The Gaming Den

So anyways, on another forum I visit we were having a discussion about game balance. Some guy who didn't know any better starts touting 4.0 as being an excellent case of balance. Naturally, I shot down that falsehood. This guy isn't stupid, just deceived so no smites. I also invited those that wanted to know what I mean to PM me, on the grounds that the 4.Fails are whiny little shits that start crying over the smallest things and I don't want to deal with that bullshit.

I got several PMs. Here's one of them. Since the only reason it was private is to avoid dogmatic drivel spammers and the mods that support them, I don't consider posting this correspondence to be an issue, as on more enlightened forums I would have just said it right out anyways.

Amnistar wrote:

Roy wrote:3.5 generally required some pretty obscure stuff to totally break. After all, if you go doing some weird stuff involving stat shuffling with your familiar, squirrels, and whatever else you expect a weird outcome, and while having that amount to infinite power is a bit much, the point is you will almost certainly not discover this by accident.

Uh..what? No. 3.5 required the Core books and an understanding of the rules to break. I mean, in the thread you basically said it yourself. ANYONE can break 3.5 by simply playing the right class. Not so in 4.0.

Roy wrote:Note I specified totally break. As in just auto win everything, not just be strong. 3.5 requires Pun Pun, wish loops, etc to totally break... not things you're likely to find by accident. 4.0 requires... Mongols.

If we look at just normal breaks... 3.5 breaks with certain builds out of the box, and so does 4.0. So this would be even, except again, 4.0 said it was balanced, therefore the fact it /isn't/ is a stronger point against it.

Roy wrote:4.0 is considerably more fragile, and it shows. Some dude saddles his ass, and gets out a bow and he just wins the game. Maybe he requires an actual horse instead of a donkey, but that's beside the point.

Amnistar wrote:Wait...your idea of breaking the game is to get a horse? OKay so first let's just assume there is no reason to suspect that the character blows 75% of his cash on the mount, which he would normally have to do at level 1 to get a mount...and just go from there.

First, if the character is on a mount, all it takes to even the playing field is to:
a.) give the monsters mounts (arms race perhaps, but a viable solution, and monsters on mounts are actually more powerful than players on mounts, since the monster mounts get to attack as well as the monsters on the mounts)

Roy wrote:Shut down by the fact monsters do not play by the same rules as PCs, and there are definitional differences between your elf archer and the elf archer that you, as a player are not controlling. They can't get a mount.

Amnistar wrote:b.) Kill the mounts. Their defenses are crap compared to an equal level character, and their HP is less as well. AoE attacks would affect both, not really an issue.

Roy wrote:They can't reach you or the mount.

Amnistar wrote:c.) Mounts can only work in areas where mounts are a viable option, i.e. outdoors. The book suggest that a majority of mounts take a -2 penalty to all actions and defenses when they are forced underground or indoors, because of their general dislike of enclosed areas.

Roy wrote:So you either force all encounters into closets, or kiting wins the game. No thanks, I loathe WoW. And if you do do that, it still reflects very poorly on 4.0, as it means another of their so called advantages - mobility (as opposed to standing still trading auto attacks) is now gone.

A few encounters might be indoors, but regardless, as long as there's room to move (a cave is still indoors for example, and is quite big usually) you don't care, because they can't touch you. In any case, you could just not take indoor missions.

Roy wrote:There are a small handful of enemies with any ranged attacks at all. None go past level 16. In the groups of enemies presented, generally only a quarter of them, at most will have any ranged attacks at all. Most of those ranged attacks are completely trivial. Further, they can't keep up with you via moving, because you are faster.

Amnistar wrote:There is an entire subset of enemies that have ranged attacks, artillary, and they exists well past level 16.

Roy wrote:Oh really now?

Roy wrote:So you automatically win 90% of the game by being a horse archer. Maybe 95%. The rest requires you to be a half decent horse archer, as the enemy can actually fight back. Kiting for the win.

Amnistar wrote:Not really a problem as explained above, it's a strategy, and a common one yes, but that doesn't make the game unbalanced.

Roy wrote:Lol, no.

Roy wrote:The ONLY difference between a striker and a defender is an offense/defense slider.

Amnistar wrote:And accuracy...and effects of attacks...so no. You're wrong.

Roy wrote:Accuracy is offense. Regarding effects of attacks, pics or it didn't happen. Everything is either trivial damage, trivial damage + status, or trivial damage + Murder Pinball push/pull effects.

