Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5888055" data-attributes="member: 22779">So, Eldritch Lord - the problem with the system comes when other players deliberately point out potential issues, and then continue pointing them out time after time, using meta-game language in the game (use your Swarm of Arrows Technique) in character, in game, to create problems.How is this not a player problem?  After all, you could say EXACTLY the same thing about Action Points.  You can use an AP to gain access to any feat for one round, for example.  So, why can't you keep doing that round after round?4e powers are just that - meta-game effects.  They are no different than AP's.  The only thing you can do in combat that isn't a meta-game effect is a basic attack (either melee or ranged).  That's it.  Now, some are a lot easier to map onto the fiction than others.  Most of the martial effects map directly onto the fiction.  But, that doesn't make them any less of a meta-game effect.  Shield Bash is still a meta-game effect.  After all, why can't I do it every single attack?But, that's the point right there.  They are meta-game effects because round after round of the martial character doing EXACTLY the same thing, fight after fight, is not a goal of 4e D&D.  The goal is to give every character a variety of actions that they can perform and to allow a greater level of differentiation between one character and another of the same class.The problem comes when players try to make the system something it isn't.  4e characters do not gain a selection of in-game effects.  They don't.  Powers don't work like that.  In prior editions, your selections were pre-defined  and largely pre-scripted.  If you wanted to trip someone, this is how you do it and if you don't meet the requirements, you cannot do it.  If you do meet the requirements, you can do it any time you want.Which led to one  trick pony characters because it was almost always better to focus on one trick to the exclusion of anything else.Some people think that's great and that the level of immersion gained by that system is worth it.  Some people don't.  But, both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.  You point out that 4e's powers can create illogical situations.  IME, it generally doesn't, but, I could see how it can.  3e's approach can lead to cookie cutter characters and hyper-specialization.  AD&D's systems were so baroque that they generally didn't see play.But this:I don't agree with.  Class balance was a primary goal in 3e.</blockquote>

Verification