Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6094932" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I very much agree. I think there's precedent, especially within D&D's earlier versions, for this kind of disparity, but I don't think its a good precedent.  Now, rather than having rules that give you some kind of real structure to the non-combat parts (like FATE, BW, or MHRP/Cortex+ do) they appear to be throwing their hands up and saying "do what thou wilt." The other nasty side-effect is having to resort to looking up spell effects/descriptions during play. I utterly and profoundly hate having play come to a screeching halt to dig up some particular detail of a spell (which even Old-school doesn't avoid), or feat, or equipment, or whatever....yech. Not only does it slow play at precisely the wrong time, but it encourages DMs to limit source material so as to avoid the problem in the first place. (OTOH, they need some reason to sell you splat books. Hard to do with FATE, where conversions often start with the question "do we need anything other than aspects?")Hard for me to say. When I think of 4e's table presence, I find it hard to distinguish the effects of the overall structure and design and the character of the powers as written.</blockquote>