Quote from: RPGPundit;292270by now the power whores would have figured it out, unless ALL of the choices in the game are literally so meaningless and "rules illusionism" that nothing you ever do will ever actually put you better off than any other choice.

Nicely set-up, Pundit!

   Either

4e has gaping holes in the rules a player can drive a laser-tank-firing-katanas through,

or

4e is bland and boring and pointless.
 
A wonderful double-bind. Whatever people answer, you get to say 4e is shit!

Look, I think D&D4e looks awful, if only because it's an awful lot of pages and messing about with minis just to kill things and take their stuff. I don't need any fancy rhetorical traps to just come out and say that, though.

Quote from: Ronin;292422Why? Can you explain why? While I have not played one. I've seen them played as effective ranged strikers.

The ranger is better at the ranged striker role ... by a mile.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;292430The ranger is better at the ranged striker role ... by a mile.

Ok, thats fine but why specifically is the warlock "ass"? As you say. At first level they both have a damage adders (Hunters Quarry, Warlocks Curse) long bow and eldritch blast do the same damage. So their pretty similar. Rangers Twin Strike gives you a second shot without the damage adder. But Warlock Eyebite and Hellish Rebuke are just as useful.

Nevermind 1st level, let's talk about the whole package.

Generally, the warlock's like the 3E bard. It tries to do a lot of different things (control, debuffing, mobility, damage, defense) and ends up not being good at all of them (because wizards do control better, tactical warlords buff better, rangers and fighters do better damage, etc).

Also, Twin Strike doesn't give you an ability score modifier to damage - that's all. The other modifiers still apply to the damage roll of each attack - just to make that clear. Missing +6 to damage is bullshit when you'll be throwing down +14 twice.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;292436Nevermind Level 1, let's talk about the whole package.

Generally, the warlock's like the 3E bard. It tries to do a lot of different things (control, debuffing, mobility, damage, defense) and ends up not being good at all of them (wizards do control better, tactical warlords buff better, rangers and fighters do better damage).

Also, Twin Strike doesn't give you an ability score modifier to damage. The other modifiers still apply to the damage roll of each attack. Let's just make that clear. Missing +6 to damage is bullshit when you're doubling the rest of the modifiers.

Well I disagree I've seen them used pretty effectively. But I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think Pundit's original question is moot. No system designed by humans is flawless. So, of course 4e will have loops that other people will exploit, as any other system ever.

Apart from that, what Kyle said. It's the same thing as people saying that 4e has been dumbed down so much that a 5th grader could play it, and at the same time complaining about how hard is to learn it because it has so many rules. Make out your mind.

My two cents:

If you put any RPG system up to enough scrutiny it will eventually break down, and 4e is under a lot of scrutiny.

That said, if you ignore the more dubious builds (those exploiting ambiguous definitions for instance) the power gap between an optimized and a normal character is small enough to allow the normal character to contribute to the action. That’s not to say the difference is insignificant, but the role ‘system’ tends to prevent one character from capitalizing all or most the duties of a party, as was the case in 3e (druid, wizard, etc.)

4e is pretty well balanced.  Only a couple of pointless powers out of the hundreds of powers.  Maybe one class that is questionable.  Maybe a few combinations that are super-optimized.

On the whole, that's doing a lot better than most other games.

Point buy games like Hero, GURPS, and even M&M are min/max nightmares (heck, even just trying to create a competant character can take hours of calculations).  Heavy skill-based games like Traveller, CoC, and Dark Heresy are all about whether you end up with a good mix of useful skills or not (woe to the person who ends up without any combat skills).  The Palladium line of games don't even bother to balance (which has a certain charm).

Quote from: Imperator;292442I think Pundit's original question is moot. No system designed by humans is flawless. So, of course 4e will have loops that other people will exploit, as any other system ever.

Um... that's great, but how the fuck does that render my OP moot?

Me:"is 4e really so utterly "balanced", so impossible to make any of your choices matter, that even a veteran powergamer or min-maxer could not "game the system" to create a "broken" character?"

You: "Yes. HAH!! I've got you now, Pundit! By answering your question (albeit in a really shit and non-specific way) I've rendered your question MOOT!"

Me: "Man, what?"

Actually, answering my question doesn't render it moot, Imperator. It renders it valid.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;292471Actually, answering my question doesn't render it moot, Imperator. It renders it valid.

RPGPundit

My bad English shows again!

OK, let me try again: by being a human-designes thing, 4e system is bound to fall prey of min-maxers. I will be surprised if there's no messageboard devoted only to optimizing builds. No human is going to make a system so carefully balanced that players choices won't matter. So the possibility you describe is not really happening.