Roy wrote:Similarly, there's no difference at all between leaders and defenders, as both prevent damage. Except the leaders do it better, because 1: Marks do not necessarily force the mob to attack them. 2: If they did, then enemies are focusing attacks on the defender.

Amnistar wrote:Err...no again, wrong. Leaders job is to prevent damage a defenders job is to get fire focused on him. Period.

Roy wrote:You're a funny man. Making the enemy attack the guy who, supposedly has the best defenses prevents damage. Healing... prevents damage. The difference is Leaders actually do their job.

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=92 ... nder#92144

This. Read that post. Read the entire thread after. They break down 4.Fail far better than I can.

Roy wrote:You don't want the enemies focusing attacks on anyone for several reasons, the main one being D&D is still very focus fire based. You want the enemies attacking different people, doesn't matter who so that the damage is spread out, and you don't have someone running out of surges early, or actually dying.

Amnistar wrote:Again not quite true. You want the melee attacks focused on the characters that have a higher AC, to mitigate the amount of damage that they cause. Not because the defender can take the damage, but because the attacks are, likely 10-25% less likely to hit the defender.

Roy wrote:Congrats, you've just contradicted one of your earlier points, instead agreeing with me. In any case, if enemies are focusing fire, he's screwed anyways because you can only heal about 25% of your HP at a time. Doesn't matter who they're focusing on, but since everyone has their own pool of healing you want the mobs to be stupid, and spread out.

Roy wrote:Meanwhile leaders prevent it by healing it... and since it doesn't matter who it's falling on they can do their job regardless, whereas the moment an enemy decides to attack someone else there is no longer any point to the defender's existence.

Amnistar wrote:But it does matter who they heal, because they're limited in how much they can heal in any one encounter. They want the damage concentrated in one spot (depending upon which leader you take obviously) because their healing is concentrated to one spot.

Roy wrote:Except then he's taking far more that can be healed, and will go down fast. Oops.

Amnistar wrote:As for the defenders not being attack, they don't fail at that point, their mark takes effect. They either make an attack, cause instant damage, exert battlefield control, or any other number of various possibilities.

Roy wrote:The Paladin mark is an utter joke. The others might be a little better, but regardless the healing effects prevent more damage. Again, check TGD, they do what I do except better.

Roy wrote:The only one that actually does something unique is controller. So you have 1: Lock down enemies. 2: Prevent damage from... wait. That isn't a difference either. Cue Everyone is the Same.

Amnistar wrote:Ignoring the fact that you're simplyfying the basics of combat into various broad subsets, you're wrong again. Leaders job is to buff allies and heal; Defenders job is to attract the attacks, of the bad guys and survive; Strikers job is to cause direct damage; Leaders job is battlefield control.

Roy wrote:*facepaws*

Buff = prevent damage.
Heal = prevent damage.
Battlefield control = prevent damage.
'Attract attacks and survive' = prevent damage.

Meanwhile everyone is flailing away for piddly shit, which technically qualifies as dealing damage.

Thus, everyone is dealing (minor) damage and preventing (minor) damage making the divide artificial and laughable. QED.

Amnistar wrote:Is it possible to gain aspects of another role in yours? Yes. And that is intentional. If you want to you can make any combination that you want, with almost any class (though some don't work as well).

Roy wrote:False. However, the entire Striker type is made of Fail, and the Defender type is inferior to the Leader type (Paladins are weaker than Clerics... why is that a surprise?). This is again, WotC design fail in action.

Roy wrote:Not to mention that offense/defense slider aside, the entire striker type is pretty much useless, because Fighters do more damage. I say only pretty much useless, because Rogues get a few lockdown abilities.

Amnistar wrote:Nope. The strikers have the option to deal more damage than the tank and, in almost every case, have a better accuracy than the tank. Their attacks are focused to non-AC defenses or they get bonuses to their attack rolls, or they get to make multiple attack rolls. Stirkers also gain bonus damage aside from that granted by their weapon, Sneak Attack, Warlock Curse, Ranger's Quarry, etc.

Roy wrote:Fighter. Warlocks are the worst jokes of all by the way, don't use them as a serious example if you want to appear informed.

Roy wrote:Then there's the overall scale. Melee abilities and ranged abilities are anti synergistic. Take for example a ranged ability that slows the enemy. Ok, now they can only move or attack, and not both right? Well, if there's any melee guy there, they're going to engage the enemy. In which case they'd only move or attack ANYWAYS. So the slow does nothing.

