TheRPGSite

So, 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?

RPGPundit

As usual, we'll just put Pundit's 4e hate in a bag and address the question.  There have been a few problematic powers (Blade Cascade), and items (Veteran's Armor), but Wizards is actually willing to fix them with erratta.  Blade Cascade got a cap on the extra attacks it granted and Veteran's Armor got the offending power entirely removed.  

I have yet to see a power gap between characters that existed between a competently built monk and  a competently built wizard in 3e.  And thank god, I might add.  This is an aspect of 4e I enjoy as both a GM as a player.  As a GM, I don't have to do any hand holding during character creation, either to tone new folks up or keep an eye on my randier players(though admittedly I've never had the second problem).  As a player, I am free to roll around with pretty much any build I'd like, without having to worry about making the rest of the part unnecessary.  

As for choice, the only place we lost it was multiclassing, and spellcasters.  I miss the first and not the latter.

I'm gonna get slapped because I get back to the DM vs Rules issue, but I really don't care for errata, personally. Why is it so hard for a DM to just say "Blade Cascade might break the game. We should cap the number of attacks to N"? Players give their feedback, the DM makes a decision and the group moves on. Is the system itself too hard for the DM to grasp? Or do the players believe the DM can't make informed and/or fair decisions?

How would a designer know better how certain game elements actually play at our own game table?

Errata is a necessary evil. I don't like tracking it, but it can help clarify rules or correct mistakes that were not caught during playtesting. I'd rather get an official "fix" if they realize a change is needed.

This does not stop people from "fixing" things on their own, nor does it stop people from ignoring the errata they don't like. It just lets us know that a change might be needed or even be recommended.

Do with errata what you will.

Good point, Paladin.

Oh, and on topic, I haven't had enough time to read or play 4E to know if it can be broken or not. Most game systems can be broken, given enough exposure to min-maxing munchkins and power whores.

Oh, you can break 4E, rest assured. There are powers after all that are just better than higher level powers. Stuff like that just screams driver was asleep behind the wheel which means there exists stuff that inevitably allow for abuse.

Quote from: Benoist;292225Good point, Paladin.

Thanks.

I would actually prefer more comprehensive playtesting and better editing than we get with most products. Lack of playtesting is something I can understand with the costs involved. They won't catch every mistake anyway, many of which are subjective in nature.

Editing errors, however, drive me batshit insane. Especially when they are obvious on a first read. Example: SWSE:Threats of the Galaxy A Jedi stat block with no Force Powers in it, along with multiple statblocks having too many skills or not enough feats and talents. You know, stupid crap like that. Blunders of that sort can certainly be corrected before a book is printed.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;292231Oh, you can break 4E, rest assured. There are powers after all that are just better than higher level powers.

Of that I have no doubt. In another year or two, it will be just like 3.5 got to be. A lot of rules bloat and plenty of breakage to choose from.

That too. At some point, things will reach a critical mass where some options will just flat out be better than other options and in some cases, options that were viable (and not game-breaking) will be rendered useless (Andy Collins pissing all over 3.5 overrun).

It seems to me that elven archers are pretty broken with their re-roll and movement powers, and the darling little greatbow that was introduced in Adventurer's Vault.  Elves are certainly someone's little darlings, LOL!

Quote from: Drohem;292246It seems to me that elven archers are pretty broken with their re-roll and movement powers, and the darling little greatbow that was introduced in Adventurer's Vault.  Elves are certainly someone's little darlings, LOL!

Don't ya hate that? I'm almost as sick of elf-love as I am of vampire-love. Don't they know dwarves are inherently superior in pretty much every way?

If you want my opinion (and word of mouth seems to back it up), fighters are the second best DPS class in the game with dual strike and warlocks are ASS (I play one and if you play under a GM like mine - doesn't give magic items, loves building higher-level encounters - you will suck and be laughed at).

Quote from: PaladinCA;292238Of that I have no doubt. In another year or two, it will be just like 3.5 got to be. A lot of rules bloat and plenty of breakage to choose from.

I'm confident that their long term game plan includes releasing books at some point that break the game just so they can justify the next edition.

Quote from: Drohem;292246Elves are certainly someone's little darlings, LOL!

They always have been.

I 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 (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Kenshiro_Cascadero_%22Rattata%22_Orcuslayer)
Kenshiro Cascadero "Rattata" Orcuslayer, Level 30 (http://www.big-metto.net/RP_Wiki/index.php?title=Kenshiro_Cascadero_%22Rattata%22_Orcuslayer%2C_Level_30)

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

When 4e D&D was first released, we had just started a new campaign in my friend's home brew setting.  This campaign was centered on the good guys during a period of racial conflict.  A charismatic orc leader is amassing a horde, raiding, conquering, etc.  We decided to put the game on hold until we got a grasp of the 4e rules, and then would convert.  We stopped when the characters were 4th level.

In the meantime, and as a method to learn the new system, the GM decided that we would create characters from the other side, the goblinoid horde, and that these evil characters are destined to meet our good characters in a climactic battle in which the evil characters will perish by the hands of our good characters.

So, we have been playing the evil characters all this time, and they are 14th level.  We have a goblin warlock, hobgoblin warlord, orc rogue, orc fighter, and bugbear ranger.  I created the bugbear ranger.  Bugbear rangers could certainly fall into category of "easily broken."  He uses two large greatswords, at the same time, for Christ's sake!  When I line up Hunter's Quarry, Predatory Eye, and a 3[W] power, then his DPS is pretty fracking good!

That's an awesome way to convert, Drohem.
Really appreciated you sharing this. Cool beans!

Quote from: PaladinCA;292222Errata is a necessary evil. I don't like tracking it, but it can help clarify rules or correct mistakes that were not caught during playtesting. I'd rather get an official "fix" if they realize a change is needed.

This does not stop people from "fixing" things on their own, nor does it stop people from ignoring the errata they don't like. It just lets us know that a change might be needed or even be recommended.

Do with errata what you will.

WotC provide errata so you can get out the Sharpie and do the copy-editing for them, OR get a subscription to DDI, which always has the current corrected rules.

Quote from: PaladinCA;292227Oh, and on topic, I haven't had enough time to read or play 4E to know if it can be broken or not. Most game systems can be broken, given enough exposure to min-maxing munchkins and power whores.

Yup, that was my point. I figure that by 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.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;292265That's an awesome way to convert, Drohem.
Really appreciated you sharing this. Cool beans!

Thanks!  :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;292212So, 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?

1) It is hard to accidently make a sub-optimal character.  Noobs to 4e will make good characters just from the PHB.   Each class gives you two build options that are both good starting places for noobs.

2) The effectiveness of a regular character versus a min-maxed character is not as notable as it was in 3.5 or GURPS/Hero.  

3) Groups who do chargen together based on the interplay of their powers will be far more powerful than group who just min-max their own character without focus on their fellow PCs.

It's this last part that I like the most.   Lots of power combos can be done by looking at what your character can do to pump up the effectiveness of a team mate.   Sure, the fighter could min-max himself, but then he loses the opportunity to pick a power that could help keep the wizard safer or one that makes their rogue more effective.  

Quote from: Benoist;292217How would a designer know better how certain game elements actually play at our own game table?

Playtesting.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;292254If you want my opinion (and word of mouth seems to back it up), fighters are the second best DPS class in the game with dual strike and warlocks are ASS (I play one and if you play under a GM like mine - doesn't give magic items, loves building higher-level encounters - you will suck and be laughed at).