Quote from: Kord's Boon;292447My two cents:

If you put any RPG system up to enough scrutiny it will eventually break down, and 4e is under a lot of scrutiny.

That said, if you ignore the more dubious builds (those exploiting ambiguous definitions for instance) the power gap between an optimized and a normal character is small enough to allow the normal character to contribute to the action. That's not to say the difference is insignificant, but the role 'system' tends to prevent one character from capitalizing all or most the duties of a party, as was the case in 3e (druid, wizard, etc.)

This is some solid wisdom here, and it's pretty much what everyone else has already echoed on this thread.  

4e D&D is pretty solid, right now, as far as power gamer and min-maxer attacks.  Sure, any gamer worth his salt, can take a system and hack it for exploits.  However, they are few and far between with 4e D&D.  It's much more solid that 3.x D&D could ever hope to be.

Now, once we reach Player's Handbook XV and have xyz splat books, then the ability to exploit the system will increase proportionally to the amount of new material.

I imagine that D&D 4e won't really have a broken "character," but a broken "party."

I imagine the ridiculously broke stuff will be combos of different characters powers. I've seen some already ridiculous stuff. Nothing "broken," unless watching a Dragon "shift" around like a pinball seems feasible or believable.

Quote from: Stuart;292259I was just checking the blog list at RPG Bloggers and saw reference to "Kenshiro Cascadero" - didn't know what that was, so I Googled it and I think it's what you're looking for (and what someone was referencing with "Blade Cascade").

Kenshiro Cascadero "Rattata" Orcuslayer
Kenshiro Cascadero "Rattata" Orcuslayer, Level 30

I have no idea what most of it means, so I'll leave that for someone else to comment on.

That is the character I lovingly re-named Kwizenart Haderach.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;292254warlocks are ASS (I play one and if you play under a GM like mine

Post your Warlock.   Maybe we can help you flex him out.   I have not seen any major problem with Warlocks.  One player feels the Infernal build is stronger than the others and I do feel the Star build could use some more interesting options, but Infernal pact Tieflings and Fey pact Half-Elves have been impressive in my 4e games.

Quote from: RPGPundit;292471Me:"is 4e really so utterly "balanced", so impossible to make any of your choices matter, that even a veteran powergamer or min-maxer could not "game the system" to create a "broken" character?"

I assure you that all your power choices matter.   For instance, a wizard's choices of at-will spells will deeply affect his tactical decision during play.  

My Dwarf Wizard has Thunderwave and Scorching Burst.   Thus, he can cast in melee combat and knock opponents away and he can burn groups.  These choices mean he has no Magic Missile so no long range, strong damage spell and no Cloud of Daggers so I lack an at-will defensive control spell.  

As a Fighter, I really like that weapon choices matter.  Especially with the Martial Powers book so the Polearm fighter and the Sword and Shield fighter will do very different things on the battle board - especially at Paragon level.

Quote from: KrakaJak;292510I imagine that D&D 4e won't really have a broken "character," but a broken "party."

I have built optimized parties and they are impressive IF the players read and understand and use their powers in concert.   The system makes it simple to challenge such a party though.  Just count them as 2 levels higher when designing combat encounters.  

I did the same thing with ELs/CRs in 3e and the most min-maxed PCs were challenged in my games.   In a world where Scry + Teleport + Kill Team is the norm, then so is the magically shielded fortress who has demonic auto-summoning when it detects scrying attempts.    It's not vindictive - its just building a world based on the powers available to PCs and NPCs and knowing that most players love to be challenged.

Quote from: Spinachcat;292524Post your Warlock.

Dude. Why are you assuming I'm an dumbass who doesn't know how to build his characters? But to humor you, let's see...

Besides magic items (I only have a +1 Rod of Corruption and an Amulet of Protection +1 to my name; started with the former and only recently got the latter), my half-elf star pact warlock is well optimized - he has a HIGH (19) Cha & Con with the right powers (Dreadful Word, Dreadful Stars, Hunger of Hadar, etc.) and the right feats (Improved Fate of Void, Action Surge, Implement Expertise).

I play him correctly (hanging way in the back to keep foes at range, moving around to improve my defense, cursing foes singly and amass with my rod as appropriate, focus firing, using the right powers against the lowest defenses possible) but I am outperformed by the rogue and the ranger (the latter is a recent addition, is just as underequipped, and has already overtaken my DPS score). Heck, the sorcerer got more use out of my Daily power than I did (since he could push enemies into it). Hell, my DM has literally told me that despite my strong gameplay, that my bumbling (i.e. like the paladin and fighter leaving the cleric, invoker, and archer-ranger open to four strong and healthy displacer beasts to fight a single one bumbling) fellows were just more of a threat because thier classes more often then not made up for thier shortcomings.