Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MWHistorian wrote:
4th was highly limiting and stiffling. "Here's what you can do, like action tabs on an MMO."
Unlike in wargames, in RPG's I don't care about balance. A good DM can and should do whatever it takes to make the game fun, like an interactive story. (for me) The more restrictive those rules, the less I can get into the game.

See, I don't get why you are playing D&D then. I don't mean that as a joke, I mean, there are game systems that are tailored to that idea.

@Ahtman:

Stating an opinion while also stating you don't have enough information to support said opinion speaks for itself. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt based on years of reading your posts.

Furthermore - I have expressed skepticism at "LFQW" as a slogan but not at the idea that 3E had big problems with casters outshining non-casters. I have even pointed out this distinction before. Now I have pointed it out to you specifically. If you have questions about it, by all means ask. But please stop pretending it doesn't exist.

@Buzzsaw:

Chess is a game of clearly defined and perfectly balanced mechanics. Comparing 4E to chess is not meant to be an insult given that 4E plainly aspires to those aspects of chess. I call it super chess because it takes on many more mechanics than chess while keeping the goals of clarity and balance. Each piece in 4E can do much more than each piece in chess.

Your analysis of my description of play is nicely proving that 5E can handle 4E-style combat. After all the main qualifier is the consistency/complexity of abstract norms. Sure, it's not as complex as 4E. A few days ago, I would say and did say that 5E was incompatible with the ruleplaying style of 4E. But you are starting to change my mind. I think WotC could offer some more complex parts for 4E fans to bolt on.

In any case -- what I have been trying to show you is that 5E can also handle the style I prefer: where play comes from rulings rather than rules. To stay with your example of the goblin doing something "completely unpredictable" ... again, I disagree. Looking at the goblin as a goblin, rather than a chess piece, it was absolutely reasonable that he would try to bolt through our ranks. And it was not at all unreasonable that he could try to do it and even succeed (despite the odds).

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
4th was highly limiting and stiffling. "Here's what you can do, like action tabs on an MMO."
Unlike in wargames, in RPG's I don't care about balance. A good DM can and should do whatever it takes to make the game fun, like an interactive story. (for me) The more restrictive those rules, the less I can get into the game.

See, I don't get why you are playing D&D then. I don't mean that as a joke, I mean, there are game systems that are tailored to that idea.

Maybe because he wants to run around with elves n' dwarves and whatever and not modern-era Special SuperSecretMonsters : My character is 12deep14you - The sexying expansion.

 Manchu wrote:
@Ahtman:

Stating an opinion while also stating you don't have enough information to support said opinion speaks for itself.

I don't have an opinion yet, which i have stated twice now. I haven't said fighters are bad, that they are unplayable, or anything like that, just that it seems they have regressed in terms of options. This is, at best, a surface reading only prompted by someone consistently asking me to have say something about it even after saying I wasn't really ready to. I also am somewhat skeptical about LFQW as a slogan but I also think there is some truth to it as well. How much it effects the game or the players is debatable.

 Manchu wrote:
No I have pointed it out to you specifically. If you have questions about it, by all means ask. But please stop pretending it doesn't exist.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I'm not sure what you think is being pretended to not exist or what questions need to be asked but aren't.

"If we're playing Basic and I am DMing, you don't need permission from me to try anything", But what is this to mean?

This notion, that 4e restricted what people could do, is simply impossible to square with reality, because all editions have the escape hatch of "can I X?" Where X is surf a shield down the stairs while shooting a hail of arrows, catch the sun on your shield to dazzle a vampire, use a cantrip to light a rope surreptitiously to cause a chandelier to fall and so on.

In all of those cases and every other case, you do the same thing in every edition of D&D: you say you want to do it and the DM determines what mechanics to use. Skill challenges, ability checks, etc.

The difference is that in 4e, the rules a) give classes a lot more to do, and b) took a lot of things out of the realm of "may I?" and into "I do".

Put another way, 5e does everything that 4e does, it just does a lot of what 4e did much, much worse.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm not sure what you think is being pretended to not exist or what questions need to be asked but aren't.

 Ahtman wrote:
your arguments for why LFQW either isn't a thing or isn't a thing worth worrying about

 Buzzsaw wrote:
all editions have the escape hatch of "can I X?"