Well really its not the fault of the Warlock class. Not to be rude (to you or your DM) its the fault of the DM. Characters by the design of the game in 3.0,3.5, and 4e are assumed to have a certain number of magic items of the correct power level in correlation with character level. The system, and encounters framework are built around this. So when you remove the items it breaks the system. Making encounters and such, far harder than they are intended. As you are not properly equipped to deal with them.

I understand this only to well. One of the last 3.5 campaigns I played in the DM was the same way. At eigth level my barbarian had no magic weapons, and no magic armor. The only magic items I had were healing potions (Little rat bastard heal 1d6 ones), and a crown of far speak in which I could communicate with other people who also had crowns. Unfortunately the only other people that had the crowns were evil, and spoke in a different language. But I fixed all this. The game left me unsatisfied. So I left the game. Found one that had challenges but didnt make me feel like I was continously behind the eight ball.

Quote from: Spinachcat;292316Groups who do chargen together based on the interplay of their powers will be far more powerful than group who just min-max their own character without focus on their fellow PCs.

I've found that actually understanding your powers helps, too.

In my campaign, the players still use terribly ineffective tactics even after five sessions plus several one-shots.  They virtually ignore half their powers and other available options.

It has the interesting effect that individual combats are still deadly, despite the game being set up moreso for a series of combats to be deadly.

Yeah, I had the same issue when I first ran it. Lots of death.

Spinachcat does have a great observation- that there is group character creation dynamic that should be tapped for a highly effective group.

Quote from: Ronin;292340Well really its not the fault of the Warlock class.

No, it's the fault of the warlock class. The DM just makes it worse.

Quote from: Drohem;292261Bugbear rangers could certainly fall into category of "easily broken."  He uses two large greatswords, at the same time, for Christ's sake!  When I line up Hunter's Quarry, Predatory Eye, and a 3[W] power, then his DPS is pretty fracking good!

The capacity to wield large sized weapons is something that WOTC only put in the MM and has slowly but surely been moving away from.  It's unlikely to to ever see the light of day as an ability for a full player race.

Othere than Drohem's comment, which does point out a problem that WOTC has addressed, looks like 4e is doing pretty well, since no one's been able to come up with any problems.  Long live the tyranny of fun!

Quote from: counterspin;292418The capacity to wield large sized weapons is something that WOTC only put in the MM and has slowly but surely been moving away from.  It's unlikely to to ever see the light of day as an ability for a full player race.

Othere than Drohem's comment, which does point out a problem that WOTC has addressed, looks like 4e is doing pretty well, since no one's been able to come up with any problems.  Long live the tyranny of fun!

Mearls actually came right out and said No PCs should ever be wielding large weapons, and that it would be errata'd. This was clarified in the minotaur which had the same issue.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;292382No, it's the fault of the warlock class. The DM just makes it worse.

Why? Can you explain why? While I have not played one. I've seen them played as effective ranged strikers.

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 (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Kenshiro_Cascadero_%22Rattata%22_Orcuslayer)
Kenshiro Cascadero "Rattata" Orcuslayer, Level 30 (http://www.big-metto.net/RP_Wiki/index.php?title=Kenshiro_Cascadero_%22Rattata%22_Orcuslayer%2C_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.

Quote from: StormBringer;292518That is the character I lovingly re-named Kwizenart Haderach.

He depends on one of the very few broken powers in the first PHB, Blade Cascade,which has since been erratta'd.  I.e. there was a small problem and WOTC fixed it.  This hasn't been a functional exploit since the first round of fixes, I believe, several months ago at least.

Edit: Found a post which dates the change here. (http://abutterflydreaming.com/2008/07/18/4e-errata-released/)  July 18th 2008.  So this build hasn't worked for half a year.

Quote from: counterspin;292543He depends on one of the very few broken powers in the first PHB, Blade Cascade,which has since been erratta'd.  I.e. there was a small problem and WOTC fixed it.  This hasn't been a functional exploit since the first round of fixes, I believe, several months ago at least.

Edit: Found a post which dates the change here. (http://abutterflydreaming.com/2008/07/18/4e-errata-released/)  July 18th 2008.  So this build hasn't worked for half a year.

Nonetheless, the exploit was found three days before the books hit the shelves.

I'm not saying it didn't exist, in fact I admit it did exist in my post.  The guys writing the book had a better grip of the math and how it effected the game, but when it came to trickier mathematical ideas, like the average damage of an open ended iterative attack, they goofed.  And the end result is that you could instagib a demon lord, something that a variety of classes could do in 3e.  It just isn't that big of a deal.

Quote from: counterspin;292547I'm not saying it didn't exist, in fact I admit it did exist in my post.  The guys writing the book had a better grip of the math and how it effected the game, but when it came to trickier mathematical ideas, like the average damage of an open ended iterative attack, they goofed.  And the end result is that you could instagib a demon lord, something that a variety of classes could do in 3e.  It just isn't that big of a deal.

Well, that and the whole debacle where skill challenges got easier with increasing 'complexity'.

Cases which led to various people questioning the level of mathematical rigour and degree of actual playtesting that was claimed to have occurred.

Quote from: StormBringer;292558Well, that and the whole debacle where skill challenges got easier with increasing 'complexity'.

Cases which led to various people questioning the level of mathematical rigour and degree of actual playtesting that was claimed to have occurred.

I would file this under fair criticism of 4e, in addition the new feat(s) weapon/implement expertise can be seen as a 'hidden' math fix rather than a legitimate feat option, and let's not forget paragon multicasting either.

Even those that enjoy the game (as I do) will tend to agree some areas were rushed.

Quote from: Kord's Boon;292566I would file this under fair criticism of 4e, in addition the new feat(s) weapon/implement expertise can be seen as a 'hidden' math fix rather than a legitimate feat option, and let's not forget paragon multicasting either.

Even those that enjoy the game (as I do) will tend to agree some areas were rushed.

As someone who also likes 4E, I back this statement 100%. They should have spent more time (with paid playtesters).

There is simply an upper limit to the rigor of play testing.  There is no possible way they could do play testing equivalent to the first month of actual play.  The scaling is just impossible.  

If your interested in balance, 4e is a fucking obelisk crafted to the topic, a milestone.

Did skill challenges work out?  Not really.  But it's not a vital part of the system, and not using it doesn't cause any problems.

Is there a disparity of 3 whole points at level 21 that they've decided to fix?  Yes.  Good, I'm glad they fixed it, and I'm giving it to my players for free to avoid the patch through feats issue, but come on.  3 points at level 21?  

In short I think a game of this complexity is bound to have flaws, and I'm happy that they've been minor, and that WOTC has moved to fix them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;292270Yup, that was my point. I figure that by 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.

RPGPundit

So ... you're saying either (1) no choices matter and it's rules illusionism, or (2) it must be power-whoreable and players must be able to make game-breaking characters.

Huh.  Nice false dichotomy you have going on there.

I ran 3e for the entire product run, including some other d20 variants.  I've seen great builds, I've seen fun builds, I've seen balanced builds, and I've seen munchkin builds.  (Srsly?  Duskblade->Dragon Disciple?  Or, for that matter Yak-Man anything?)  Although you have power level differences between characters, they are not nearly as vast.  The situation may look different in a few years, but for right now we're pretty solid.

-O

Well, let me be clear that virtually ANY game can be power-whoreable.  

That, in and of itself, is no great criticism, unless it were excessively prone to that.

In fact, it would probably be a far more serious condemnation of a game if it were one where all the "player choices" were so meaningless that there wasn't even a way to take advantage unfairly.

It would be like something an old professor of mine once said: "that's so useless, its not even wrong."

RPGPundit

You can make plenty of choices that have an impact, you just can't take all of your resources and put them in a gigantic pile that makes you unstoppable.  Again, I don't see why this is a problem.