Amnistar wrote:Again false. A ranged attack that slows an enemy could be used at the start of combat to lock down one of the tanks to a lumbering move until they save, or it could be used if the fighter needs to retreat a bit to lock down the enemy.

Roy wrote:Or you could take a ranged attacker and continue your kiting. Or even take no one, and not have to stop early to rest because he's using too many of his little surges. Anti synergistic. QED.

Roy wrote:As a result, you should ignore what WotC says and instead hyperspecialize in one niche. All melee, or all ranged. Choose one. There's also hilarity where taking the same class a bunch of times in some cases is better than taking different classes... in other words, the more you actively embrace Everyone is the Same, the better you will do.

Amnistar wrote:And this shows that you likely haven't played this game. I've done that, both ways, party whipe. Without a front line to halt the approach of enemy melee characters, you get locked into melee combat, preventing your ranged attacks. When you go all melee, all it takes is abilities that lock your movement, of which there are many, and you're dead again.

Roy wrote:For ranged: Kiting for the win. For melee: Focus fire spam with RNG destroying bonuses. In short, You're Doing It Wrong.

Roy wrote:And of course, barring kiting, or the RNG breaking stuff like Orbizards you will gradually fall off the RNG with levels... in other words, become progressively less effective against level appropriate enemies as you progress. This forces you to grub around for every little +1. Imagine someone spending an entire day doing nothing but optimizing their character. That's what you need just to be at par in 4.0. Now imagine if, after all that hard work they got some joke build Fighter out of it? You'd laugh, right? Well, that's the sort of returns you get in 4.0. You're expected to put all that effort into it, but the result is so lackluster and uninspiring you really just don't even care. And after having already been through a good deal of the 290 super boring Padded Sumo grindfest combats, you're likely to tell the game off at this point and go play Smash Brothers.

Amnistar wrote:I'm honestly not sure what you mean on this one, but I'll admit my ignorance as I've not played higher level games yet. However, looking at a level 23 lurker, I'll take a shot at the idea. First, it's level 23 so you're party is likely level 22. This means +11 to all attacks. Add in a +5 for your weapon, and let's say a +8 for your ability score and you've got a total of +24 vs defense of, at best, 35. This doesn't, obviously, include proficiency bonuses or bonuses granted by powers or class abilities. So a character would have a 55% chance of hitting with the average attack against this monster. Now against a level 1 lurker, you have a +5 to hit. Period. It's defenses average around 15. So...a 50% chance to hit. You're right, there is a bit of a creep there....but not much.

Roy wrote:Enemy defenses improve 1/level. Your offenses improve 1/2 levels. Include enhancement and stat, and you're still 5 points behind... or -25% everything over the course of the game. So you go from about... 60%, give or take to 35%. Now consider, certain types of mobs get +2 or +5 to stuff... which lowers that another 10 or 25%... Have fun wasting almost every round. But even the normal enemies, 2 times out of 3, you're completely wasting your turn.

I've referenced him here, obviously.

Am I Doing It Right?

Edit: Needs more illustrations.

So... you're saying Real Life is bad and Your Divine Creator of Preference should feel bad?

I'm pretty okay with a battle tactic that was extremely successful in actual history being extremely successful in a combat game. It just seems logical to me. Better that than having magical hippie furries break the system anyway.

Parthenon wrote: In fact if, as RC states, everyone really does use a variant of MTP in 3e, then the implicit roles made by skill ranks also fail because they can often ignore the ranks. Apart from diplomancers of course.

Thats only really an issue if people care about roles though. I know I'm far off the mark on some of these points but a sudden apathy forces me to not care and just post now that I've written it.

I would even go so far as to say that diplomancer is a bad role. And the reason for that is because it's a solo role. In a social encounter, a diplomancer handles the entire encounter. Literally, there's no reason for other PCs to speak at all.

And as social encounters can be a major minigame, like combat, we want everyone to be involved. Because in a politically oriented game, you may have people talking out a scene for a half hour or an hour, and it's not okay to say that only one PC is supposed to have the spotlight for the entire encounter.

Having social characters is only okay if social scenes aren't supposed to be a major part of the game. If you just want the game to be a series of prolonged dungeon crawls, then being a diplomancer is okay as a noncombat role, since most of the shit you run into won't want to talk anyway. If it's taken out of the dungeon, then having "non-social characters" are bad for the game, in the same manner that having "non-combat characters" are bad for the game.