It is only an "escape hatch" in 4E. As I mentioned, it (or rather "I try this") is the fundamental premise of the game in other editions.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
took a lot of things out of the realm of "may I?" and into "I do".

You have it absolutely reversed. In past editions, players told DMs what they were doing and DMs told players how to test if they were successful and then narrated the consequences of success or failure. in 4E, the player needs permission for everything and 99.999% of it is given or withheld by WotC.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

2: Balance: Will it be a team effort, or will casters dominate the field.

While I can't say for 5E, my wife and I's current 4E campaign, combat is dominated by a combination of the Assassin and Warden characters. the Cleric does OK at healing, and the Psion does her job admirably (which is to rearrange the baddies to allow the Warden and Assassin to carve them up at their leisure)


I say that to say, I don't think ALL casters dominate the field. I've never actually played a campaign with a true wizard or warlock or the more "traditional" casters, so perhaps there is a limit to which caster classes tend to become "over powered"

I think ZebioLizard2 is saying that 4E didn't have a caster dominance problem as compared to 3E.

 Manchu wrote:
@Buzzsaw:...
Your analysis of my description of play is nicely proving that 5E can handle 4E-style combat. After all the main qualifier is the consistency/complexity of abstract norms. Sure, it's not as complex as 4E. A few days ago, I would say and did say that 5E was incompatible with the ruleplaying style of 4E. But you are starting to change my mind. I think WotC could offer some more complex parts for 4E fans to bolt on.

Not to be cruel, but I think what you're showing is that if one is desperate enough, you can shoehorn the idea of "tactics" into anything, regardless of how poorly it fits.

Seriously man, your own friend said "the beautiful tactical combat is gone". You asked the 4e fans of Dakka, "do YOU (if you are a 4E player)

think this kind of game play sounds fun?"

This fan said "No." (I'll let the others speak for themselves, but they don't seem too chuffed.)

 Manchu wrote:
In any case -- what I have been trying to show you is that 5E can also handle the style I prefer: where play comes from rulings rather than rules. To stay with your example of the goblin doing something "completely unpredictable" ... again, I disagree. Looking at the goblin as a goblin, rather than a chess piece, it was absolutely reasonable that he would try to bolt through our ranks. And it was not at all unreasonable that he could try to do it and even succeed (despite the odds).

This is a prime example of "shoehorning". I said;
"Ah, he decided that the goblin, being small, could pass through other's spaces, but lacking the halfling's nimbleness, it had to make opposed dex checks. A fine ruling, marred only by being completely unpredictable and thus, of course, a terrible example of tactical combat. "

The "he" doesn't refer to the goblin, but the DM, while the goblin was fairly clearly "it". Given that this statement follows a series of other statements where I am examining what the DM did, I thought it was clear. So what you are saying there is... well it's a non-sequiter. The idea that it supports what you are talking about is out and out bizarre.

I honestly don't know what to say to you at this point: you seem to be investing quite a lot of emotion in convincing yourself of something you, and everyone you ask, know to be false. The one thing you have clearly and unambiguously shown (to me at least) is that 5e will be absolute crap at replicating what I like from 4e.

Heh, I suppose I ought to thank you: every interaction we have does more to convince me that 5e is not something I should be wasting my money on.

 Manchu wrote:
I think ZebioLizard2 is saying that 4E didn't have a caster dominance problem as compared to 3E.

Correct on this part, that group had team work and had to use it correctly.

In 4E, what can a fighter do?

Pages and pages of very specific things and just those things.

Then why do you not complain about the Wizards and Spell Casters who do this? Should they not be able to 'interpret' their abilities at will?

In 4E, they can still do more things then they did in 3E, and 5E.

Heh, I suppose I ought to thank you: every interaction we have does more to convince me that 5e is not something I should be wasting my money on.

I am starting to agree with this sentiment as well...

Don't let people online sour you on a game before you try it.

 pretre wrote:
Don't let people online sour you on a game before you try it.