Quote from: counterspin;292601There is simply an upper limit to the rigor of play testing.  There is no possible way they could do play testing equivalent to the first month of actual play.  The scaling is just impossible.

No, but claiming to have a mathematician on board means that a system where an increase in 'complexity' causing a decrease in difficulty shouldn't have made it out the door.  It really shouldn't have made it off the drawing board.  It's not a matter of 'upper limit', it becomes a question of 'did they playtest at all?'.  Playtesting isn't making sure the system works exactly the way you planned within very narrow, exacting parameters that don't approach the edge cases.

QuoteIf your interested in balance, 4e is a fucking obelisk crafted to the topic, a milestone.

And if you aren't interested in balance...?

QuoteDid skill challenges work out?  Not really.  But it's not a vital part of the system, and not using it doesn't cause any problems.

Seriously?  This system was touted as the virtual centerpiece of the non-combat portion of play, and you are saying it's not vital?  On the one hand, that could be called 'disingenuous'.  On the other hand, the one that is more likely correct, a statement like that wavers between 'bald-faced lie' and 'wholly misinformed'.

Quote from: Kord's Boon;292566I would file this under fair criticism of 4e, in addition the new feat(s) weapon/implement expertise can be seen as a 'hidden' math fix rather than a legitimate feat option, and let's not forget paragon multicasting either.

Even those that enjoy the game (as I do) will tend to agree some areas were rushed.

Thanks!  I'm not always a raving lunatic.  :)

It was one of the areas I was rather more disappointed in, as the idea behind them is a sound one.

Quote from: StormBringer;292644No, but claiming to have a mathematician on board means that a system where an increase in 'complexity' causing a decrease in difficulty shouldn't have made it out the door.  It really shouldn't have made it off the drawing board.  It's not a matter of 'upper limit', it becomes a question of 'did they playtest at all?'.  Playtesting isn't making sure the system works exactly the way you planned within very narrow, exacting parameters that don't approach the edge cases.

I've run skill challenges as outlined in the DMG and they do "work" insofar as the players were unaware of the crazy antics and or only exposed to a few, but once they knew more the "what the hell" moments most defiantly set in. And again, criticism of skill challenges is totally reasonable (and appropriate), as they failed most (or all) of their design goals right out of the box.

QuoteAnd if you aren't interested in balance...?

Then 4e might not be the game for you, simple as that.

QuoteSeriously?  This system was touted as the virtual centerpiece of the non-combat portion of play, and you are saying it's not vital?  On the one hand, that could be called 'disingenuous'.  On the other hand, the one that is more likely correct, a statement like that wavers between 'bald-faced lie' and 'wholly misinformed'.

Designers will always claim to have the next best thing, and oversell it. Like a car salesmen expounding on the wonders of that rust-proofing which actually does nothing. Just because they tout it as such does not make it true, and 4e games get along just fine without the skill challenges, just as D&D did before their existence. It is demonstrably not vital.

Quote from: StormBringer;292647It was one of the areas I was rather more disappointed in, as the idea behind them is a sound one.

With you there good sir.

Quote from: StormBringer;292644And if you aren't interested in balance...?

Seriously?  This system was touted as the virtual centerpiece of the non-combat portion of play, and you are saying it's not vital?  On the one hand, that could be called 'disingenuous'.  On the other hand, the one that is more likely correct, a statement like that wavers between 'bald-faced lie' and 'wholly misinformed'.

If you're not interested in balance, you're not interested in whether something is balanced or not.  *shrug*

I'm not really interested in what WOTC touted, I'm interested in what they produced.  Skill challenges don't do it for me, but there's zero impact from ignoring them and sticking with isolated skill rolls, so I don't really care.  It's an interesting idea, but it clearly needed a little more time in the hopper.  

And I think it's another example of them not really having a grasp of any math higher than "abilities of around this level should do around x damage" and "players should have around x% chance to hit."  But getting those basics things right had a gigantic positive impact on the system.

Quote from: counterspin;292654And I think it's another example of them not really having a grasp of any math higher than "abilities of around this level should do around x damage" and "players should have around x% chance to hit."  But getting those basics things right had a gigantic positive impact on the system.

Didn't every game for about the last 30yrs get that right?  The ones that didn't are in the dustbin of history, but any game that had a decent level of sales certainly got 'those basics' down pretty well.  Did it have a gigantic positive impact on them as well?

What you have essentially just said is:  they didn't totally fuck everything up, so that will make the system better.

Quote from: StormBringer;292661Didn't every game for about the last 30 get that right?  The ones that didn't are in the dustbin of history, but any game that had a decent level of sales certainly got 'those basics' down pretty well.  Did it have a gigantic positive impact on them as well?

What you have essentially just said is:  they didn't totally fuck everything up, so that will make the system better.

Hahahahaha *Gasp* hahahaha.  Seriously? Whoo.

Quote from: counterspin;292663Hahahahaha *Gasp* hahahaha.  Seriously? Whoo.

So, your premise is that there is an objective standard of 'those basic things'?

If one of your goals is to balance the combat capacity of classes, yes.  They each become the measure of the other.

Quote from: Spinachcat;292524Post 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.



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.



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.

I hate to throw a totally unrelated spanner in the midst of this reasonable interesing debate, but are you discussing a roleplaying game?
I don't think I have ever chosen skills because other PCs that, in character I haven't even met yet, have skills that, in character, I have no knowlegde or understanding of dovetail well with my choices and make the team more effective. I might do that when building an army in a wargame or when building a team of pre-genned PCs for a tournament game but in a role playing game for shame I cry!
Balance is important after all we have all played in games where the Half elf Ranger/Wizard turns up weilding 2 swords and moving silently and invisibly etc etc and our slightly tubby Hobbit thief with a perchance for 3rd breakfasts and a photographic memory for sounds becomes somewhat sidelined but isn't it the DM's job to make sure the game is inclusive and that all his players have a hook and feel they can contribute?
Or have I perhaps logged into the wrong forum in error?

And did I see a comment that without the correct number and quality of magic items the game is all but unplayable? Eh? I have had some of my best adventures where 10th level characters with no magic items at all have to live on their wits. Monty Haul return all is forgiven :-)

Quote from: counterspin;292665If one of your goals is to balance the combat capacity of classes, yes.  They each become the measure of the other.

I'm not talking about 4e specifically.  You are claiming that not wholly ruining basic combat is a major success for the rules.  I am saying that any game not consigned to the ashcan for the last 30+ years has 'those basics' worked out pretty well.  

Again, you are positing that the most general of basic combat rules theory is a 'gigantic positive' with 4e.  Since that particular theory has been refined and expressed in many different ways over three decades, you have two choices:  claims that getting those 'basic things' right is a 'gigantic positive' for any game; or that it really isn't, but in order to hype your favourite game, getting the basics right is the greatest feat in mankind's history.

I didn't say anything about basic combat.  I'm talking about balance, plain and simple.  3e didn't have even the vaguest outline of balance, and it did great.  Shadowrun doesn't do it, Vampire doesn't do it, Unknown Armies doesn't do it.  There's a huge number of games which either tried for balance and failed, or aren't interested in it at all, and were still successful.

4e does do a good job of balancing combat, which is a huge positive to me.  And 4e isn't my favorite game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;292667I hate to throw a totally unrelated spanner in the midst of this reasonable interesing debate,

Then don't?

QuoteI don't think I have ever chosen skills because other PCs that, in character I haven't even met yet, have skills that, in character, I have no knowlegde or understanding of dovetail well with my choices and make the team more effective. I might do that when building an army in a wargame or when building a team of pre-genned PCs for a tournament game but in a role playing game for shame I cry!

