4e cleave does fixed damage to any enemy adjacent to you on every single hit (not just enemies adjacent to the target). 3.x cleave requires that you kill the original target and then succeed on a to hit roll. 4e Cleave also has no prerequisites other than being a fighter, so you can give it to any character, not just the burly power attackers. I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing they're fairly close in damage level, with 4e racing way ahead on ease of use and speed.

Quote from: dar;221101As far as using magic in ingenious ways, a 1st level 4e wizard has some pretty powerful open ended cantrips that can really fuck shit up if the GM isn't paying attention. Those cantrips are almost like spontaneous magic in specific domains.

They cover quite a bit of ground and I was taken aback by them at first.

Did you ever play AD&D with Unearthed Arcana? The cantrips from 3e and 4e are basically consolidations of te many 0th level spells presented in UA, with each edition making them slightly more homogenous. That's a good thing though, IMO. You just know Presidigitation instead of Color, Clean, Finger of Flame, and a few other ones you'd rarely care to memorize, and which were usually so weak as to be relegated to flavor text descriptions of how you look mysterious hanging out in the tavern.

Quote from: James McMurray;221093Ain't it great! 4e went back to a stronger roleplaying base for out of combat encounters.

Yeah, and I just saw a cow flying outside my room's window. Honest! :rolleyes:

Quote from: Melan;221009#1: The Command spell through the editions

That IS pretty damning. Settembrini was right on target.

I don't think 4e is quite as bad as its detractors say, nor is it as wonderful as its fans think.

On one hand, I'm very satisfied with the new system for improvised actions. On the other hand, it DOES continue the trend of codifying way beyond what's acceptable.

The command spell is indeed an excellent example of that. New and future generations of gamers are missing out.

So, while I think a lot of what Melan describes as "The Tyranny of fun" sounds like an overdramatic rant to me, I really don't think 4th edition is a step forward for D&D.

They're only missing out on the fun of older editions if we never introduce them. Every edition of D&D is still available, along with many clones.

Quote from: jibbajibba;221065Say a rouge has a power that enables them to push a MOB back their charisma bonus in squares (the now much maligned Zoolander look ability) supposing I as a Fighter ask the DM if I can use the dining table in the orc soldiers mess as a barrier and force the orcs back towards the firepit say 2 squares approx. Aren't I basically spoling the game balance by being able to do things that are replicated by other powers?

Personnaly I would have relegated all the move stuff round the grid type powers to a single mechanic like the one described that allowed anyone to try and backflip off a table or over a pig or push the orcs back or whatever. Ithink once you define some of these as powers that have to be bought or earned it creates an issue for their use by other people (you could also fudge stuff that is less specific which means the rules can be used in a non-mini supported game more easily as no one expects a try to push them back with teh table manuver to move them exactly Str bonus -1 per combatant squares)

If you're right, it might also be worth adding that the codification of "combat moves" in certain classes doesn't just reduce the likelihood that someone will be allowed to replicate them through situational improvisation (as you say). It also IMO decreases the likelihood that the codified "combat moves" will be tempered by reasonable judgment. I.e., if it says on your sheet that you can do X in mechanical terms, then the group is far more likely to let you do X, with either no effort to explain it in terms of what's happening in the fiction, or via token post-hoc justification. I.e., the trend seems to risk allowing the mechanics to tear loose from the imaginative fiction that anchors an RPG, moving the activity closer to an abstract "themed" board game.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221125If you're right, it might also be worth adding that the codification of "combat moves" in certain classes doesn't just reduce the likelihood that someone will be allowed to replicate them through situational improvisation (as you say). It also IMO decreases the likelihood that the codified "combat moves" will be tempered by reasonable judgment. I.e., if it says on your sheet that you can do X in mechanical terms, then the group is far more likely to let you do X, with either no effort to explain it in terms of what's happening in the fiction, or via token post-hoc justification. I.e., the trend seems to risk allowing the mechanics to tear loose from the imaginative fiction that anchors an RPG, moving the activity closer to an abstract "themed" board game.

Empirically wrong once again, at least for my group.

Hint: when something is wrong for your group but not everyone, the word you want is "subjective."

So, anecdotally wrong, which may be generally right

Hint: When the RAW demonstrably change in a major way, the "subjective" cop-out won't fly.

Quote from: James McMurray;221128Hint: when something is wrong for your group but not everyone, the word you want is "subjective."

Have you stopped describing your character's attacks in a sensible way because they're now pre-established powers? That's what Elliott's speculating will happen. I haven't heard of that happening, never even thought of stopping myself, and haven't seen it stop in a PbP or other publically available game. So, why on earth should we think his speculation has any truth to it at all?

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221131Hint: When the RAW demonstrably change in a major way, the "subjective" cop-out won't fly.

The RAW don't say anything about the issue at hand, except perhaps to contradict Elliott by suggesting that one adjust the powers' fluff to whatever one pleases to better fit the character and story. Elliott is making wild claims with no basis.

Quote from: James McMurray;221103Did you ever play AD&D with Unearthed Arcana?

Thats cool. But never played using it.

Quote from: James McMurray;221124They're only missing out on the fun of older editions if we never introduce them. Every edition of D&D is still available, along with many clones.

A totally noble sentiment. And I subscribe to it.

But at the end of the day, WotC is in a much better position than I am to spread the word. Maybe it's just my background (we learned the game by ourselves, from the box) talking.