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.