Why, if you accept there is a division between you and your character's knowledge, then you choosing skill that work well with other characters will not effect how your character behaves and hence maintains suspension of disbelief. In game, it will just be a matter of coincidence either way.

If you have a particular concept in mind then by all means select the appropriate skills, but if you want to make small tweaks to pick up a "missing" skill in the group there is nothing wrong with that either (unless of course the DM has asked for independent creation prior of some such, then s/he is right)

QuoteBalance is important after all we have all played in games where the Half elf Ranger/Wizard turns up weilding 2 swords and moving silently and invisibly etc etc and our slightly tubby Hobbit thief with a perchance for 3rd breakfasts and a photographic memory for sounds becomes somewhat sidelined but isn't it the DM's job to make sure the game is inclusive and that all his players have a hook and feel they can contribute?

True, but making such adjustments can be easy, or very difficult and contrived. As the DM already has the preponderance of work placed on his shoulders I don't feel the need to make it more difficult intentionally, but to each his own really.  

QuoteOr have I perhaps logged into the wrong forum in error?

No?

QuoteAnd did I see a comment that without the correct number and quality of magic items the game is all but unplayable? Eh? I have had some of my best adventures where 10th level characters with no magic items at all have to live on their wits. Monty Haul return all is forgiven :-)

No it's defiantly playable, it's just that without magic items player fall behind the assumed progression curve and will find monsters/trap/checks of their level to be proportionally harder to defeat/overcome, same as it ever was really.

Quote from: counterspin;292671I didn't say anything about basic combat.  I'm talking about balance, plain and simple.  3e didn't have even the vaguest outline of balance, and it did great.  Shadowrun doesn't do it, Vampire doesn't do it, Unknown Armies doesn't do it.  There's a huge number of games which either tried for balance and failed, or aren't interested in it at all, and were still successful.

4e does do a good job of balancing combat, which is a huge positive to me.  And 4e isn't my favorite game.

So, not being balanced either had no effect, or was a factor in their popularity.  It certainly didn't seem to hurt them.

Quote from: StormBringer;292695So, not being balanced either had no effect, or was a factor in their popularity.  It certainly didnt' seem to hurt them.

So?  Popularity has zero impact on the current discussion.

Quote from: counterspin;292699So?  Popularity has zero impact on the current discussion.

You may want to mention that to Abyssal Maw.

However, you have offered no evidence whatsoever that balance is either desirable, nor that it has any impact on how a game is received.  Hence, your exhortation of how well balanced the game supports no particular point.  Further, you have not provided any argumentation that 4e having the basics correct has had any impact on the game itself, nor that any other game having these same basics has particularly excelled or suffered.  Additionally, you have failed to show that other games don't have these basics.  Finally, the only thing you have provided an argument for is that games lacking in the tightly integrated balance characteristic of 4e have done quite well for themselves across 30yrs of gaming history.

Abyssal Maw isn't my problem.

Popularity is entirely inconsequential, having no impact on the system itself.  Yes games have been popular without balance.  This doesn't mean that balance has a negative impact on popularity.

I have shown that other games don't have these basics, in that I gave a long list of games that didn't have it.  There's no rational way to do a mathematical comparison across systems.  You may not like my examples, but that's as far as we can go.

As for impact, I can only report what I see in my own group.  That there are no classes that are discarded out of hand as useless. People spend less time making their characters because interesting options are also useful.  There is no one in my group who expends a significant part of their time making sure they don't overshadow the rest of the group, and I don't have to hold back when making characters.  These are all improvements for me.

Quote from: jibbajibba;292667I don't think I have ever chosen skills because other PCs that, in character I haven't even met yet, have skills that, in character, I have no knowlegde or understanding of dovetail well with my choices and make the team more effective.

What a crock of shit!

You never sat down and there were 2 fighters and 2 clerics and volunteered to play either a thief or a mage?  You never talked with the other players about making sure that there were not three pilots, two medics and no engineer?  You never choose to multi-class into an area that was missing from the party?  You never decided to make a ranged attacker in a group that only had melee guys?

What laughable bullshit.

Quote from: jibbajibba;292667but isn't it the DM's job to make sure the game is inclusive and that all his players have a hook and feel they can contribute?

Sure.  4e just makes it easier.  

Quote from: jibbajibba;292667And did I see a comment that without the correct number and quality of magic items the game is all but unplayable?

Absolutely unplayable!!!

For the record, 4e has mechanical assumptions that you will have +X at certain levels.   If the GM does not want magic items in his campaign, he simply needs to assign +1 attack and +1 defense bonus at certain levels and the game stays finely balanced.

You can easily run a 4e game with zero magic.  No spellcasters and no items whatsover.   Just men and steel versus monsters.   Your party would have fighters, rogues, rangers and warlords and you could do that just with the PHB and the Martial Powers book if you wanted to get fancy.

And that campaign would rock!

Quote from: jibbajibba;292667I have had some of my best adventures where 10th level characters with no magic items at all have to live on their wits.

Did you walk 5 miles in the snow to each of your games?   If not, you're not a real gamer.

Quote from: StormBringer;292695So, not being balanced either had no effect, or was a factor in their popularity.  It certainly didn't seem to hurt them.

All those games were published pre-WoW.  

The MMO design creed is "combat balance" and "always useful, all the time".   When designing RPGs in the MMO age, it makes sense to create an RPG with much more balance in chargen and combat than previously IF you want to sell to teens and young adults instead of just selling to legacy gamers.

Also, the balance factors make the game easier to DM.   If it easier to DM, more people will feel comfortable sitting in the Big Chair and thus more gaming groups can be spawned.

Quote from: counterspin;292703I have shown that other games don't have these basics, in that I gave a long list of games that didn't have it.  There's no rational way to do a mathematical comparison across systems.  You may not like my examples, but that's as far as we can go.

You are saying that Shadowrun and Vampire didn't have the basic mechanics for combat implemented well?

Are you sure you want to make so many unsupported statements in a row?  You have been stating opinion as fact for a number of posts now, perhaps you should take things one at a time and see if you have any supporting statements before moving on.

Quote from: StormBringer;292710You are saying that Shadowrun and Vampire didn't have the basic mechanics for combat implemented well?

Are you sure you want to make so many unsupported statements in a row?  You have been stating opinion as fact for a number of posts now, perhaps you should take things one at a time and see if you have any supporting statements before moving on.

I'll say that. Vampires combat mechanics are crap.

I also agree that popularity has zero impact on playability. But the most playable games are the ones that people buy. It's kind of a domino effect.

And that's pretty much why 4E is the most popular now. It's simply the best game out right now.

Quote from: RPGPundit;292212So, 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?

RPGPundit

No. It requires good judgment and fair-mindedness on everyone's part to properly play. It is identical to most other RPGs in this respect.

So what?

Quote from: StormBringer;292700Finally, the only thing you have provided an argument for is that games lacking in the tightly integrated balance characteristic of 4e have done quite well for themselves across 30yrs of gaming history.

Actually they've steadily declined...

Quote from: Spinachcat;292708You can easily run a 4e game with zero magic.  No spellcasters and no items whatsover.   Just men and steel versus monsters.   Your party would have fighters, rogues, rangers and warlords and you could do that just with the PHB and the Martial Powers book if you wanted to get fancy.

And that campaign would rock!

Hell-to-the-yes!  Where do I sign?

-A mathematical comparison of different systems would be rational.
I kinda like that idea.. But hey, i like math :)

-Unless every power,class,feat,skill are identical one class will be the best and one will be the worst.
They worst class may not be craptastic, but it will be the worst.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;292711And that's pretty much why 4E is the most popular now. It's simply the best game out right now.