Really, everyone should be skilled at talking.

Really, everyone should be skilled at talking.

I agree. The game system should be one of three things:

1) Everything is magic tea-partied because the social system isn't important.

2) The sociai minigame is handled by one die roll because it REALLY isn't important.

3) The social minigame works like combat; everyone gets a piece of the social minigame pie and it's set up so that ideally everyone gets to participate.


4E does a third of #1, half of #2, and the rest of #3 which is a recipe for disaster.

sake wrote:So... you're saying Real Life is bad and Your Divine Creator of Preference should feel bad?

I'm pretty okay with a battle tactic that was extremely successful in actual history being extremely successful in a combat game. It just seems logical to me. Better that than having magical hippie furries break the system anyway.

Only logical when you consider history = humanoid mooks vs humanoid mooks, and now you're fighting all sorts of other things, which granted have no particular special abilities as powers are made of Fail, but regardless expecting the same things to work on a Balor as some human peon is fucking insane. And when the same things actually do work, your system is bad and you should feel bad. Not to mention, is fucking insane.

So why the fucking fuckity fuck would you actually think that?

3.5e does totally break right in the core.

Where you see a giant demon monster from hell and a generic human peon, I just see two Stupid Things That Are Unable to Adapt to Basic Tactics.

And it's not like it's a level 1 ranger kiting the demon... it's a blinged-out legendary hero with a bow that looks like it belongs in Exalted and possibly riding a goddamn magic unicorn that shits rainbows. Damn right he should be able to kite demons to death, just like how his melee counterpart should be out pile-driving dragons.

But I do agree that 4E's 'you're either ranged OR melee and never ever both unless you're a complete sack of MAD suck.' design blows for players and monsters alike. At least a 3E Fighter or Mook could pull out a bow and be a moderately decent ranged attacker when needed. But then again, I recall that we've already had pages of arguments here about how a Fighter should never have to ever switch to a bow and should be rewarded by the system for being a stupid thing that's unable to adapt to basic tactics.

Catharz: Don't pull a PR and try to compare dude with horse to the amount of loops you'd have to run through just to find any of the 3.5 loops.

sake: Except the demon, in 3.5 has actual mobility and actual abilities. So if he sees some dude with horse, he's likely to eat the horse for the lulz, then slap around the dude.

When the fuck did 3.5 bow stuff come up in that way though? Someone might have mentioned he'd be just looking busy plinking for piddly shit because he's not bow specced, so he might as well not even bother devoting resources to it since he won't be level appropriate at it anyways. Not to mention, the fact he's a stupid thing unable to adapt to basic tactics isn't his choice.

Anyways, I found some more BS about horse archers.

http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=63967

Mongols for the win.

Roy wrote:Catharz: Don't pull a PR and try to compare dude with horse to the amount of loops you'd have to run through just to find any of the 3.5 loops.

Horse archers aren't a "loop" in 4e, and break the game no more than tree climbing archers in 3e.

Catharz: Don't pull a PR and try to compare dude with horse to the amount of loops you'd have to run through just to find any of the 3.5 loops.

What did I do again?

Also, it's not really fair to oversimplify the game to the point where everyone is preventing damage and doing damage. It's not like 3e did much else.

Fighter: Prevent damage by killing enemies. Prevent damage by having high AC (even if it is turtle fail).
Rogue: Prevent damage by killing enemies. Prevent damage by avoiding fights.
Cleric: Prevent damage by killing enemies. Prevent damage by healing. Prevent damage by having high AC.
Druids: Prevent damage by killing enemies. Prevent damage by having high AC.
Wizard: Prevent damage by killing enemies. Prevent damage via battlefield control. Prevent damage by having miss chance.

And so on and so forth.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

Roy wrote:Catharz: Don't pull a PR and try to compare dude with horse to the amount of loops you'd have to run through just to find any of the 3.5 loops.

Horse archers aren't a "loop" in 4e, and break the game no more than tree climbing archers in 3e.

That's precisely my point.

Horse archer is 'I pick up a bow, and I pick up a horse at the stables. Done.'

Whereas say, the Candle first requires you to find the Candle, buried in a long list of Wondrous Items which is in turn buried in the DMG. Since we're going by ease of discovery here... well how many players read the DMG? Of those, how many would recognize the significance of this item on their own, keeping in mind they have to cross reference the Gate spell from the PHB, and read the entire MM to find worthwhile things to Gate in.

