Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aezoc" data-source="post: 4363044" data-attributes="member: 12124">I'm really trying to keep this from being a threadcrap, but this just seems like two pages of people trying to explain how 4e's abstract mechanics can mesh with various narrative interpretations, and PsyRobot arguing it. Statements like &quot;it shouldn't have to be that way...&quot; and &quot;that's a failing of the system&quot; really just read like thinly veiled edition wars to me.There's a pretty clear philosophy in 4e to make combat streamlined, which requires a lot of abstraction - more so than I think has existed in any previous edition, and D&amp;D combat has never been particularly detailed. Disarm in 3e is a three-step process and failure can prompt the same three-step process in reverse if you don't have imp. disarm. It's got modifiers for the size of the weapon, whether it's wielded two-handed or not, and whether or not it's a melee weapon. In short, it's anything but streamlined.If it's critical that you have a disarm action, something like Starbuck's suggestion looks pretty good to me. But I think that 9 times out of 10, a disarm ends the fight anyways, so there's no reason it can't just be narrative fluff as part of whatever action ends the combat. 4e requires a different mindset than 3e did in a lot of cases, but I don't think calling it better or worse makes sense, they're just driven by different design philosophies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aezoc, post: 4363044, member: 12124"] I'm really trying to keep this from being a threadcrap, but this just seems like two pages of people trying to explain how 4e's abstract mechanics can mesh with various narrative interpretations, and PsyRobot arguing it. Statements like "it shouldn't have to be that way..." and "that's a failing of the system" really just read like thinly veiled edition wars to me. There's a pretty clear philosophy in 4e to make combat streamlined, which requires a lot of abstraction - more so than I think has existed in any previous edition, and D&D combat has never been particularly detailed. Disarm in 3e is a three-step process and failure can prompt the same three-step process in reverse if you don't have imp. disarm. It's got modifiers for the size of the weapon, whether it's wielded two-handed or not, and whether or not it's a melee weapon. In short, it's anything but streamlined. If it's critical that you have a disarm action, something like Starbuck's suggestion looks pretty good to me. But I think that 9 times out of 10, a disarm ends the fight anyways, so there's no reason it can't just be narrative fluff as part of whatever action ends the combat. 4e requires a different mindset than 3e did in a lot of cases, but I don't think calling it better or worse makes sense, they're just driven by different design philosophies. [/QUOTE]

Verification