I can stand at the top of the cliff with you, look down at the bottom of the ravine with you, but I cannot make that leap with you.

It is simply the best game out right now... in your subjective opinion.;)

Dammit, Drohem, this thread is no place for reasonable opinions! :)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;292711I'll say that. Vampires combat mechanics are crap.

I also agree that popularity has zero impact on playability. But the most playable games are the ones that people buy. It's kind of a domino effect.

And that's pretty much why 4E is the most popular now. It's simply the best game out right now.

and by that you are saying:  
Mmos sell better than tabletops ergo they are better than tabletops?

Every game where there are options will have a worst build and a best build. Unless they are identical with just different cool names.

Quote from: Uff;292723Every game where there are options will have a worst build and a best build. Unless they are identical with just different cool names.

This  is of course correct.  The meat of the question is in the size of the gab between build A and build Z.  In 3e it was everything.  In 4e it is much smaller.

Stormbringer : You keep trying to say that I think combat resolution is basics.  I've only used that word in the context of balance in this thread.  So no, those systems don't even have rudimentary balance.  They obviously have systems for combat resolution.  On the side issue of whether those systems are good, I haven't played enough Shadowrun to know, and Vampire OWOD had a big pile of shit for a combat system.

In 4e, the dwarven battle-rager seems pretty broken to me. It gives up the fighter's +1 to hit class ability for temporary hit points whenever they take damage in melee and whenever they hit with a power with the invigorating key word.

If you use the invigorating powers and take feats like Earthblood (all of which are meant to go with the class and not synergies unforeseen by the designers) you end up with a character that is virtually invulnerable in melee combat. Take dwarven weapon proficiency on top of that and gain proficiency with all the super-powerful exotic hammers and axes in the Adventurers vault and +2 damage with all of them to boot.

The dwarven weapon proficiency and the exotic hammers and axe in adventurers vault are a separate issue of broken-ness... This is true for the Eladrin Soldier feat too, but to a far lesser extent because there are fewer super-powerful exotic spears.

I think you're entirely correct that the battlerage is out of line.  As for the racial weapon feats, I'm more suspect.  I don't have a copy of AV around, but what's the difference in damage from a normal axe to a fancy exotic axe?  Keep in mind that those feats are designed to make races whose inspirations include great warriors keep up with races with access to a str mod.

Quote from: Drohem;292721I can stand at the top of the cliff with you, look down at the bottom of the ravine with you, but I cannot make that leap with you.

It is simply the best game out right now... in your subjective opinion.;)

I'm mostly yanking peoples chains here, because I like being in the extreme minority here. I find it hilarious. When I was running and talking about D&D3, of course it was the same thing.  

1. if some games can suck, that means some games can be better than others.

2. If the marketing of 4E is a failure (as everyone here agreed) than marketing can not explain why D&D4 has succeeded.

3. If the Marvel Universe RPG failed, than it proves that no IP, no matter how popular can save a bad game. (Marvel superheroes are faaaar more popular worldwide than "D&D")  

4. People who do not play cannot be counted on to judge anything, in the same way, deaf people can not be music critics.

5.  The only thing that indicates whether people like it or not is if people actually play it a lot, and support it.

...That is exactly what is going on.


I dunno, I'm actually starting to enjoy the controversy.

Quote from: ConanMK;292730In 4e, the dwarven battle-rager seems pretty broken to me. It gives up the fighter's +1 to hit class ability for temporary hit points whenever they take damage in melee and whenever they hit with a power with the invigorating key word.

If you use the invigorating powers and take feats like Earthblood (all of which are meant to go with the class and not synergies unforeseen by the designers) you end up with a character that is virtually invulnerable in melee combat. Take dwarven weapon proficiency on top of that and gain proficiency with all the super-powerful exotic hammers and axes in the Adventurers vault and +2 damage with all of them to boot.

Now THIS is absolutely true-- There's a dwarven battlerager in one of the groups I play with. He's like impossible to knock down unless I artillery the fudge out of him.

Quote from: ConanMK;292730In 4e, the dwarven battle-rager seems pretty broken to me. It gives up the fighter's +1 to hit class ability for temporary hit points whenever they take damage in melee and whenever they hit with a power with the invigorating key word.

If you use the invigorating powers and take feats like Earthblood (all of which are meant to go with the class and not synergies unforeseen by the designers) you end up with a character that is virtually invulnerable in melee combat. Take dwarven weapon proficiency on top of that and gain proficiency with all the super-powerful exotic hammers and axes in the Adventurers vault and +2 damage with all of them to boot.

Battleragers are the only class build I'm even skeptical about at this point. :)

It was pointed out to me, though, that it gets progressively less broken as levels increase.  That is, the temp HPs they get from Vigor don't increase at a rate to sufficient keep up with the damage enemies deal.

I'm not saying that's good design.  In fact, I'll say the opposite.  I know what they were going for, but I think the implementation is off.  Like so many things (*cough*3e monks*cough*) what looks broken on paper often works out better in-game. (Though many people whose experiences I trust have said it's broken as shit in their games, so I've put it on my "Use it for now, but you will have to do something else if it's broken" list.)

QuoteThe dwarven weapon proficiency and the exotic hammers and axe in adventurers vault are a separate issue of broken-ness... This is true for the Eladrin Soldier feat too, but to a far lesser extent because there are fewer super-powerful exotic spears.

I don't really see how those are broken, unless you're just mentioning that dwarves and eladrin basically take 1 feat for the price of 2, when dealing with their thematically appropriate weapons.  They basically get weapon focus + superior weapon proficiency for one feat.  (Yes, technically they're proficient in all the weapons, but like any weapon-user, they're going to concentrate on just one of their options.)  Also, keep in mind that neither race has a bonus to Strength.

It's little different than the dwarven war-axe in 3.5, IMHO.

-O

Quote from: Uff;292723and by that you are saying:  
Mmos sell better than tabletops ergo they are better than tabletops?

Every game where there are options will have a worst build and a best build. Unless they are identical with just different cool names.

Actually I do think MMO games (specifically the successful ones) are successful because they are better than tabletop games. I also feel the same way about  Magic:The Gathering and how it nearly wiped out tabletop gaming.

That period when M:TG came out is the laziest period for roleplaying games. By that time, people had gotten it into their minds that tabletop gaming was really meant to be all about play acting and trying to "perform" your character rather than play an actual game. (I think play acting was always a factor and very cool, but it was never the point). The result is- we became less significant of a hobby, and our numbers dwindled almost to extinction.

And so the card games came in and kicked ass because they were actual games rather than something special for amateur thespians (or in the case of the forgies) armchair therapists and dilettante social activists.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;2927352. If the marketing of 4E is a failure (as everyone here agreed) than marketing can not explain why D&D4 has succeeded.

There's always the lemming-like following of a brand name...

Quote from: jeff37923;292741There's always the lemming-like following of a brand name...

I like to call this the "people too stupid to know they aren't having fun" theory.

If someone bought a game based on name brand and was not pleased by it, they simply wouldn't continue playing. They'd find another hobby or another game entirely. People lead busy lives after all.

Interestingly enough, I just converted my dwarf from my friends 3.5 D&D campaign into 4e D&D.  This is the good counterpart to the all goblinoid party we're running in his home brew setting.

He's a dwarven 4th Battlerager fighter.  I took the Improved Vigor, Dwarf Stoneblood, and Dwarven Weapon Training feats.  He uses a heavy shield, wears chainmail, and uses a warhammer.

So, his attack is +9 vs. AC and does 1d10+7 damage with the warhammer.  