I'll admit that opinion was also soured because I was on the DnD Next forums for a while, while all of them were doing their best to purge all 4E players from the forums and all thoughts from 5E

Which they kinda did, including the developers who insulted things from 4E the entire time, added "New" things which were renamed from 4E to hide the fact where it came from..

So yeah, It's rather as a 'whole' rather then just one person.

But I suppose I'll wait and see, if it isn't any good I'll pick up 13th age.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
you seem to be investing quite a lot of emotion in convincing yourself of something you, and everyone you ask, know to be false

Seriously what?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The "he" doesn't refer to the goblin, but the DM, while the goblin was fairly clearly "it".

Distinction without a difference. The goblin's choices were made by the DM. What the GM had the goblin do was nothing close to "completely unpredictable" as a matter of roleplaying. The goblin is not just a piece on a board in our game. It is not defined only by its stat block programming blurb.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

In 4E, what can a fighter do?

Pages and pages of very specific things and just those things.

Then why do you not complain about the Wizards and Spell Casters who do this? Should they not be able to 'interpret' their abilities at will?

 Manchu wrote:
People have a pretty good idea of what a warrior can do thanks to action movies. And that is a lot of stuff, at least if you are an imaginative person. But you don't need a list of permissions because you are already familiar with the laws of nature, which are also assumed in the game's setting. Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.

I feel that way about 40k sometimes after being here. :(

Then I remember I love the game and ignore the folks that sour things for me.

People have a pretty good idea of what a warrior can do thanks to action movies. And that is a lot of stuff, at least if you are an imaginative person. But you don't need a list of permissions because you are already familiar with the laws of nature, which are also assumed in the game's setting. Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.

Aside from the fact that this means that everything is set into the hands of a DM who now has to calculate whether a shield bash would have a stun, or just be a standard attack with a shield.

It's actually far more limiting because all it sets up for is DM fiat that isn't consistent from table to table about what a fighter can do. While at the same time a Caster still has all that 'Imagination' and can still cast his mechanically powerful skills.

In short, that doesn't fix anything at all and still puts the powers in Caster hands.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
In short, that doesn't fix anything at all and still puts the powers in Caster hands.

Magic breaks the laws of nature. Casters use magic. Non-casters don't. Having played a ton of 3.5 and PF, I know this can create problems. Whether those problems exist in 5E is in my mind an open question.

So today's discussion has been fruitful to me.

- Can 5E be played as an "interpretive game" like Basic? Yes.

- Can 5E be played as a game that privileges rulings over rules but still has a wide range of rules like AD&D? Yes.

- Can 5E be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game with or without room for rulings like 3E and 4E? Buzzsaw has helped me see that, yes, this is also possible.

IMO this is an impressive degree of versatility.

 Manchu wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
you seem to be investing quite a lot of emotion in convincing yourself of something you, and everyone you ask, know to be false

Seriously what?

Let's take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?

 Manchu wrote:
@Buzzsaw: Yes, it is hard to see how anyone who really loves the crunchiness of 4E could simulate it with 5E, even with the idea of bolting on more aspects of 4E with the upcoming DMG. Fortunately, there's a ton of 4E material.

 Manchu wrote:
In 5E, we used all of those 3E/4E mechanics without talking about them -- in effect, just like a Basic/OSR game. Indeed, the DM confirmed to me that he was not consciously using the rules, just making calls that seemed reasonable and fun. To me, this shows that 5E is pretty successful at unifying gameplay across editions.

Our resident 4E fan complained the next day that "the beautiful tactical combat is gone." I am wondering if the 4E fans of Dakka also see it that way, given my example.

 Manchu wrote:
You think "house rule" means band aid. That is a board game mentality. In RPGs (and scenario-based war gaming), the better word is ruling. A ruling isn't about "fixing the game" so "it works." It is about customization and imagination. A RPG without rulings is Warhammer Quest, Descent, Myth, or, their more complicated cousin, D&D 4E.

You are right, however, that we agree that the Original. First, Second, Third, and Fifth Editions of D&D are ultimately incompatible with Fourth Edition.

So far, 5E is my favorite version of D&D. I have not and will not throw out any of my 4E stuff (finally snagged the DMK two weeks ago), because it is a wonderful skirmish game, but it's not what I call a good RPG.

