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...