Here are the effects on combat due to Battlerager Vigor:

• When he is hit by an enemy, he gains 8 temporary hit points.
• When he hits any enemy in combat with an invigorating power, he gains 6 temporary hit points.
• While he has temporary hit points and wears chainmail or no armor he gains a +2 bonus to damage rolls.

So, this means that if both that he is hit and he hits his foe, then he can gain 14 temporary hit points in one round.  However, currently, that's the maximum temporary hit points he can have at one time.

I don't think that this is so overwhelming, or imbalancing.  The biggest detractor from this fighter build is the damn bookkeeping.  I almost just went straight sword & board fighter just to avoid the bookkeeping, but I haven't tried this build yet and thought I would give it a chance.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;2927354. People who do not play cannot be counted on to judge anything, in the same way, deaf people can not be music critics.

Untrue. A better comparison would be to say that people who have directed an orchestra for years, including master pieces like say Don Giovanni, The Niebelungenlied and others wouldn't be competent critics of a rendition of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik because they haven't directed it themselves.

Which obviously is a fallacy.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;292735I dunno, I'm actually starting to enjoy the controversy.

I'm enjoying the heck out of it. I'm still not playing D&D, mind you, but I'm loving the critics dashing themselves against the facts.

'Different' is not a subset of 'more powerful'.

Quote from: Drohem;292744Int
So, this means that if both that he is hit and he hits his foe, then he can gain 14 temporary hit points in one round.  However, currently, that's the maximum temporary hit points he can have at one time.

Really? Because I see that as being almost as good as having damage reduction 14.

There also seems to be some confusion as to how exactly the temporary hit points do or do not stack on top of each-other (I think you have it right, but I have seen several interpretations, some of which are far more powerful).

The broken-ness mostly shines through when fighting minions. Even if the battle rager never hits with an invigorating power, the first time a minion hits him he gets more temp hitpoints than the damage he takes, and every hit after that not only fails to cut through his temporary hp buffer, but also renews the battle ragers temporary hitpoint pool.

Quote from: ConanMK;292787Really? Because I see that as being almost as good as having damage reduction 14.

The thing is that I can't count on 14 temporary hit points just because that most possible.  Not only do I have to be hit, I also have to hit a target with an invigorating power.  Currently, at 4th level, I have two invigorating powers; Knee Breaker (encounter) and Bell Ringer (daily).  This means that, at most, I could possibly get 14 temporary hit points twice in a fight, if I blow my wad and use both invigorating powers.  After that fight, it's only possible to achieve a 14 temporary hit points once in a fight until an extended rest.

Quote from: ConanMK;292787There also seems to be some confusion as to how exactly the temporary hit points do or do not stack on top of each-other (I think you have it right, but I have seen several interpretations, some of which are far more powerful).

I don't how there could be several interpretations on how temporary hit points stack for the Battlerager Vigor feature.  It is fairly explicit, and plainly states that temporary hit points granted by the Battlerager Vigor class feature and those granted by using a power with the invigorating keyword stack together.

Quote from: ConanMK;292787The broken-ness mostly shines through when fighting minions. Even if the battle rager never hits with an invigorating power, the first time a minion hits him he gets more temp hitpoints than the damage he takes, and every hit after that not only fails to cut through his temporary hp buffer, but also renews the battle ragers temporary hitpoint pool.

Well, it says in the Battlerager Vigor description that any temporary hit points are gained after damage is taken from the attack, and not gained before the attack's damage is applied.  If my character never uses an invigorating power, then he will only receive 8 temporary hit points a round, and that is only if he's hit by an enemy that round.  

Honestly, I don't see this as broken.  We're talking about, usually, 8 extra hit points.  Sure, it's a nice little buffer, or you could call it damage reduction, but it's not 100% reliable, and the amount of extra temporary hit points isn't significant enough be game breaking.  8 hit points could easily be sucked up in a critical hit, a high damage roll, or by being hit by multiple attacks in a single round.

Quote from: Spinachcat;292708What a crock of shit!

You never sat down and there were 2 fighters and 2 clerics and volunteered to play either a thief or a mage?  You never talked with the other players about making sure that there were not three pilots, two medics and no engineer?  You never choose to multi-class into an area that was missing from the party?  You never decided to make a ranged attacker in a group that only had melee guys?

What laughable bullshit.



Sure.  4e just makes it easier.  



Absolutely unplayable!!!

For the record, 4e has mechanical assumptions that you will have +X at certain levels.   If the GM does not want magic items in his campaign, he simply needs to assign +1 attack and +1 defense bonus at certain levels and the game stays finely balanced.

You can easily run a 4e game with zero magic.  No spellcasters and no items whatsover.   Just men and steel versus monsters.   Your party would have fighters, rogues, rangers and warlords and you could do that just with the PHB and the Martial Powers book if you wanted to get fancy.

And that campaign would rock!



Did you walk 5 miles in the snow to each of your games?   If not, you're not a real gamer.



All those games were published pre-WoW.  

The MMO design creed is "combat balance" and "always useful, all the time".   When designing RPGs in the MMO age, it makes sense to create an RPG with much more balance in chargen and combat than previously IF you want to sell to teens and young adults instead of just selling to legacy gamers.

Also, the balance factors make the game easier to DM.   If it easier to DM, more people will feel comfortable sitting in the Big Chair and thus more gaming groups can be spawned.

A somewhat vitrolic response to what was aimed as a somewhat light-hearted barb at the meta-game speak and min-max number crunching that was filling the discussion but I shall answer nonetheless.

Have I ever sat down and seen 2 clerics and 2 fighters and ..etc ?
Not since I was about 12.
Just not he way we play. We would be more likely to turn that situation into a holy crusade in which each PC had to be a member of a holy cult or something.
The concept is really all that matters.

In a game where we were in some sort of crew and needed pilot medic etc teh GM would probably outline the roles from the off and we woudl each take one and then build characters.
I have never chosen to multi-class into an area that was missing from the party no.

But all these things are actually a scale away from where you are coming from. You are not saying 'In a game do your characters make choices that make the group stronger' You are saying that from the outset the party should think about sitting down and making sure specific powers complement and fit together well. So I take power x because it gives you addition +2 when you use power z. That is a degree further away from roleplaying than I am happy to go. I have no problem with it in a game of HeroQuest or some other tabletop tactical thingie and I love those games.

Re magic items it's a shame the DM no longer has total control over the world they have created. D&D's strength, I always thought, was that it was flexible enough to allow a huge range of Fantasy genres to play out.
Our games were typically lean on magic items and those that existed were either minor or artifacts of some nature that had a global effect.
I am sure you could strip the magic equip out if you spent some time thinking about it though.

I am glad you can play a game with no magic (don't you contradict yourself here from your previous statement?). Standard D&D was always faulted in that due to its HP system (we revised it with an in house rule years ago that is much close to the 'new' HP system but with underlying wounds). The longest continual campaign I played it featured 2 key characters a thief and a barbarian with an occassional dwarven fighter and a wizard and we seemed to do okay.

No we don't really get a lot of snow round here. Is snow essential for 4e?

I find the problem with always useful all the time is that it removes a degree of invention and sophistication from the players. Don't you recall the fun of the old days when you would take some daft seemingly obscure character skill or spell type and build something round it that was totally unique. Sometimes it worked sometimes not. You know the spell caster that specialised in Divination only, the cleric who worships the god of Numbers and Logic and has no access to combat or healing spells, the Riddlemaster bardic kit?

I suspect its just because I am getting old.

Anyway I have to finish writing this murder mystery for tonight or I will have 50 unhappy guests. Thank you for taking the trouble to respond to my queries.

I will say this for 4e...

