Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5986214" data-attributes="member: 54877">Also in passing, 4E is very abstract.&nbsp; It's a highly abstract version of a lot of the same ground that 3E covers (albeit with notable missing pieces).&nbsp; What makes it seem less abstract is the long list of powers and items, and the fact that the abstractions are somewhat different than what went before. &nbsp;The 4E &quot;separate power list for every class&quot; is another example of bad abstactions, specifically bad coupling between &quot;class&quot; and &quot;power&quot;.&nbsp; The class abstraction in 4E is pretty decent, from the consideration of its design intent.&nbsp; The boundaries are fairly clear and consistent, even if not always to everyone's liking.&nbsp; (Some people don't like, for example, the restricted scope of fighters and rangers.&nbsp; But these are certainly consistent with the rest of the 4E design.)&nbsp; &nbsp;But the powers, ye gods!&nbsp;&nbsp; I opened the PHB 1, saw that there were a separate list of powers for each class, and immediately said, &quot;coupling error&quot;.&nbsp; A power is this thing that a character can do.&nbsp; Either it really is restricted to a class, in which case it's a class ability.&nbsp; Or it isn't, in which case it belongs on list arranged some other way (by keywords or power source or something).&nbsp; Even if you grant &quot;separate power list for every class&quot; as a &quot;collapse&quot; of the boundaries for ease of use, it doesn't fly given the scope of 4E's powers.&nbsp;I'm fairly certain that all of the problems in the 3E skill system are a result of totally incoherent abstraction, though explaining my reasons there might be more difficult than anyone would care to read.&nbsp; Plus, with something that incoherent, you have to read between the lines on intent, not always easy or reliable. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5986214, member: 54877"] Also in passing, 4E is very abstract. It's a highly abstract version of a lot of the same ground that 3E covers (albeit with notable missing pieces). What makes it seem less abstract is the long list of powers and items, and the fact that the abstractions are somewhat different than what went before. The 4E "separate power list for every class" is another example of bad abstactions, specifically bad coupling between "class" and "power". The class abstraction in 4E is pretty decent, from the consideration of its design intent. The boundaries are fairly clear and consistent, even if not always to everyone's liking. (Some people don't like, for example, the restricted scope of fighters and rangers. But these are certainly consistent with the rest of the 4E design.) But the powers, ye gods! I opened the PHB 1, saw that there were a separate list of powers for each class, and immediately said, "coupling error". A power is this thing that a character can do. Either it really is restricted to a class, in which case it's a class ability. Or it isn't, in which case it belongs on list arranged some other way (by keywords or power source or something). Even if you grant "separate power list for every class" as a "collapse" of the boundaries for ease of use, it doesn't fly given the scope of 4E's powers. I'm fairly certain that all of the problems in the 3E skill system are a result of totally incoherent abstraction, though explaining my reasons there might be more difficult than anyone would care to read. Plus, with something that incoherent, you have to read between the lines on intent, not always easy or reliable. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification