The Gaming Den

In 4e you can't gt by without enhancement bonuses. Enemy NPCs can, because their weapons become magical whenever they pick them up. But no such luck for PCs. If they don't constantly trade up weaponry they die.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:In 4e you can't gt by without enhancement bonuses. Enemy NPCs can, because their weapons become magical whenever they pick them up. But no such luck for PCs. If they don't constantly trade up weaponry they die.

4E would have been a whole lot better if it just handed out that automatic bonus to PCs too. That would have made buying magic swords optional. It would give you a better bonus than what you had, but it'd only be like +1 or +2 better, instead of being like +6 better at high levels.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:In 4e you can't gt by without enhancement bonuses. Enemy NPCs can, because their weapons become magical whenever they pick them up. But no such luck for PCs. If they don't constantly trade up weaponry they die.

4E would have been a whole lot better if it just handed out that automatic bonus to PCs too. That would have made buying magic swords optional. It would give you a better bonus than what you had, but it'd only be like +1 or +2 better, instead of being like +6 better at high levels.

To be fair I think the books (DMG?) have an option for it, I certainly remember Mearls mentioning it somewhere on the net, FWIW

JAU wrote:To be fair I think the books (DMG?) have an option for it, I certainly remember Mearls mentioning it somewhere on the net, FWIW

Absolutely not, that's just classic Mearles. "I don't suck at writing rules because you could always make up your own system from scratch and pretend you were using something I wrote!"

4e does not have an alternate treasure parcel system, and the game would spiral into crazy town if your crap auto-scaled with the treasure parcel system it has now.

-Username17

Yeah, the (well, one of many) problem of 4e is that without magic items to buy/make you don't know what to do with all the mountains of gold that you find, it have it even worse than in 3.x, and that's saying something.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:In 4e you can't gt by without enhancement bonuses. Enemy NPCs can, because their weapons become magical whenever they pick them up. But no such luck for PCs. If they don't constantly trade up weaponry they die.

4E would have been a whole lot better if it just handed out that automatic bonus to PCs too. That would have made buying magic swords optional..

Agreed.

In fact I houseruled my current 4e game that way back when I started running it.

You get magic swords/armor/cloak for their properties or powers. You get to stay on the RNG for being an appropriate level.

And yes, I also houseruled the treasure parcel system into something radiacally different.

Maybe it is just me but I think that 4e would have been a better game if they dropped the whole "+1/2 level to everything".

I also recall mention of a certain table for low-magic campaigns that gave out bonuses at certain levels to compensate for a lack of magical equipment. It turns out that this was a blatant lie, and that Mearls posted something like that on his blog.

The treasure parcel system is awful.

If you're rolling for items randomly, the chances of getting anything your characters need is really damn low. Especially since you get so few gold pieces to play with.

The Letter to Santa thing wouldn't be so bad, but the fucking problem is that you're supposed to get magic items of + your level. So the game breaks down if you ask for higher-level magic items on your list because you have a high chance of not getting them. But if you call a mulligan on the higher pluses (Even if I roll a cloak of my level + 2, I still want the Cloak of Distortion) over time you end up with weaker equipment than what you're supposed to.

Then again, 4E's tiering of treasure is completely fucked up. Frost, Bloodclaw, and Reckless weapons are the gold standard for weapons. A barbarian would rather have a +4 Bloodclaw Greataxe than a +6 Flaming Greataxe. That's a big fucking problem right there, isn't it?

And let's not even get into the fact that it's totally possible to roll up armor that's objectively weaker than what you already have. I want to punch the motherfucker who decided that it's possible for you not to get masterwork magical armor. Listen, fucknut, why would I get rid of my +4 masterwork plate armor to get a +5 plate armor? That masterwork quality is getting me +2 points of AC and resist 3.

Dumb shits.

Which is why when I DM, I don't know most of the rules.

The 13 Wise Buttlords wrote:My question to you is... why?

Why are people still liking a fighter that just swings at stuff with their sword? Because it is a valid option as part of a party working together.

People that are always tired on game night want something to enjoy that doesn't require as much thought as other classes.

Some people want to just get some frustration out using the game to release tension so want to bash imaginary creatures as a pressure release.

Some people can play the game better when they have a chance to start in it small, and come to other things later once, they learned how the game works.

There are MANY other reasons to have the dumb fighter as a part of the game. If you aren't a dumb fighter, then odds are you are wanting to be a paladin, warlord, etc; so why care if others want to play the dumb fighter?

If people are allowed to play stupid Vulcans with their mindmelding psionics, then why can others not play the dumb brute and just HULK SMASH during the game?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Now that everyone's hatred of 4th Edition has sunk in, what are everyone's updated feelings on the Dumbass Melee Fighter?

Because guys who liked the Dumbass Melee Fighter--4th Edition was CUSTOM MADE for you! 4th Edition was custom made for the people who think that Gimli with an axe should be viable for 30 levels of play!

Are you enjoying your edition? You fucknuts better be, I have to put up with four to seven fucking years of this bullshit.

Frankly, a distinction should be made here. Hitting things with an axe should be totally viable for 30 level of play, and there is something deeply wrong with any fantasy game that says otherwise. However, at level 30 you should hit things with Heaven-Splitter, +X Axe of God Bane and Planetshattering. While running on sunbeams and twisting space into dimensional portals with your free hand. Otherwise, what's the point of being level 30?

shadzar wrote:Why are people still liking a fighter that just swings at stuff with their sword? Because it is a valid option as part of a party working together.

Okay.

The underlying point is that the Dumbass Melee Fighter who uses nothing but sword swings, never uses magical abilities, and hates picking up ranged weapons is an intentionally limited archetype.

If you eye the range for this character, you'll find that the bottom range of power for the Dumbass Melee Fighter and the top range of power for the Dumbass Melee Fighter do not vary much. This is in contract to archetypes like the Wizard and Anime Martial Artist whose power range has a lot of depth.

The problem is that 4E asked us to believe that the Dumbass Melee Fighter is a viable archetype for 30 levels of play, including paragon and epic.

So what does this mean? This means that there isn't a lot of room for growth for the Dumbass Melee Fighter.

But that's not all. The people who suck the wart-covered gorilla dicks of the DMF also cry and bitch like little babies that they (obviously) look like complete wastes of space when they are put in the same party as the Anime Martial Artist, the Heirophant, the Devil-Summoner, and the Superhuman Demigod. Note that these characters are viable archetypes at both the 'low power' and 'high power' range of play.

So instead of kicking these DMF assholes out of the game after level 10 and/or telling them to suck it up if they want to play a broken archetype, the assholes who made 4E decided that it would be easier to yank out the ovaries and snip the balls off of the more interesting classes. That way the DMF can still remain in the game and play with the Big Kidz!



In short, I am holding all of you DMF-fellating grandpafuckers responsible for 4E being the way it is. Yes, 4E has a lot of problems that aren't the fault of the DMF, but the reason why it is unsalvagable as a game--unlike 2E and 3E--is because the edition was designed to get on all fours and spread for these dungchuggers. Weak-concept epic-level powers? That's your fault. Rituals being a giant bag of ass? That's your fault. Monsters having no objective level of power, making an insane noble a 22nd level monster that can kill Ogre Minions by the truckload? That is also your fault.

Enjoy your edition you selfish ninnies. FOURTH EDITION IS A LOVE-LETTER TO YOUR BELOVED DUMBASS MELEE FIGHTER. You better fucking enjoy every minute of this shit, because people are pissed.

FatR wrote:Frankly, a distinction should be made here. Hitting things with an axe should be totally viable for 30 level of play, and there is something deeply wrong with any fantasy game that says otherwise. However, at level 30 you should hit things with Heaven-Splitter, +X Axe of God Bane and Planetshattering. While running on sunbeams and twisting space into dimensional portals with your free hand. Otherwise, what's the point of being level 30?

Hey, if the level 30 character wanted to do stuff like this I have no problem letting them into the game.

But real fans of the Dumbass Melee Fighter don't want them to run on sunbeams and twist space into dimensional portals. They are still supposed to walk to the castle and be thwarted by flying monsters. That kind of thing is 'too anime'.

You know, I am really starting to loathe Lord of the Rings.

The vehemence you people can muster constantly surprises me.

But yeah, a Fighter will definitley need magic in higher levels. Magic swords (And other things) are a cornerstone of the Dumb Melee Fighter archetype. Anyone who complains when it isn't otherwise just doesn't belong playing in a world with reality warping wizards and logic defying dragons. Now if he complains that he can't get his hands on such a sword without getting a spellcaster or multiclassing into one, that is understandable.

shadzar wrote:Why are people still liking a fighter that just swings at stuff with their sword? Because it is a valid option as part of a party working together.

People that are always tired on game night want something to enjoy that doesn't require as much thought as other classes.

The funny thing is that honestly I think in 4E, the defenders are the hardest to play. It's really not a matter of just rushing in and hacking shit like it was in prior editions. You've got marks and shit to worry about.

Strikers and leaders are painfully easy to play. Ironically if you want a no brainer class in 4E, you play a cleric or a ranger.

As far as the dumb melee fighter as an archetype, really it's just one of those things I blame on D&D trying to be too many things. You really can't be both LotR and the twelve labors of Hercules. You have to pick one and go with it.

RC2 wrote: The funny thing is that honestly I think in 4E, the defenders are the hardest to play. It's really not a matter of just rushing in and hacking shit like it was in prior editions. You've got marks and shit to worry about.

Fighter: They need to be in melee range to mark. Which means that they run up to the enemy and mark the biggest, baddest enemy they can. Since fighters have less versatility in their marks than the other three defenders they sometimes have a choice of piling on the damage on a juicy target or forgoing piling on the damage and marking a less-juicy target that has a bigger attack.

That's better than the other defenders but I wouldn't call that deep or exciting.

Swordmage: They fire their Swordmage Aegis at the biggest bad in range and, because all defenders are melee classes, run up to it or another melee enemy and wail on it. Swordmages are unique in that they can mark enemies without engaging them. Which means that they require even less thinking than the 'striker' because they can mark independently of their other damaging actions.

Assault Swordmages have a little more variety because their marks stay at range. A classic Assmage trick is to mark an enemy from far away, move out of its reach and attack someone else. That way when the marked monster can't reach the Assmage and has to attack someone else, the Assmage teleports over and gets a free attack.

Marginally effective, but if you're doing that you're abandoning all pretense of being a 'defender'.

Warden: Wardens need to be in melee range to mark. Which means that their tactics are just like any fucking melee striker--run up to the enemy and wail on it. They don't mark with their attacks so they have more versatility than the fighter. Yeah, that's so tactical.

Paladin: Their marks suck, even if they're CHA-based Morninglords. But if the DM is humoring you, you use a minor action to apply a Divine Challenge and then run up to the enemy and wail on them. If you drop your Divine Challenge or it goes off, you reapply it again. Yeah, that's so tactical.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
Fighter: They need to be in melee range to mark. Which means that they run up to the enemy and mark the biggest, baddest enemy they can. Since fighters have less versatility in their marks than the other three defenders they sometimes have a choice of piling on the damage on a juicy target or forgoing piling on the damage and marking a less-juicy target that has a bigger attack.

That's better than the other defenders but I wouldn't call that deep or exciting.

Well, lets not kid ourselves. 4E isn't a deep game by any means, and the strategy is fairly basic. Still, the defenders tend to have the most thought involved. It's really not always about marking the biggest baddest thing. Sometimes you may want to use powers to mark multiple targets. For a swordmage, it's pretty basic that you'd want to mark the biggest thing, but I think fighters and paladins tend to play a bit differently. At least from my own game experience, I think in terms of where to position myself and who to mark to protect the more wounded party members and stuff like that. Now of course, if you really want to protect your party, you're still better off making a cleric, but actually playing a cleric is a total no brainer, so I find them boring.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Enjoy your edition you selfish ninnies. FOURTH EDITION IS A LOVE-LETTER TO YOUR BELOVED DUMBASS MELEE FIGHTER. You better fucking enjoy every minute of this shit, because people are pissed.

Sorry, I don't play the new version of Marvel SuperHeroes, that WoTC put out recently with a GSL, and the D&D logo. So you must be talking to someone else.

DMF should be a viable option. $th just doesn't do anything right to understand what should be viable, because it is too busy trying to pigeonhole people into playing the game James Wyatt wants to play with his children, than to understand the system must work for all the players, not just his family. Also, not everybody wants to play with his family, or even know they game.

I just gave reason to WHY people still go on about it the dumb fighter that just swings.

You will have to talk with the head of R&D at WotC, and the dumb designers as to why it doesn't work within the new party mechanic they created where you are supposed to be able to play anything, and you don't need a healbot; but in turn makes even more classes useless to even include.

I just gave reason to WHY people still go on about it the dumb fighter that just swings.

The problem is that people like me are not only pissed that the DMF--for all of the rules-finagling 4E managed to do--is not only STILL not interesting (for unrelated reasons) but more germanely we're also pissed off that with 4E's attempts to accommodate the DMF they had to make interesting classes suddenly uninteresting.

If you have a DMF and you want them to contribute equally, you can't have the crazy powers and special effects thrown around by other players. Otherwise you have the problems of 3rd Edition in that even if you supercharge their core competencies they have the underlying problem of having very little ability to advance a high-powered story. If you're playing 'Infiltrate the Storm Giant King's castle', the DMF can't even participate unless the plot bends over backwards for them.

So you have two choices. You can either give the finger to the DMF and write the adventure for everyone else or you abandon that plot and write in something more mundane.

3rd Edition D&D largely chose to gave the finger to the DMF after a certain point and told them to suck up their inferiority. I feel that that choice was largely incorrect; 3rd Edition should have either made the DMF take up a more advanced character or should have told the character to GTFO rather than forcing the other characters to drag this deadweight along.

However, I feel that 4th Edition's solution, to ban Storm Giant Gear Solid adventures altogether was even worse.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

I just gave reason to WHY people still go on about it the dumb fighter that just swings.

The problem is that people like me are not only pissed that the DMF--for all of the rules-finagling 4E managed to do--is not only STILL not interesting (for unrelated reasons) but more germanely we're also pissed off that with 4E's attempts to accommodate the DMF they had to make interesting classes suddenly uninteresting.

If you have a DMF and you want them to contribute equally, you can't have the crazy powers and special effects thrown around by other players. Otherwise you have the problems of 3rd Edition in that even if you supercharge their core competencies they have the underlying problem of having very little ability to advance a high-powered story. If you're playing 'Infiltrate the Storm Giant King's castle', the DMF can't even participate unless the plot bends over backwards for them.

So you have two choices. You can either give the finger to the DMF and write the adventure for everyone else or you abandon that plot and write in something more mundane.

3rd Edition D&D largely chose to gave the finger to the DMF after a certain point and told them to suck up their inferiority. I feel that that choice was largely incorrect; 3rd Edition should have either made the DMF take up a more advanced character or should have told the character to GTFO rather than forcing the other characters to drag this deadweight along.

However, I feel that 4th Edition's solution, to ban Storm Giant Gear Solid adventures altogether was even worse.

I in no way disagree that 4th or 4rd screwed over the fighter. In previous editions, they may have still be dumb, but had a purpose that others could not fulfill directly.

The only problem the fighter had previously was the min-maxing wizards trying to be a one-man party. They never entered my games, so became no problem. The other players found ways to...excuse the min-maxed wizard from play so to speak.

4th screwed up every class, not just the fighter. Again, none of them really have any flavor, they are all cardboard cut-outs with a clever name and MMO role assigned to them.

Nothing inspirational about the 4th edition classes at all.

The problem with wizards in 3E boils down to wizard > fighter.

However, the problem is more deep than the fact that the numbers favored the wizard. The fact of the matter is that wizards and primary spellcasters had abilities that profoundly affected the plot and fighters didn't--which means that spellcasters had more spotlight.

So 4E comes along, recognizing this problem, and then decides to fix it. There are two ways that wizard > fighter can be fixed. You can either nerf the wizard or empower the fighter. 4E chose to nerf the wizard.

So now the wizard and fighter are on the same level of power now. That's good. Except that this doesn't change the fact that fighters are still unable to meaningfully advance a heroic-fantasy plot under their own power. And since the reason why wizards were so much more powerful than fighters stemmed from this axiomatic weakness, making wizards = fighter now rendered wizards suddenly unable to do fucking anything.

So why did WotC decide to nerf wizards instead of boosting fighters? It's rather simple. The defenders of the DMF character get upset if fighters get actual abilities and tactics beyond 'run up to something and hit it with a sword while having the athleticism and charisma of Batman'. This means that you can't boost the DMF. Which means that the only way you could have Wizard = Fighter was to carve out the genitals of the Wizard.

Well, congratulations! The DMF is now a viable archetype for the entire range of the game. They still don't really do much except for dumbassedly swinging around big weapons--and neither does anyone else now for that matter--but that's the price you pay for having to support a DMF, right?

Actually, I think DMF-advocates were only part of the problem. The other part - maybe the bigger part - was people who thought that a castle with stone walls, spiked pits, and DMF guards should be a valid challenge for a 20th level party ... and then bitched and moaned when it wasn't.

Some people actually didn't want to be playing high-level adventures - but instead of admitting that, they complained that everything high-level was broken and that their stone fortress with ogres should be a legitimate threat at any level. So now it is. 5 or 6 levels of play, stretched out over 30 levels - so that some dumbasses don't have to admit they only like low-level games.

Ice9 wrote:Actually, I think DMF-advocates were only part of the problem. The other part - maybe the bigger part - was people who thought that a castle with stone walls, spiked pits, and DMF guards should be a valid challenge for a 20th level party ... and then bitched and moaned when it wasn't.

Some people actually didn't want to be playing high-level adventures - but instead of admitting that, they complained that everything high-level was broken and that their stone fortress with ogres should be a legitimate threat at any level. So now it is. 5 or 6 levels of play, stretched out over 30 levels - so that some dumbasses don't have to admit they only like low-level games.

Well, no. It wasn't so much that people didn't want to admit they liked low level only. It was more that many people never expected the game to vastly change at high level. D&D to them is LotR and the low level game, and so when the game changed it felt like, "hey we're not playing D&D anymore."

And that's basically how it is with some of the designers too I'll bet. There's a reason that most of the settings tend to be medieval Europe based, with walled cities and all that crap.