Arguments in favor of 4th Edition

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:04 am

Lawl. Crimson Lancer ran away already?

EDIT: Roy, Fael is stalking you again.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:13 am

Psychic Robot wrote:Lawl. Crimson Lancer ran away already?

EDIT: Roy, Fael is stalking you again.

There a WotC thread commenting on this thread? If so link, I'd like to see the trainwreck.

*High fives Kaelic for the Goodwin*

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:42 am

MartinHarper wrote:If the archers lick their arrows before shooting them, the Monster Manual should say that. That's the type of detail that PCs would notice, and it should be narrated as it happens, not after the fight during the looting phase.

Well 4E monster abilities are notoriously sparse on flavor text, so you pretty much just have to make assumptions of what's going on. The Yuan-Ti's equipment doesn't list his arrows as poisoned, so if they're mundane something has to be happening to them as they're fired, or perhaps it's just a temporary poison.

Given the Yuan-Ti are snake men, a logical conclusion might be that they're administering some of their own venom to the arrows, but it's not the only conclusion. It may be some kind of poison enchantment spell, or some other explanation. But the flavor isn't really all that important. We just know that the arrows themselves aren't poisoned within the quiver. As far as how the poison gets there, that's just up to the DM to make some shit up.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:10 am

Psychic Robot wrote:Lawl. Crimson Lancer ran away already?

EDIT: Roy, Fael is stalking you again.

I know. Lack of cover fire will do that.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:13 am

RC wrote:We just know that the arrows themselves aren't poisoned within the quiver

We don't even know that. Thanks to the item threshold rules on page 174 of the 4e DMG, the Yuan Ti archer is assumed to be decked out in +2 equipment that the players don't get when he dies.

-Username17

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:21 pm

The largest fail of 4e, I think, is the RNG problems that the devs tried to fix but then fucked on multiple levels. Since the monsters are made of Arbitrarium rather than actual stats, there is no excuse for them not to be perfectly well-balanced. It's one thing in 3e where you end up with monsters with like a 42 Strength and you calculate their attack bonus based on the actual stats. It's another thing entirely when you just say, "Herpaderp, this monster has a +X attack bonus because we said so!" and then you still fuck it up. And then there's those goddamn powers that give players power bonuses equal to an ability modifier, so the cleric's handing a+9 bonus on attack rolls that sodomizes the RNG while being required for everyone to hit. To top it off, the cleric has to hit to hand out this bonus, since not doing damage makes the fight drag on even longer and the 4e devs are simpletons who think that not doing damage means that you're not having fun.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:25 pm

So in other words, despite signs of mental life (Tome of Battle) they're still wanking off to Krusk and Fireball?

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Psychic Robot wrote: And then there's those goddamn powers that give players power bonuses equal to an ability modifier, so the cleric's handing a+9 bonus on attack rolls that sodomizes the RNG while being required for everyone to hit. To top it off, the cleric has to hit to hand out this bonus, since not doing damage makes the fight drag on even longer and the 4e devs are simpletons who think that not doing damage means that you're not having fun.

Yeah, the problem is ability score increases, which have no right existing in 4E, and are there basically entirely as an RNG fuck over. It was like 4E almost had it right, then they went and fucking added ability score increases that totally sent everything to hell.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:30 pm

For me, the mess with skill challenges is a deciding factor for my view on 4E. That such a bugged system was printed, and then not fixed but simply changed to another error, makes it clear to me that anything that wasn't related to combat was not playtested enough, maybe not even at all.
And that says all I need to know about the people that are designing the system, and their ideas of fun.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:21 pm

Fuchs wrote:For me, the mess with skill challenges is a deciding factor for my view on 4E. That such a bugged system was printed, and then not fixed but simply changed to another error, makes it clear to me that anything that wasn't related to combat was not playtested enough, maybe not even at all.
And that says all I need to know about the people that are designing the system, and their ideas of fun.

Well seriously, no thought was put into noncombat abilities since Gygax. It's sad but true, but the spells from 3E were pretty much just copied over from 1E and 2E with at best minimal thought as to how they actually fit in or affected the world. But it wasn't like they actually playtested any of it. In fact, 3E wasn't tested much beyond around 5th level, and they basically didn't put any considerable effort into making mid to high levels work.

I mean even with 3E as it was, the designers still thought that just spamming fireballs was an effective strategy. Something that really kept them from ever effectively balancing spellcasters and fighters well. Because I know that they were just looking and saying "well the power attacking fighter is doing more damage than a wizard with fireball, so fighters are fine."

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:41 pm

Well, I consider Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords as a pretty decent way of balancing fighters and wizards. Not perfect, but it gives fighters a lot of nifty abilities, not just in combat.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:21 pm

Fuchs wrote:Well, I consider Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords as a pretty decent way of balancing fighters and wizards. Not perfect, but it gives fighters a lot of nifty abilities, not just in combat.

Well ToB doesn't really balance anything, but what it does do is make fighter types a lot more fun to play, and is overall probably the one of the best splatbooks that exists in 3E, simply because it really adds a new dimension to the fighting classes.

It also does a crucial thing in that it gives a fighter his resiliency back in the form of moment of perfect mind, which means that their will save is no longer swiss cheese against charm and dominate effects.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:26 pm

While I wouldn't necessarily say that ToB balances casters and non-casters, ToB certainly offers us *better designed* melee classes.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:16 am

I'm curious. What was the point of this mini-invasion from the WotC boards? They came in here to argue in favor of 4e D&D, but then they didn't... provide... an argument... in favor of 4e D&D. They came in and were all "We're going to argue in favor of our game system!" and we were like "Sure, what have you got?" and then.... ?

What was the backstory on all of this?

