The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

[RandomCasualty2]

The DMG gives you three ways to create a non-PC elf druid
1) Take an elf monster. Add the Druid class template.
2) Create an elf druid NPC, per the guidelines on creating NPCs.
3) Create an elf druid Monster, per the guidelines on creating or modifying Monsters.

The first option is fine, but you end up with an Elite, which may well not be what you want. I've not used the second option, because it seems too much like hard work, but it's probably the closest to 3.5. The third option is the one I use most, because it's quickest.

Yeah. that's pretty much what I do. Just make them as monsters.

[Psychic Robot]

I'm bumping this for the sake of the Dark Sun thread.

[Titanium Dragon]

Let's look at this list.

1. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.

This is moronic. All games are built around the idea that you play within the rules. If you violate the rules, there's a good chance you'll break any game.

2. The Mongol dilemma--soldiers on horseback can defeat a number of the game's monsters by virtue of the monsters not having decent ranged attacks. (Related to World Fail.)

Two problems with this argument. Firstly, most encounters occur in situations wherein you cannot do this because you don't fight in an empty field. Secondly, this is wrong anyway because monsters in 4th edition are quite fast.

3. Giving a flying monster a bow breaks the game. (Related to World Fail.)

True in any pseudo-midieval fantasy setting. Reality is, in a world where people specialize in swordfighting on foot, flying is broken as shit. There's a reason why, in the real world, planes changed warfare so much.

Most people (ESPECIALLY you) never have really understood why flying is broken. This is why flying is broken, and always will be broken, when you want groundbound enemies to be meaningful and not give them assault rifles.

It is true that flight is a weakness of 4th edition D&D. This has been true, however, of every edition of D&D ever, and 4th edition does the best job of dealing with it of any fantasy RPG I've played.

Fundamentally, you have a choice: either everyone flies, or flight is very limited. There is no middle ground.

And there are very good reasons why you don't want everyone to fly. It is more difficult to represent on a battlemat, for one thing. Second, it makes terrain more interesting and meaningful. Third, it is what the audience wants - they want to jump and climb and tip over tables, they don't want to float around.

4. Blatantly obvious RNG-sodomizing powers that were somehow overlooked.

True... of every RPG I've ever seen or played with the exception of Alternity. 4th edition has the second fewest (after Alternity). Additionally, due to its modular design, it is more easily fixed.

5. Various broken abilities that demonstrate a lack of playtesting and/or willful disregard for legitimate concerns (Orbizard, Demigod epic destiny, rangers soloing Orcus, and so on).

This is just #4 again. And again, is true of every RPG I've ever seen or played with the exception of Alternity. And the ranger daily in question was fixed a year and a half ago.

1. Complete lack of internal consistency: assuming a dynamic world in which NPCs are cognizant (and thus not static "mobiles" to kill for XP and loot) causes the game to break down.

This can only be explained as the end result of severe self delusion, and is no more true of 4th edition than 3.x or indeed any other RPG. While it is true that if you have every monster in a dungeon attack at once, the PCs will lose, this is always and will always be true in any well-designed game.

2. The entire economic system is a clusterfuck of not-sense-making. (Related to #1.)

See above. Merchants purchase magic items for very little because there is little market for them, and they sell them for more than it costs to make them yourself. There's nothing really nonsensical about this.

While it is true that it does not attempt to model a real-world economy, no edition ever has done so, and no edition ever will because, frankly, it is outside of the scope of the game and is utterly meaningless.

3. Vastly dissociated mechanics: how do I describe what's going on in a way that makes sense? Too many powers cripple the ability to narrate a cohesive scene outside of a completely metagame interpretation.

This is simply the result of not wanting to make them work. They work just fine in-character.

4. Daily powers for non-casters. "I can only swing for 6[W] + Strength damage once per day!"

The only person who would say this is a liar. But this is PR, so we know he is one. Very few dailies are of this format, and they usually are awful. There are other dailies which are much better at the same level every time. They overvalued these attacks, with the arguable exception of Assassin's Point.

5. Entire armies of high-level minions die in a sandstorm. (Related to Mechanics Fail.)

This is due to not understanding what a minion is. Of course, you don't want to.

6. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.

Translation: WHINE!

Yeah, seriously, the fail here is on your part.

1. A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes.

The only person who would say this is someone who doesn't understand 4th edition at all. See also: Psychic Robot.

This is false. He wants it to be true, as do the "haters", but they're the only people who think it is true. Characters are actually very distinctive, and the roles help make parties more differentiated and prevent overlap.

2. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)

Its actually entirely irrelevant whether the mechanic or fluff comes first. Some people feel otherwise. They are idiots.