 Manchu wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
What's happening is that our perspectives are so divergent that there are things that you find good and well done, that I find tedious and inept.

Yep, I've been explaining that ITT for something like a month or more.

Which brings us to...

 Manchu wrote:


So today's discussion has been fruitful to me.

- Can 5E be played as an "interpretive game" like Basic? Yes.

- Can 5E be played as a game that privileges rulings over rules but still has a wide range of rules like AD&D? Yes.

- Can 5E be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game with or without room for rulings like 3E and 4E? Buzzsaw has helped me see that, yes, this is also possible.

IMO this is an impressive degree of versatility.

If pointing out that your DM has facilitated tactical gaming in 5e by, apparently, ignoring the rules convinces you that "5E [can] be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game", then, congratulations! Absolutely anything can be played that way. If you would like I would be happy to point out how woefully inadequate the World of Darkness rules are for a tactical RPG. Which, going off your comments above, should be enough to convince you it is the next coming of Strategema.

In all seriousness, it's not even a question that he ignored the rules, he flat out told you so: "the DM confirmed to me that he was not consciously using the rules, just making calls that seemed reasonable and fun", and right after that? Your own 4E guy bemoans that "the beautiful tactical combat is gone."

To the extent that 5e is "versatile", it does just what I mentioned before, unsatisfying half-measures all around;

 Buzzsaw wrote:
In the end, 5e looks to be shaping up to be everyone's second favorite rules set.

It seems pretty clear that I'm not going to be able to convince you (Manchu). You've asked your question ("given the rules we have and the actual play described do YOU (if you are a 4E player) think this kind of game play sounds fun?") and been given my answer ("No."), so let's go the other way. Here is my question to you;

Where is the Bone?

You know, the bone in the Basic rules thrown to the 4E guys like your friend. The signal to the people that hate vancian casting like poison and loathe having only simple martial classes. The gift to the people that though the warlord was aces and who prowled the CharOp boards looking for insights. The corn in the... stuff.

The basic rules are the first and largest selling point for this edition, a lure for players of all previous editions. I honestly don't see anything here to satisfy the 4e fan, but you do. So help me out, and tell me what I missed.

When did people get the idea that 5ed would appeal to 4ed players? I mean I guess it can appeal to some in the same way people can like cats and the color red, but it was very clear from the very start of 5ed that 4ed was going to be treated as a mistake.

I didn't see that press release...

Citing that I changed my opinion cannot prove that I am emotionally committed to that opinion.

When I first started reading the 5E PDF, it struck me as way too "interpretive" to be 4E-compatible. I posted that opinion ITT. Playing the game initially seemed to confirm my opinion. My friend's lament for the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E also seemed to confirm my opinion. In trying to understand his reaction,* I started to analyze an instance of our gameplay from a perspective emphasizing the rules as written, beginning with the hypothesis that our DM had disregarded Opportunity Attacks. Reflecting further, with the rules in front of me, I found that our gameplay was very much in harmony with the tactical combat rules as written, which are all lifted from/inspired by elements of 3E and 4E.

I started to realize that my initial opinion could be based on me reading Basic into 5E. Indeed, I noticed that very few (almost no) 5E mechanics come from B/X, BECMI, or the Rules Cyclopedia. It was clear I needed others' perspectives. Specifically, I needed to see how people who would read different editions into 5E would interpret the gameplay. So I wrote a critical reflection of the game -- noting both the narrative surface and all the mechanics that at least could be running underneath. I left open the possibility that the DM was using the tactical combat rules or disregarding them because I genuinely did not know.

The DM got back to me, as I related here, that he was not consciously using the rules. In his own words, "I just made up what I wanted the goblin to do and he did it." I am fascinated that what he "just made up" was so closely in sync with the what the PDF outlines. Alpharius, who I asked as an AD&D afficianado, said it had an old school feel and intention. ZebioLizard2 and pretre seemed to think it sounded like run of the mill gameplay. One OSR booster on another site said it sounded "awfully crunchy" to him but was pleased to learn that nobody talked rules during play. Buzzsaw, skeptical before the release and convinced after that 5E was not 4E enough (and with whom I emphatically agreed at that time), told me the DM either misused the rules or cheated and then explained the proper way to play 5E.