-Username17

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:51 am

No clue. But I think it made sense to them, at least at that time. Maybe they needed some "adversity" from "outsiders" so they can feel good about themselves and close ranks.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:17 am

Fuchs, that sounds like half of OUR members though.

Still, it does seem pretty weird, them bothering to make accounts, come here to show us a thing or two, then not actually do anything other than cry about our mannerisms and finally flounce out. They didn't even introduce their own points in favour, all they did was say "Tell us why you think it's bad", then try (unsuccessfully) to prove those points wrong or downplay the importance.

I mean, they really should have brought their own cards to the table (such as... oh I don't know. Maybe "In this shitty economy, you need to spend money in order for things to keep moving. So more books to buy means more money is spent, and a new edition means new books! 4E helps the economy!" That's the best I can think of.)

After all, when you climb Mt. Kon Foo Sing to fight Grand Master Hung Lo and prove that your "Squirrel Chases the Jam-Coated Tiger" style is better than his "Dead Cockroach Flails Legs" style, you unleash a bunch of your SCtJCT moves, not wait for him to launch DCFL attacks and then just sit there and parry all day. And you certainly don't, having been kicked about, then say "Well you served me shitty tea before our battle" and go home.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:20 am

In the past, I had a link to my signature that requested the 4etards come here for debate and discussion. (This was when I thought 4e had some mildly redeeming qualities instead of being a poor FFTactics rip-off.) I assumed they could shed some insight on the design principles they liked in 4e (and I figured that it would be a good idea to get some "outsider" opinions on 4e here in the Den, just for the sake of discourse). Also, I figured it would be humorous to watch them be smote.

I've since removed it, but they decided to invade after I remarked on their zombie-like swarming of anyone criticizing 4e in a thread about why the 4e druid is a piece of shit.

Undoubtedly, Fuchs is correct in that they will feel justified in their "anyone who doesn't like 4e is a jerkface doodiehead!" zeal; their evidence being the harsh language they have experienced here. (Remember, they've been coddled by ORC raiding parties that delete entire posts for a single perceived insult.)

Unable to silence intelligent dissenters, they have retreated back to their lair where they can form a circlejerk about how the Den is fully of not-nice jerkasaurs who like badwrongfun. Of course, here on the Den, they can't pull their bullshit passive-aggressive trolling (like Lichloved or Aubrey the Malformed) without getting the shit smacked out of them.

Such is the nature of culture shock, especially with people who have been sheltered by modzism.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:41 am

Koumei wrote:Fuchs, that sounds like half of OUR members though.

Getting some outsider foe one can fight (and unite) against is a basic and very common way to handle internal disputes and differences in a group.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:44 am

Psychic Robot wrote:Such is the nature of culture shock, especially with people who have been sheltered by modzism.

That cuts both ways. People from the Den could get culture shocked as well when encountering communities where certain formalities and limits have to be adhered to in order to debate.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:45 am

True enough, though I suspect the Denizens would be more likely to say, "Fuck this bullshit" rather than "they hurt my feelings!"

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:50 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:True enough, though I suspect the Denizens would be more likely to say, "Fuck this bullshit" rather than "they hurt my feelings!"

Precisely. Or start fucking with them and mocking them mercilessly (see CoL vs Paizils).

Funny thing about that is if they had at least pretended to show me some respect, I wouldn't be crusading around making sure they Fail hard. If they actually had some good qualities, that effort would be spent expounding on them. But they weren't smart enough to use the free vocal piece to their advantage, so now they're the joke of every community I can get to. ^.^

In any case, having them all pull Paizil Fallacies is par for the course, as it is the last hold out for those who never had a point anyways. Given that they are all dogmatic drivel spammers, and similar to religious nuts you can make them twitch and squirm at any time by trying to make them stick to actual facts and not self delusions...

For the benefit of those that don't know, Paizil Fallacy is when you try to dismiss facts as opinions, either because you don't like them (change it or deal with it fucker), or because you cannot disprove them aka passive aggressive fuck you type bullshit to avoid the inevitable loss.

Maybe it should have the name expanded to include the 4.Failtards.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:22 pm

Meh, to me, the most hilarious part isn't all their stupidity, or their inability to defend skill challenges.

To me the funniest part is that they thought they could take our criticism, prove it not to be true, and then declare victory.

Because if they can prove that 4e is not terrible, then by definition it must be awesome. Because you know, bland, mediocre, and pathetic don't exist. All things are great or terrible.

Amra · Post by **Amra** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:33 pm

That was... utterly hilarious. I'm just sorry I got to the party so late. I've seriously seen the math of Skill Challenges written out the long way, a dozen times or more, in such a comprehensive manner that a complete idiot could understand it. And yet, it's somehow a matter of opinion that Skill Challenges don't work?

That is truly priceless.

For myself, I don't like 4e because I like sneaky tactics, I like proper illusions, I like to be able to cast actual magic spells that actually do something outside of a combat just like in actual fantasy books, I like to be able to goad the bad guys into attacking each other, I like to be able to stealth-swipe the evil enchanter's powerful magical goody *before* the rest of the party show up to kick his ass, I like to use my Jedi Mind Magic to persuade the guards to let me into the audience chamber and I like - from time to time - to be able to win an encounter and walk off with the loot without anybody whatsoever dying as a result and 4e doesn't let me do that stuff in any meaningful way, so balls to it.

Oo, unexpected mini-rant! Either that, or I'm subconsciously auditioning for the James Joyce Stupidly Long Sentence Award.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:10 pm

We keep getting all these fallacies. We need more.

Page 42 Fallacy: You can't criticize the game for not having the option to do something because you can make up a rule for the game to do something.

That's not particularly catchy, but I think it works. Any suggestions?

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:27 pm

Roy wrote:Maybe it should have the name expanded to include the 4.Failtards.

Why bother? 'A troll by any other name' and all.