our computers and iphones, and mated with the primitive early humans.

 

[Nagol]

You're assuming that was the only problem people had with it. As important as that fix was, the power is still encapsulates one of the worst aspects of the 4e power structure. It lacks nuance. While intended to make powers easy to implement without a GM's judgment getting in the way, one size fits all solutions don't allow for contextual differences. There are reasons RPGs have GMs and that's to adjudicate situations that require a more nuanced view. Why exactly is a sorcerer going to meekly step forward to get whacked by the fighter? Is the mere mechanical effect of having beat the Will defense enough to override the target player's objections to falling for that power?

Both sorts of objections can be completely sincere no matter how much contempt you have for them or the people who express them.

Here's a fix I'd be happy with:

Come and Get It Fighter Attack 7
You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring those overconfident close enough to deliver a spinning strike against them all.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Strength vs. Will
Hit: You pull the target up to 2 squares, but only if it can end the pull adjacent to you. If the target is adjacent to you after the pull, it takes 1[W] damage. The target may refuse the pull, and instead take 2[W] damage from seething conflicted emotions of the controlling player's choice.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Well, it's good to see that a six year old edition war is still going strong!

It will probably still be going on when 6E arrives.

... And that, Kai Lord, is how we h4ters made peace with the 4vengers, gave up our computers and iphones, and mated with the primitive early humans.

Who, in turn, proceeded to reenact every stupid thing we ever did, only worse.