Community

May 24, 2012 -- 5:58PM, Style75 wrote:

Don't forget that you can always use your actions to do things like swing from a chandelier, flip over a table, wrestle an enemy to the ground or pick up a keg of ale and chuck it at someone. Simply tell the DM what you want to do, the DM then asks for a check. The fighter will have the best physical ability scores which means he/she is much more likely to pass these checks. With this old school approach you are only limited by your imagination, not by the power cards.

WotC should really release a video of an inhouse play test so that people can see what this style of play is like. People who've only ever played 4e might not realize how different this style of play is.

for the record: I play Basic D&D and 4e on a regular basis. Love 'em both!

The only problem with that is it makes it sound like the Fighter is required to constantly being creative, inventive, etc to be comparable to magic users, who can probably use magic to do whatever the Fighter's giving up his attack to do, much more effectively, possbly more damage, and can still be just as creative as the Fighter's player.

May 24, 2012 -- 6:28PM, Verdegris_Sage wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 5:58PM, Style75 wrote:

Don't forget that you can always use your actions to do things like swing from a chandelier, flip over a table, wrestle an enemy to the ground or pick up a keg of ale and chuck it at someone. Simply tell the DM what you want to do, the DM then asks for a check. The fighter will have the best physical ability scores which means he/she is much more likely to pass these checks. With this old school approach you are only limited by your imagination, not by the power cards.

WotC should really release a video of an inhouse play test so that people can see what this style of play is like. People who've only ever played 4e might not realize how different this style of play is.

for the record: I play Basic D&D and 4e on a regular basis. Love 'em both!

I'm bolding the parts where I think you are either trying to stoke an edition war, or haven't actually read the rules, especialy the DMG for the edition you are implying is so straight-jacketing.

I've been DMing since AD&D, 4E was the first time I saw any coherent guidlines for ad'hoc effects in improvisation in combat in the initial book offerings. Every other edition had waved it off as pure DM fiat, or had rules tucked in supplementary products well removed from the initial release.

I'm sorry if your 4E DM was illiterate, or hadn't read the DMG. However, the straight-jacket was at your table, not in the books. 

I love 4E too, but you must agree, many powers have mechanical descriptions that are an end in itself. Of course you can work around it and think of how that works in the real world, but actually, most of the players I have met in conventions and stuff don´t do it that way, most of them simply play powers somehow disconnected on how it would actually happen in the "game world" . not that it happens in every table, probably not in youers, neither in mine, but it happens a lot. I think that´s one thing they are trying to avoid now.