Warning: this post is a rant. I don’t want to feed the argument between old school and new school, I just have these words pressing on my teeth, asking me to let them go outside and spread. I think it’s the time.
I’ve been playing 4th ed. for six months now, and I’ve been GMing it for a couple more. I player 4 PCs until now: wizard, druid, bard and playtest monk, but I had the chance to see the most of the classes in action.
There are quite a few things I really like of 4th ed., and whenever I’m going to change systems I think I’ll try to implement them into my games.
The most relevant, I think, is at-will powers, beacuse I’ve never been fond of crossbow-yelding mages 
But there’s a lot more of things I really hate about this ruleset, even if I could get along with many of them.
I can live with powers that have different and unrelated effects, of which the role of leader usually abuses. Oh, yeah, I can really believe the hype of seeing me swinging my sword into a goblin for a ridicolous amount of damage can make you forget you are bleeding (read: hit a foe, an unrelated ally can use a surge). Really, I can.
I can live with the fact that 99.9% of non-utility powers deal damage as a primary effect, so they can be used uniquely in combat situations. I can understand the rationale beyond this: “what’s the most exciting part of a session?” “Combat!” “And what’s so good about combat?” “Dealing damage!” “So, why don’t everybody deal damage with their actions, whatever they are doing?” “Wow, that’s just what people out there need!”
I’m even ok with 3 out of 4 arcane classes (in PHB and PHB2) using Charisma as their main stat. I used to think magic-users should be smart, these rules tell me they just need to be witty: a timely reply works better than years of hard work and study, you know.
But there’s one thing I just can’t stand at all. I tried to explain it to myself. I tried to think that’s for the good of the game. But I can’t. Maybe I’m a little man, but I can’t get along with this. It sums up in the words CHA vs AC.
What’s so bad about this? I’ll let you know what I think. Stating that a bard can use his Charisma to crush heads with a sword makes the whole game go out from any probability and deeply mines the suspension of disbelief.
Why a wandering singer, with Cha 20, should be as good at hitting a foe with a sword than a battle-hardened soldier?
Even worse: why in the world a wildshaped druid should rely on its common sense (Wisdom) to smash people with his claws?
I have only an answer for this: streamlining and empowering. Making classes hit with their powers on the base of possible stat uses, makes them easier to be dealt with at every level. Players know what their PCs are intended to do, and they can focus on these aspects. They choose a power out of a list of 4, and they don’t bother with anything else. Realism and athmosphere included.
Try to ask to your players to describe their actions, and it will be plain that this cannot work: let one of your players strike with Pounce (druid, at-will) and then ask him how his common sense, respect of traditions and experience with life helped him to dodge an arrow and jump over a foe after a charge. Let’s see what’s coming up from this.
What do you think?