Even if they did get this far (most new players wouldn't leave the PHB, so they wouldn't) they'd likely stop at summoning various high CR creatures for combat effectiveness.

Even if they did notice the Efreeti, and its Wish ability they'd have to cross reference more, and recognize the significance of this in multiple ways. Only then can they actually start doing it.

How many players not specifically looking for this would find it? Hell, how many specifically looking for it would find it? Sure, one did, and posted it on the Internet. But it is very obscure, so you basically find it by accident. Same goes for the other auto win everything techniques. Though you can find a strong build by accident in both editions.

Compare to the horse archer, where you find it by accident and auto win almost everything, and auto win the rest if you're actually half decent at shooting things.

To PR: BearsWithLasers. Who uses Den speak. Who else would it be? I would certainly know if it were me, and would not be trolling MW in any case.

I'm not BearsWithLasers. I know that he used to post on GitP but is banned for some reason. I have an account there as PR, but I don't think I've posted at all.

Psychic Robot wrote:I'm not BearsWithLasers. I know that he used to post on GitP but is banned for some reason. I have an account there as PR, but I don't think I've posted at all.

Then he's some guy who impersonates you well but apparently hates you.

He was probably banned from there because everyone there is a whiny little fuck.

Actually Roy, BearsWithLazers is just one of several different Logic Ninja alts on gitp. He got banned with one and shifted to another, excetra. Others are of course TLN and Reel On, Love. Pretty sure he gave up after that last one. But maybe not.

Roy wrote:He was probably banned from there because everyone there is a whiny little fuck.

Yes, that's probably why.

Kaelik wrote:Actually Roy, BearsWithLazers is just one of several different Logic Ninja alts on gitp. He got banned with one and shifted to another, excetra. Others are of course TLN and Reel On, Love. Pretty sure he gave up after that last one. But maybe not.

Roy wrote:He was probably banned from there because everyone there is a whiny little fuck.

Yes, that's probably why.

That explains everything. LN is like PR, except a 4.Fail fanatic. So that's why he does much the same moves, but in support of 4.Fail.

Also, some hilarity.

Roy wrote:The goal here is to pile on synergizing effects to launch yourself right off the RNG, similar to Team Rocket blasting off again. Except unlike the (in)famous Pokemon villains, you're going skyward because you are winning and not losing. The rest of your statement alternates between not making any sense and just being wrong, so I'm ignoring it.

Apparently this line is 'attacking other users' and 'being an ass'. Seriously, if he wanted to power trip about 4.Fail, he could have at least used one of my posts that actually contained offensive content so it isn't immediately obvious he's abusing his position to silence naysayers so as to allow the 4.Fail dogma to perpetuate Ad Infintium.

This of course, further lowers my respect and increases my contempt for anyone who attempts to make positive claims about it despite knowing better, as it means it is more probable they are an idiot, and on average they are more idiotic.

My bad.



This was actually the serious insult.

...

...

...

What the fuckity fucking fuck fuck fuck fucking hell is that fuck fucking fuckity... *insert a whole squadron of B-52s with f bomb explosions* ...nonsensical ungrounded drivel?

Roy wrote:Then he's some guy who impersonates you well but apparently hates you..

Kaelik wrote:Actually Roy, BearsWithLazers is just one of several different Logic Ninja alts on gitp.

Well, that explains it--he drank the WotCaid, and I didn't. Funnily enough, he's quite critical of Pathfail. Perhaps Paizo served grape and he prefers raspberry.

Roy wrote:O RLY

That's ENWorld-level moderation. "Quick! Look for an excuse to ban!"

Psychic Robot wrote:

Roy wrote:Then he's some guy who impersonates you well but apparently hates you..

Kaelik wrote:Actually Roy, BearsWithLazers is just one of several different Logic Ninja alts on gitp.

Well, that explains it--he drank the WotCaid, and I didn't. Funnily enough, he's quite critical of Pathfail. Perhaps Paizo served grape and he prefers raspberry.

That is odd. But then, PathFail basically does the same thing as 4.Fail, except without actually even appearing to change anything. 4.Fail is at least different from 3.5, indicating they tried a little.