Seeing this "rules, not rulings" approach applied point-by-point to 5E, a game I initially thought was more about "rulings, not rules," convinced me I had been wrong: here was the very proof that 5E was substantial enough to be played like 4E, namely as a miniatures skirmish game with (as Buzzsaw put it) a roleplaying "escape hatch" to cover whatever was not explicitly permitted/not permitted by the rules as written. While I am still not convinced that the game can be played simultaneously as an interpretive game and as a determinative game, I now see that it can at least be played either way. Whether that means it can replace any or all previous editions is completely personal.

I know admitting that you changed your mind after hearing out other people's opinions is considered running up the white flag on the internet. So be it. My initial opinion about 5E was wrong. I must admit, liking 5E more as a result -- especially after being so skeptical about it (from the opposite perspective of Buzzsaw and ZebioLizard2) for so long -- takes the sting out of it.

* This friend told me in June he would not buy any 5E products because he spent so much on 4E. After our first session, he enthusiastically exclaimed that he hated to do it but he wanted to get the 5E core books. The next day, he posted on facebook that 5E was "inferior" and the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E was gone. So that's what I was trying to understand by reflecting on our gameplay and seeking others' opinions, specifically people who seem to prefer 4E.

nomotog wrote:
When did people get the idea that 5ed would appeal to 4ed players? I mean I guess it can appeal to some in the same way people can like cats and the color red, but it was very clear from the very start of 5ed that 4ed was going to be treated as a mistake.

IIRC, the marketing line was 5E was supposed to bring in fans of every edition. When I originally heard this, I was severely skeptical. But seeing a bunch of people who prefer a bunch of different versions get around a table and have fun with it has really challenged that skepticism. Of course, I also see people here and elsewhere who want to stick to what they are already doing.

 pretre wrote:
I didn't see that press release...

You know, there very well may have been a press release somewhere. They did a lot of talks about different things from small to large.

Seeing this "rules, not rulings" approach applied point-by-point to 5E, a game I initially thought was more about "rulings, not rules," convinced me I had been wrong: here was the very proof that 5E was substantial enough to be played like 4E, namely as a miniatures skirmish game with (as Buzzsaw put it) a roleplaying "escape hatch" to cover whatever was not explicitly permitted/not permitted by the rules as written.

I never said that, I said it looked like gameplay, and I didn't see what I was supposed to be looking for.

Though I do agree with buzzsaws interpretation of the facts as is, and you seem to constantly insult 4E unintentionally when it comes down to it, considering that the grid wasn't needed at all but people seemed to think beyond that.

nomotog wrote:
You know, there very well may have been a press release somewhere. They did a lot of talks about different things from small to large.

There certainly was a press release:

We want a game that rises above differences of play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game. In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play.

From January 2012

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Seeing this "rules, not rulings" approach applied point-by-point to 5E, a game I initially thought was more about "rulings, not rules," convinced me I had been wrong: here was the very proof that 5E was substantial enough to be played like 4E, namely as a miniatures skirmish game with (as Buzzsaw put it) a roleplaying "escape hatch" to cover whatever was not explicitly permitted/not permitted by the rules as written.

I never said that, I said it looked like gameplay, and I didn't see what I was supposed to be looking for.

Fortunately, I did not attribute that to you. As you will note, that is explicitly quoting Buzzsaw. Here's what I attributed to you and pretre:

 Manchu wrote:
ZebioLizard2 and pretre seemed to think it sounded like run of the mill gameplay.

Based on the following:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It seems like..Gameplay?

 pretre wrote:
Could you do that in pretty much any edition of D&D? Sure could.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Though I do agree with buzzsaws interpretation of the facts as is, and you seem to constantly insult 4E unintentionally when it comes down to it, considering that the grid wasn't needed at all but people seemed to think beyond that.

I don't follow any of this (especially the part about the grid not being needed ... in 5E? in 4E?), other than you seem think me saying that 4E emphasized clarity and balance is an unintentional insult. Or is it an insult to say that 4E is a permissive rule set like a tactical miniatures game? Or that D&D can be played in a different way from how you play 4E? I have been very careful to avoid saying that how you play 4E is bad or wrong because I do not believe that. Indeed, I have said I also enjoy playing 4E that way but that it is too time-intensive, which can hardly be insulting. Then again I also do not understand how Buzzsaw can say:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
To say that 4e players are left in the cold is to misstate it: 4e players are actively antagonized by elements of 5e.

