Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4781797" data-attributes="member: 40961">I mostly agree with the OP. The only quibble I'd give is this: If you look into the issue of realism in combat in terms of "why can or can't I do X" then 3e is more realistic than 4e because in 3e you can try pretty much anything, although the rules might be set up so that it won't be a good idea, and in 4e you may flat out be unable to do something unless your DM is generous with ad hoc stunts. 3e's barriers are "soft" barriers in that regard. You can break through them if you like, but the game is set up so that you mostly will not want to. 4e's barriers are hard barriers. You simply can't go through them. On the other hand, if you look at things in terms of "is the way this power is actually used in game realistic?" then 4e may present the more realistic outcome. Maybe. Its not guaranteed, and of course its all opinion. But for me, at some point plausibility of fight choreography as a whole should come into it. 3es system created barriers to the use of special attacks by martial characters. Generally it was some combination of opportunity attacks, auto failure if the OA hits you, multiple die rolls that all have to work right, the chance of having the special attack happen to you instead, and the loss of the chance to deal damage. That's a pretty significant barrier. But if you spent the appropriate feats to eliminate the barrier, it generally vanished completely, and you usually even got additional bonuses. You often reached the point where you might as well do the special attack every possible time its available, which due to the "realistic" rule of "you can always try anything you know how to do" means every single round against a special attack- vulnerable opponent. And its just not that realistic for someone to use Whirlwind Attack every single round of the game for the rest of the career. Or at least it doesn't seem so to me. Ditto Trip, or Sunder. With the right feats all of these attacks can be rendered into every-round options that stack with or even increase regular damage. Its possible that others can as well, but I don't know the method. I just don't think its a good idea to discuss reasonability or plausibility or realism without keeping in mind not only the question of "when can I or can't I do X," but also the question of "was my use of X over the course of my career, taken as a whole, plausible?" It would be possible to construct a game system that was both realistic in the "when can I try X" and the "overall, how frequently is it plausible that I try X" manner. But neither game answers this completely for me at the moment, and I'm not quite sure how to make such a system without bogging things down in rules. For me, outcome is most important, not process, so I can deal with abstraction that brings about plausible outcomes better than I can deal with specificity and realism that ends up being gamed and bringing about unrealistic outcomes. So I favor the 4e system. If an alternative cropped up, or some good houserules, I'd consider them, but I consider ease of play awfully important so they'd have to be reasonably elegant. I play D&D for the story and the roleplaying and the tactical choices, not the minutia.</blockquote>

Verification