So long as there is both crunch and fluff in the end, the order doesn't matter, and as it is more important that the game is fun and balanced than that the fluff is perfect, it is logical to start with mechanics oftentimes. If your concept is something which breaks the game, it shouldn't be in there.

3. Shoehorning the game into hackan 'n' slashan mode. (Related to Balance Fail and World Fail.)

False. The game is combat oriented, but this has always been true, and noncombat encounters have, for the first time, really had some effort spent on making them enjoyable and meaningful.

4. Elimination of iconic spells, class features, and whole classes in the name of balance--try playing an enchanter, summoner, or necromancer in Core 4e. Try playing a druid in Core 4e. Try playing a ranger with an animal companion in 4e. Try playing a witch with a familiar in 4e. Try playing a bard in Core 4e.

There is a finite amount of material which will fit in a reasonably sized (~300 page) PHB. If they want to include new stuff (and they do), they need to move some other stuff elsewhere.

Of the above:

Summoners, druids, rangers with animal companions, familiars, and bards all still exist, and are found in Martial Power, the Player's Handbook 2, and Arcane Power.

Enchanters are basically obsolete now, due to firstly, a better valuation of the power level of powers which dominate foes, and secondly, due to the removal of long-term buffs. Short-term buffs are very common throughout the leader role.

Something resembling a necromancer will come to exist later, but they will not be able to raise undead armies, because that is unfun and broken in the context of a game like D&D, which focuses on heroes rather than armies.

Ergo, this is an unreasonable complaint. They included other classes in their place and, in any event, with the new treatment of classes not all of the previous "core" classes would fit in the PHB, and some (the sorcerer) had to be redone entirely because their very concept was no longer meaningful.

And, let's face it: The 3.x PHB had clerics, druids, sorcerers, and clerics. Why would you ever play anything else, given those could do everything and more that their compatriots could?

1. Exception-based design wanking, plus shit like the four different "evil eye" variations. Includes ability interaction and "How the hell do I adjudicate this?"

This is just stupid.

2. Usage of page 42 to replace actual rules.

This is again just stupid. Rules for adjucating situations that the rules don't cover, and won't ever cover, is smart design.

3. HP bloat resulting in grinding.

This is only true at epic tier, and even then, it is exaggerated.

4. Skill challenges are completely broken.

True.

5. Solo encounters suck--they're boring grindfests.

False. Poorly designed solo monsters suck, but well designed solo monsters are very enjoyable.

6. Ritual system is retarded.

The ritual system is fine, and fulfills its function.

7. Instead of eliminating the 15-minute workday, the devs put everyone on the 15-minute workday schedule.

Wrong again. The 15-minute workday isn't really gone, but it is weakened due to a few mechanics which encourage characters to battle onwards. Milestones are a good idea, but need to be made stronger. You will see whining from people like Psychic Robot when they do so, because they'll whine that fighting makes you stronger rather than weaker.

8. Swathes of poorly-written and vaguely-worded mechanics.

Again, relative to other RPGs, there is less of this in 4th edition than any RPG I've played or seen other than Alternity.

9. Everyone playing the same class is generally superior to everyone playing a different class.

This is the end result of a complete lack of comrehension of 4th edition, and the only person who would say that is someone who has never played it. You are better off with at least one member of every role in the party than everyone playing the same role. A party consisting of a fighter, a ranger, a wizard, and a cleric is better than a party which is just 4 of the same character.

Now, I'm sure you'll whine "But you compared this stuff to 3.x and other RPG systems!" Yes, I did. You'll find, however, that if you want to play an RPG, you need to choose between the extant systems, not some magical, nonexistant one.

And yes, obviously 4th edition is not perfect.

So let's go through. Of your list, the ACTUAL failures are:

2. Some monsters are designed with the idea that you are in an area where you cannot simply shoot at them with a bow and constantly run away, but are not clearly distinguished or given ways to deal with this problem.

3. Flying is not handled as decisively as it needs to be.

4. Blatantly obvious RNG-sodomizing powers that were somehow overlooked.

5. Various broken abilities that demonstrate a lack of playtesting and/or willful disregard for legitimate concerns (Orbizard, Demigod epic destiny, rangers soloing Orcus, and so on).

3. HP bloat resulting in grinding at epic.

4. Some solo monsters are designed improperly.

7. The 15-minute workday has been weakened but not eliminated.

To that list, I would add:

1) Characters at first level have too few encounter and possibly daily powers; while reasonable from a "learn how to play" standpoint, I don't feel that adding one more of each would be terribly damaging.

