Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hexmage-EN" data-source="post: 4781743" data-attributes="member: 79428">Fourth Edition's power system is a huge departure from what came before and is a sign of the fundamental shift in design goals relative to Third Edition, one I'm not exactly sure how I feel about. Things I Like- Martial characters have many more options than in previous editions.- The use of powers simulates a cinematic-feel to battle by keeping combatants moving and preventing situations where the same attack is used over and over (In movies combatants don't often stand toe-to-toe in one spot repeating the same attacks; They move around and try many different tactics).Things I Don't Like- The power listings eat-up huge amounts of space that could have been used for other purposes, such as flavor text.- Some powers (Come and Get It!) are difficult to rationalize or have effects that seem unrelated to each other (such as the Cleric's hit-and-heal powers).- Some powers seem unneccesarily restrictive.- Although the limited-use powers keep battles interesting and simulate the sort of fights you see in movies, their mechanical limitations can seem jarring in terms of suspension of disbelief. The biggest issue in my opinion, and the one I have mixed feelings about, is the difference between realistic and cinematic combat. It's probably one of the biggest distinctions between 4E and 3E.In Third Edition non-spellcasters got the basic options (trip, disarm, sunder, bullrush, etc), a few class features (rage, sneak attack, etc), and maybe some feats (spring attack, shot on the run, etc). However, all of these options were usable at any time as long as requirements were met. This resulted in believable combat without artificial limitations. Unfortunately, this also meant that battles could become monotonous and that players could specialize their characters into using a limited amount of highly effective maneuvers constantly.Fourth Edition's change in goals for combat affected nearly everything about the game. Powers were designed not just to represent the character's abilities, but to also enable interesting and varied combat. It did this by increasing the level of abstraction in combat relative to Third Edition and by imposing artificial rules on what the PCs can do.For example, in Fourth Edition Martial characters cannot use the same encounter power more than once even though they are free to use another, equally as strenuous power. There's no good way to explain why this is so and retain verisimilitude. However, that's not the rule's purpose. It's purpose is to keep combat interesting and varied, and I think it's safe to say that Fourth Edition's gamist ruleset does that very well.Combat in Third Edition (and previous editions) is designed to simulate a fantasy world (aside from certain abstractions, such as 6-foot swordsmen being able to kill giants with their blades), and combat in Fourth Edition is designed as a playable action movie scene that eschews realism in exchange for excitement. This approach to combat colors the rest of the game; in Fourth Edition's case, this approach rendered the game nearly unrecognizable as the newest edition of Dungeons and Dragons.  Remember how I mentioned that I liked 4E's cinematic feel to combat but didn't it's lack of verisimilitude? The problem is this: Cinematic combat and realistic combat seem to be diametrically opposed to one another. Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Which approach to player ability and combat do you think the next edition of the game should subscribe to? I personally hope for some sort of middle ground that can bring back a bit of simulationism without sacrificing mobile and exciting combat.</blockquote>

Verification