Do you agree with that? If so, can you tell me how you think "elements of 5E" (which elements?) "actively antagonize" 4E players?

Do you agree with that? If so, can you tell me how you think "elements of 5E" (which elements?) "actively antagonize" 4E players?

He is right in that the basic book doesn't really lend much towards 4E players with archetype choice, they all pretty much seem like standard 3.5 classes.

Most of the active antagonized issues for myself came from the developers, their various tweets, along with the insulting towards the one class 4E players wanted in to represent them (The Warlord) being actively insulted against the entire time during development. It was quite obvious that the "Unity" for 5E was only for 3.5 and before considering how they treated 4E during the entire development period.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
the basic book doesn't really lend much towards 4E players with archetype choice

- Clerics have Divine Domains
- Fighters have Fighting Style and Martial Archetypes
- Rogues have Rougish Archetypes
- Wizards have Arcane Traditions

Yes, only one example of each is included in the free PDF. The free PDF also makes clear that more choices will be available in the PHB.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It was quite obvious that the "Unity" for 5E was only for 3.5 and before considering how they treated 4E during the entire development period.

I can't speak to the designer tweets because I didn't follow them. Maybe you could post some examples? But I will say that 5E is chock full of elements from 4E. Again, I am not saying that makes it equivalent to 4E. But 4E is probably the single most influential edition in terms of sheer number of mechanics adopted/expanded. 5E's hit dice, death saves, weapon proficiencies, skill system class archetypes, ritual spells, saving throws, inspiration, and likely other stuff that I just can't think of off the top of my head came from 4E innovations. 5E owes a great deal to 4E.

That press release hardly says 4e was a failure...

I quoted it to show that 5E was meant to be inclusive or at least modular enough to be customized into something that whoever could like. This is because nomotog asked where people got the idea that 5E would appeal to 4E players.

But the press release response was in regards to the mistake bit. Obviously, they want to reach out.

It was not obvious to nomotog, given he asked.

 Manchu wrote:
If you want to use spells, play a caster. People have a pretty good idea of what a warrior can do thanks to action movies. And that is a lot of stuff, at least if you are an imaginative person. But you don't need a list of permissions because you are already familiar with the laws of nature, which are also assumed in the game's setting. Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.

So because swordsmen basically fly in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, you're okay with my fighter doing that? I mean, going through any amount of swordsman action media can generate some ridiculous powers. Like Zoro cutting through steel in One Piece, or all sorts of anime series where people cut through buildings and crap.

And I'd also say that there are plenty of movies showcasing the power of wizards. Surely you're also, then, okay with limiting wizards to an arbitrary set of powers that Hollywood thinks fits them? I mean, sure you get the killing curse out of Harry Potter, but Gandalf was a wizard and basically sucked it up from a magical perspective in 5 movies so far.

Referring to "the laws of nature" being "assumed in the game's setting"? I mean, by the laws of nature dragons shouldn't be able to fly. The power needed by their wings to lift multiple ton bodies off the ground would basically crush anyone around them. Even if, as I assume, you mean "the laws of nature in the game setting which let dragons fly", then arbitrarily deciding that those rules don't allow a swordsman to do the same ridiculous stuff that a wizard can (or at least their own version of ridiculous stuff) is beyond assinine. It's basically the D&D version of "Frell you, got mine".


As to Basic vs 4e and the "Descriptive attack" thing, you can't seriously be telling me you see a difference between 4e's "Basic Attack" and any other version of D&D's "I attack". The only difference is that one is codified in a little card, the other is in the combat section of the rules. If you can come up with all sorts of rulings for other editions "I attack", there is nothing except your own limitations on seeing a power card that stops you from applying the same process and procedure to 4e's "Basic Attack".


I'm honestly not sure how you can present these arguments straight faced. You present multiple arguments for creativity, but then suddenly when "I attack" ends up on a card you seeminly lose all capacity for creativity?