The fact that the best game breakers we can come up with are the pre-eratta blade cascade feat, the messed up skill challenge math, and the debatably broken dwarf battle rager, (plus I'm sure you can do something sick with a half elf bard and taking powers from multiple classes), then it is possibly one of the hardest games to break out there right now.

Of course that could always change as new supplements roll in and the power creep curve continues.

Quote from: ConanMK;292787Really? Because I see that as being almost as good as having damage reduction 14.

There also seems to be some confusion as to how exactly the temporary hit points do or do not stack on top of each-other (I think you have it right, but I have seen several interpretations, some of which are far more powerful).

BRV is sad, because it's probably more complicated than it should be.  There's absolutely a single right way to handle it, but I can completely see how a group of folks could be confused.  (It's probably the most complex class feature in 4e.)

OK.  The general rule in 4e (and in 3e, IIRC) is that temporary HPs don't stack.  That is, if I have 3 temporary HPs and gain 5 from something, I now have 5.  If I have 5 THPs and gain 3, I still just have 5.

Battleragers get one additional perk in their class features - if they hit (not just attack, but actually hit) with an Invigorating power, the THPs gained from that will stack with anything else they have.

That's pretty much it.  When they gain THPs, they ask 2 questions:

(1) Did I get these by hitting with an Invigorating power?
  YES: Add these to your current pool of THPs.
  NO: Go to question 2.
(2) Is the amount of THPs I gained more than the number of THPs I currently have?
  YES: Replace your THPs with the new higher amount.
  NO: Ignore these THPs.

That's pretty much it.  Sometimes people think there are somehow two "pools" of THPs, that must be maintained separately, but fortunately it's not THAT tough.

Still, I think it's a clunky and non-intuitive mechanic that's not well-explained.

QuoteThe broken-ness mostly shines through when fighting minions. Even if the battle rager never hits with an invigorating power, the first time a minion hits him he gets more temp hitpoints than the damage he takes, and every hit after that not only fails to cut through his temporary hp buffer, but also renews the battle ragers temporary hitpoint pool.

Yep, Battleragers more or less can't be hurt by melee minions, especially at low level - unless those minions have an Aura effect like Charnel Rats or something else unusual.

They are screwed more than most characters against ranged minions, though.  They are likely to have lower defenses than a non-Vigor fighter, and they're basically archer- and wizard-bait.

-O

Quote from: ConanMK;292795I will say this for 4e...
 
The fact that the best game breakers we can come up with are the pre-eratta blade cascade feat, the messed up skill challenge math, and the debatably broken dwarf battle rager, (plus I'm sure you can do something sick with a half elf bard and taking powers from multiple classes), then it is possibly one of the hardest games to break out there right now.
 

Yes I agree that 4e has nigh unperterbable game ballance but I'm still wondering about the other part of Pundy's question.
 
How distinct are the options? The difficulty of achieving game ballance is perportional to the difference between the elements ballanced.
 
My initial reaction is that 4e achieves game ballance by limiting options to a very narrow spectrum. I.e. You don't need a Cleric because because everyone has healing. PC's who cannot heal themselves have been banhammered. You don't need a magic-user because everyone has daily powers. PC's who cannot have been banhammered. The classes are nearly identical and thus achieving game ballance is trivial.
 
So in the devil's advocate's corner, we already have an example from this thread where PC large weapons were "game ballanced" with the banhammer 'player characters should never use big weapons.' And on the side of diversity we have what exactly?

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;293071My initial reaction is that 4e achieves game ballance by limiting options to a very narrow spectrum. I.e. You don't need a Cleric because because everyone has healing. PC's who cannot heal themselves have been banhammered. You don't need a magic-user because everyone has daily powers. PC's who cannot have been banhammered. The classes are nearly identical and thus achieving game ballance is trivial.

That's one of those features that emerges during play, honestly...  The classes are similar in structure, but very different in function.

Everyone can take a single second wind action (and lose their attack) per combat.  This is some amount of healing, but it hardly obviates the need for a cleric (or warlord or bard or shaman or artificer - any will work).  Characters can multiclass to pick up healing, too, if need be.

Everyone also has daily powers, but they're very different from the Wizard's.  A Wizard's daily power might be a big explosion at a distance.  Or it might summon a creature or flaming sphere to aid the party.  Or it might give some lasting status effects to a lot of things.  A fighter's daily will always involve their weapon, and it's generally some variety of hitting something really hard.

Class features and power selection make all the difference.  (Feats somewhat less so, but they're still important.)

So far, every class I've seen plays differently from every other class.  The similarities are only skin deep.

-O

Over at the wizards d&d board they have the optimization forum and they have builds that no sane gm will allow..

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18147290&postcount=295 (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18147290&postcount=295)

that is just one..
most games are broken. the degree of brokenness just differ.

4th aint THAT bad.. even if the linked build are insane..

No, I get that there are differences. I'm just saying that they're small differences. I know from the game I played, for example, that the cleric's battlefield clutter powers are all gimped in some way or another and that those small differences are easy to miss on a casual read through. On the upside, the Cleric's healing powers seem to have a leg up on everyone else. They're different sure, but not it's not a huge world of difference.
 
Like your comment about how the cleric is interchangeable with or warlord or bard or shaman or artificer for healing -- that's because there's a very narrow spectrum of classes. All of them are kinda-sorta the same class. There are thematic differences sure, but it is nothing like the diversity in trying to ballance a superhero game for example.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;293092There are thematic differences sure, but it is nothing like the diversity in trying to ballance a superhero game for example.

Well, few games will have the diversity of a superhero game, so I think that's kind of a poor measuring stick. :)

What I'm saying is that, even within the class roles, each class plays very differently.  For example, clerics and warlords are both Leaders.  As a Leader, they have an ability to do some healing - that's a constant.  However, a Warlord's primary duties are arranging the party tactically around the battlefield, while enhancing their attacks.  Clerics, OTOH, can cast prayers at range or close-up, inflict more conditions on enemies, and blast undead.

Like I said, it's one of those things that arises in play, and if you've just read through the PHB, you could very easily miss it.

-O

It was mentioned in this thread, and I've heard mentioned elsewhere that the bugbear's racial ability to use large weapons was nerfed.  However, I cannot find it anywhere in the official 4e D&D errata on the WotC website.

Can someone please post a link or way to get something official from WotC stating that bugbears can no longer use large weapons?

Last night we played the 4e D&D session of the Dawn of Conflict campaign.  This is the one where we converted our good group from 3.5 D&D finally, and after playing the evil counterpart party up to 14th level in 4e D&D.  

My dwarf, Mordur Erdel, is a Battlerager fighter and this was my first test of the Battlerager as a player.  It was pretty cool.  We had two fights.  We're in the territory of Splitclaw hobgoblins.  The warlord of our goblinoid party is the leader of the Splitclaw tribe, but that group is off warring elsewhere.

The first fight was an ambush by hobgoblin warriors, archers, a wizard, and minions.  We were riding near a cliff face, and some enemies were above us and in front of us.  I rode around behind because there were two archers on the cliff above raining arrows on the group.  It took me three rounds to get into the fight.  Luckily, the archers ignored me.  I charged the first one and pounded him hard.  The next round I hit him again, hard.  I killed him the next round.  The round after that, I used Tide of Iron and pushed the archer off the cliff.  He was full hit points before my hit and falling.  After the fall, he had 2 HP and landed at the feet of our barbarian.  In that fight, I was hit once by one of them, and so I got 8 temporary hit points.  The fight was pretty much over by the time I got to the two archers.

