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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Derren" data-source="post: 5756644" data-attributes="member: 2518">Ah, the usual "Everyone who dislikes 4E is a powergamer/munchkin defense (Which of course implies that real role players love 4E).Haven't seen that one in a long time.I havent read the whole threat, but I guess "Realism in a game with dragons lolololol" also already came up.4E simply has problems with realism (or equivalent, however you want to call it. You know what I mean).It starts with Shroedingers Wounds, continues with the difference between PCs and NPCs (Which might not be so glaring now after the feature bloat, but was very visible in the beginning) and is also obvious with many powers which simply can't be explained logically except with very outragous theories which earn you as many strange looks as the actual power itself. The classic here is the "Pull" ability from the fighter but also includes how you can stun a flying enemy by making it believe it is falling down a chasm, etc.The problem is that while 3E was still designed with basis on realism, or more specific "How can we fit this pseudo realistic adventure into rules" (actually it was more likely just "How to port 2E to 3E, but D&D started with the idea to translate the real world+fantasy into rules). 4E on the other hand started as a mathematical construct. A board game which doesn't represent anything. "Player 1 can move 6 squares, has a 60% hit chance vs level equivalent monster B and does Y damage to be balanced". Only when that construct was finished actual labels were applied.And this complete disregard of "reality" during 4Es design is painfully obvious and unless the design process changes for 5E it won't change.</blockquote>

Verification