Save Me 5TH !

[Tony Vargas]

I found 4e a mechanical game, which very clearly defined what a character could do. But every time you define what they can do, you just as clearly define what they cant, and I think thats where it lost the magic for me.

Stock answer from my 4venger's handbook: Page 42.

Now that's out of the way, /yes/. One thing designers need to keep in mind is that each time you define a mechanic to do something, you take away the chance of anyone cut off from that mechanic ever doing it. It's a lot worse with skills than with powers, but it definitely aplies to both.

An example is the Disarm. Disarming in 4e is handled two ways: 1) Exorcism of Steel, a high-level Fighter exploit. This prettymuch means no one but high-level fighters can /mechanically/ disarm. Ick. 2) As fluff upon defeating a foe. If you reduce an enemy to 0 hps, you can choose not to kill him, but subdue him some other way (typically knocking him out), you could thus describe disarming him and putting your rapier to his throat, forcing surrender. OK.

With a little work, you could dig up other exploits that weaken or give other substantial penalties, and re-fluff them as disarming. But they'll still only have their stated effects - if you 'fluff disarm' an enemy with a magic weapon, he keeps benefiting from it's properties, for instance.


Of course, there was a reason disarming went: because magic weapons had long since become far too central to PCs to allow them to be easily taken away while retaining any hint of balance. Nixing disarming was a way of coping with that, but taking that flaw out of the game would have been better.