The second fight was interesting.  The fight two place on both sides of a small river.  More hobgoblins, and bugbear.  Only once in that second fight did I acheive the maximum of 14 temporary hit points.  That was quickly eaten away by the goblin blackblades and the bugbear that I was tanking, not to metion the archers across the river firing at us across the river.  

So, in these first two fights, the temporary hit points granted by Battlerager Vigor and invigorating powers wasn't overpowering, or allowed me to mow through the battlefield.

Quote from: Uff;293091Over at the wizards d&d board they have the optimization forum and they have builds that no sane gm will allow..

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18147290&postcount=295 (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18147290&postcount=295)

that is just one..
most games are broken. the degree of brokenness just differ.

4th aint THAT bad.. even if the linked build are insane..

But are these builds legal? Are the rules as written broken or altered anywhere to allow these builds?

RPGPundit

They are pretty much always following the rules. They are the guys making it obvious that the rules needs to be changed. They did in 3.0, 3.5,  and they probably will in 4th.  My guess are that wizards love these guys.(doing the job for no pay)

If you break the rules they will not even consider your build to be a top "competitor" in whatever they are competing for(dpr mostly). There are even combos so broken they no longer count them as allowable builds because they know the errata will come sooner or later.

heroic and paragon seems in better shape than the epic powers.

Quote from: RPGPundit;293111But are these builds legal? Are the rules as written broken or altered anywhere to allow these builds?

RPGPundit

Most are legal (at least until the errata), however some rely on assuming ambiguity in the rules will always act in their favor, and other rely on very specific in-game setup that won't always be the case, even if they have supposedly addressed that issue in the build.

Items also play a big part, which as we have discussed in the past and is a whole other can of worms.

Often a DM can 'spoil' the build (why people even bother with builds confuses me) by disallowing access to particular items, either explicitly, or in game (shops don't sell it, you don't find it, etc.)

Quote from: obryn;293095Well, few games will have the diversity of a superhero game, so I think that's kind of a poor measuring stick. :)

A global maximum is an ideal measuring stick. :)
 

QuoteWhat I'm saying is that, even within the class roles, each class plays very differently. For example, clerics and warlords are both Leaders. As a Leader, they have an ability to do some healing - that's a constant. However, a Warlord's primary duties are arranging the party tactically around the battlefield, while enhancing their attacks. Clerics, OTOH, can cast prayers at range or close-up, inflict more conditions on enemies, and blast undead.

I see that, but I disagree that those two playstyles are 'very different.'
 

QuoteLike I said, it's one of those things that arises in play, and if you've just read through the PHB, you could very easily miss it.

They're easy to miss because they're small differences.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;293193They're easy to miss because they're small differences.

...and I disagree.  Have you given the game a test run for a few sessions, at least?

-O

I read the PHB and played the game. The only thing that jumped out at me in play that I missed from reading the rules is that difficult terrain is a very bad place to stand for a multitude of reasons. I got bored of the sameness of the classes. Finaly, I tried to spice it up by misleading a party into a TPK and that was a little cooler since it gave me a chance to exhaust all my Cleric healing powers. Whee.
 
After that, I gave it a rest for a year or so. Now that PHB2 has come out I'm looking at it afresh. I thought it was  a good game for low GM prep so long as the players don't need handholding. I did think it was neat how no matter who showed up, the FLGS GMs could just dump everyone and their characters into a game without any fuss. I don't see that much has changed though so I view the diversity as much ado about nothing.

Quote from: Drohem;293104It was mentioned in this thread, and I've heard mentioned elsewhere that the bugbear's racial ability to use large weapons was nerfed.  However, I cannot find it anywhere in the official 4e D&D errata on the WotC website.

Can someone please post a link or way to get something official from WotC stating that bugbears can no longer use large weapons?

Okay, I've done some research into this and discovered that there is no official errata.  The bugbear is not, currently, an official player character race in 4e D&D; consequently, there is no errata about oversized weapon use for them.

Apparently, on Mike Mearls' blog, he has said that no 4e D&D official player character race will ever get the ability to use oversized weapons.  He said that DM's could allow bugbears as a player character race at their own peril, and that the templates in the back of the Monster Manual were really designed for the DM to create NPCs.

I read a really good suggestion on EnWorld about oversized weapons: make it a racial feat or feature which provides a +1 damage with one-handed weapons and +2 damage with two-handed weapons.  I really like this idea and I am considering adding it to my House Rules.  I will probably just make it a racial feat that scales with the tiers.

Quote from: Drohem;293230Okay, I've done some research into this and discovered that there is no official errata.  The bugbear is not, currently, an official player character race in 4e D&D; consequently, there is no errata about oversized weapon use for them.

Apparently, on Mike Mearls' blog, he has said that no 4e D&D official player character race will ever get the ability to use oversized weapons.  He said that DM's could allow bugbears as a player character race at their own peril, and that the templates in the back of the Monster Manual were really designed for the DM to create NPCs.

Nonetheless, if you can use those rules for making PCs, doesn't that make bugbears a de facto 'official' PC race?

QuoteI read a really good suggestion on EnWorld about oversized weapons: make it a racial feat or feature which provides a +1 damage with one-handed weapons and +2 damage with two-handed weapons.  I really like this idea and I am considering adding it to my House Rules.  I will probably just make it a racial feat that scales with the tiers.

Sounds like a good plan, I would be interested in hearing how it works out.

Quote from: StormBringer;293245Nonetheless, if you can use those rules for making PCs, doesn't that make bugbears a de facto 'official' PC race?

Yes and no. It's official in that you can definitely use them, and the race appears in the character builder, for example.

However, the full racial writeups will (usually) include a set of paragon paths and feats. I suspect that bugbears, hobgoblins and goblins will get (either) feature articles in Dragon or some kind of DDI article, or they'll be in some future book.

Quote from: StormBringer;293245Nonetheless, if you can use those rules for making PCs, doesn't that make bugbears a de facto 'official' PC race?

Well, the issue really is that WotC has stated that these races (under the Racial Traits section of the Monster Manual, p. 276) were not play-tested for player character races, and certain powers like the bugbears Oversized Weapon racial ability in the hands of a PC.  Also, the introduction of Brutal weapons made the Oversized Weapon ability become even more egregious.  

The MM is fairly explicit in its disclaimer about using these races as player character races, and that these templates were designed for the DM to make NPCs:  

"Several of the monsters in the Monster Manual have racial traits and powers, not unlike the races presented in the Player's Handbook. In general, these traits and powers are provided to help Dungeon Masters create nonplayer characters (NPCs). This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures, within reason. Note that these traits and powers are more in line with monster powers than with player character powers.

A player should only use one of the following races to create a character with the permission of the Dungeon Master. The DM should carefully consider which monster races, if any, to allow as PCs in his or her campaign."

Luckily, I created my bugbear ranger before Adventurer's Vault was released, and so my whorage has been carefully keep at bay.  My bugbear ranger just uses two large greatswords and not Brutal weapons.  The DM of this campaign has agreed to let my character retain the Oversized Weapon racial trait.  That group is destined to be killed off by our good guy group anyway, LOL!  Although, our goblinoid party kicks some serious ass, and I'm kind of thinking that this destined and climactic fight might go either way.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;293214

Yes, but perhaps my experiences don't count because they support my opinions instead of yours? :p

Hmm?  No, not at all.  It's just not my own group's experience, so I was kind of surprised.  I definitely don't want to imply that your experiences are somehow sub-par.

-O

Quote from: obryn;293307Hmm? No, not at all. It's just not my own group's experience, so I was kind of surprised. I definitely don't want to imply that your experiences are somehow sub-par.
 
-O

I tagged it with a smiley because it was a jest meant in fun. I'm glad you're enjoying 4e. :)