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.  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.  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.