And indeed. For some reason MW stole GitP's ban system, adjusted it a bit, and started using it. They've never been as good since. Ultimately though, it's blatantly obvious the only reason he's doing it is to protect his precious 4.Fail.

Roy wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

Roy wrote:Catharz: Don't pull a PR and try to compare dude with horse to the amount of loops you'd have to run through just to find any of the 3.5 loops.

Horse archers aren't a "loop" in 4e, and break the game no more than tree climbing archers in 3e.

That's precisely my point.

Horse archer is 'I pick up a bow, and I pick up a horse at the stables. Done.'

Whereas say, the Candle...
...
Compare to the horse archer, where you find it by accident and auto win almost everything, and auto win the rest if you're actually half decent at shooting things.

What the fuck does a candle have to do with buying a bow and climbing a tree?

How does a tree archer break the game in 3e? Plenty of things can fly or teleport.

Psychic Robot wrote:How does a tree archer break the game in 3e? Plenty of things can fly or teleport.

The tree archer doesn't break shit honestly, and people equate it to flying in some kind of bullshit argument all the time.

I'm not sure why. Tree archery pretty much sucks. Most dumb beasts have high strength scores and can climb trees anyway, so it's not like being in a tree will even save you from a dire bear. And at worst, something just runs and hides in the forest and waits for you to come down (because you have to come down eventually if you want to move).

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

Roy wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
Horse archers aren't a "loop" in 4e, and break the game no more than tree climbing archers in 3e.

That's precisely my point.

Horse archer is 'I pick up a bow, and I pick up a horse at the stables. Done.'

Whereas say, the Candle...
...
Compare to the horse archer, where you find it by accident and auto win almost everything, and auto win the rest if you're actually half decent at shooting things.

What the fuck does a candle have to do with buying a bow and climbing a tree?

3.5 = you auto win with Candle of Invocation, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops just to find it, and more to recognize its significance as stated.

4.0 = you auto win by picking up a bow and hopping on a horse.

What the fuck does it have to do with tree archers indeed.

Oh by the way, the Fail is worse now.

Not only is 'O rly' a moddable offense, but so is pointing out that continuing to talk when a mod is power tripping to silence 4.Fail naysayers.

And with that, MW went from tolerable, to borderlining on another Fail pit.

Roy wrote:3.5 = you auto win with Candle of Invocation, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops just to find it, and more to recognize its significance as stated.

4.0 = you auto win by picking up a bow and hopping on a horse.

What the fuck does it have to do with tree archers indeed.

The mounted archer is almost completely equivalent to the climbing archer. Both require a specific environment to succeed ("break the game"), and otherwise have fairly simple counters.


In 3e, the tree-climbing archer will curl up and die if she meets a level-appropriate CR 3 shadow. That's broken too. A mish-mash of 'you're screwed' abilities does not make for a more balanced game.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

Roy wrote:3.5 = you auto win with Candle of Invocation, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops just to find it, and more to recognize its significance as stated.

4.0 = you auto win by picking up a bow and hopping on a horse.

What the fuck does it have to do with tree archers indeed.

The mounted archer is almost completely equivalent to the climbing archer. Both require a specific environment to succeed ("break the game"), and otherwise have fairly simple counters.


In 3e, the tree-climbing archer will curl up and die if she meets a level-appropriate CR 3 shadow. That's broken too. A mish-mash of 'you're screwed' abilities does not make for a more balanced game.

There is no fucking comparison. The tree guy is countered by anyone with climbing, flight, ranged attacks... aka most of 3.5. The horse archer requires enemies to be as fast or faster, and have the same or better range... which very few actually do, and those few just make you have to be a half decent horse archer.

So it's completely fucking laughable to freak out about the tree archer, as seriously, by the time you even get up there combat is over anyways, so you don't even get to be in a tree. However, because 4.Fail is guilty of blandification brand Fail again, they can't counter basic shit like that due to a combo of MMO style mobs (grind on the numbers with your numbers) and well... MMO style mobs (the game breaks when you stop doing this and start thinking... even a little).

So ultimately, the counters end up boiling down to Oberoni and closet trolls lulz. Which is the same as the game telling you to stop thinking and go back to grinding on the MOBs.

Roy wrote: 4.0 = you auto win by picking up a bow and hopping on a horse.

Well it's auto win only if you're outside. In a dungeon, having a horse doesn't really help you much because the enemy can hide around corners and you're probably well within range of their ranged attacks anyway to get a clear shot.