2) Typing needs to be more prevalent and decisive in nature, and more unified, so that characters of a certain level cannot exceed a certain damage threshold and stacking is eliminated.

3) Multiattacking needs to be re-examined due to its ability to essentially double modifiers; a new mechanic rather than rolling separately for damage twice probably should be applied.

[Psychic Robot]

Please don't call me a liar. None of what I wrote is anything but truth.

[MGuy]

There is a lot of stuff I don't feel like quoting in there but I will pick out a few that popped out at me.

1. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.

Now I'm not PRand he can correct me if I'm wrong but I think this point is a valid one. I don't think its so much that it means you have to follow the RAW but that if you don't follow the style of play that the RAW encourages the game begins to fall apart.

1. A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes.

This is actually one of my complaints. Really all the classes feel pretty much the same when I played them. This is especially true within the roles. The differences between the roles can be felt but within a specific role you'll be doing the same things no matter what class. At least that's been my experience.

2. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)

I agree with you here. I can make my own fluff so which order fluff and mechanics are made in don't concern me as long as the final product is satisfying.

[Spaghetti Western]

TD,

Does it really matter if you can go through point by point and nullify each statement individually? I look at that list and the responses and come to the conclusion that for some reason 4E caused a portion of it's otherwise satisfied customers not unsatisfied.

In my own experience for example I read through the 4E core rule books and just could not get myself to play. Something about them did not "feel" right. And I'm not sure that it something that could be itemized by rather it's the collective lack of many things which caused me from to go from being someone who was satisfied by D&D products to unsatisfied.

Clearly I am not alone and this has to a problem for WOTC. Right?

[MGuy]

We can all disagree and still have a good debate over it can't we?

[RandomCasualty2]

6. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.

Translation: WHINE!

Yeah, seriously, the fail here is on your part.

Um... what? That's your only response to this?

In a game where you're trying to tell a story, having a character that just got run through with a sword and is bleeding out (due to death rolls) and is suddenly fine after a 5 minute rest is pretty bad.

And the final fantasy pheonix down style healing really annoys me. Because it's basically a system where no PC drops, like ever. You actually get taken out of combat longer by getting a 1 round stun effect, as opposed to actually getting KOed, because healing is just too powerful. Throwing in the "always heal from 0" rule is just total craziness, since it makes it so you always heal fallen characters all the time. There's really no reason to ever leave someone down.

5. Solo encounters suck--they're boring grindfests.

False. Poorly designed solo monsters suck, but well designed solo monsters are very enjoyable.

Honestly I'm curious how you'd make the super HP stacked solo monsters into a fun encounter that isn't grindy.

Basically how 4E works you're going to want to eliminate the weaker monsters first, simply because you can drop them faster. So you're going to nuke the hell out of the standard monsters/minions and be left with the solo, probably with just your at wills left to grind it down.

This is the end result of a complete lack of comrehension of 4th edition, and the only person who would say that is someone who has never played it. You are better off with at least one member of every role in the party than everyone playing the same role. A party consisting of a fighter, a ranger, a wizard, and a cleric is better than a party which is just 4 of the same character.

Actually that's not true. As Frank pointed out earlier, 4E has no synergy at all between ranged combat and melee combat. Ray of frost is actually fucking awesome, except for the fact that you've got melee guys that make it almost useless. In fact, the ranged guys really don't have much at all to make the melee guys better, and the melee guys don't help out the ranged guys much.

The only difference is that if you split half and half, the melee guys are taking almost all the damage, and therefore have a greater chance of dropping and that's bad.

This means that you want either an all melee group or an all ranged group so the damage is divided more evenly.

[Crissa]

Let's look at this list.

...A long list where you say moronic alot.

That's not an argument, but it might be a list. Other than that, it's not a helpful post.

-Crissa

[Doom]

Awesome idea, RC2, about the 'whack-a-mole' effect from healing downed characters.

I might just include a "healing from 0' gives a 'stunned, save ends' effect as a houserule...might make it less goofy.

And, TD, honest, most of what you've 'replied' is not a counter-argument.

Can you try a real counter-argument with minions, detailing exactly how, past level 5, four minions really are remotely as challenging as a comparable leveled monster? Use some sort of mathematical argument, please, beyond "you guys are idiots", if possible.

[Zinegata]

This is moronic. All games are built around the idea that you play within the rules. If you violate the rules, there's a good chance you'll break any game.

So 4E is broken. Because as Chris Pramas noted in a recent article, if you wanna roleplay in 4e "just write whatever you want" in your sheet.

It's "liberating", but it's also outside the rules. Conclusion? Wanna roleplay in 4E? Go outside the rules and likely break the game.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So 4E is broken. Because as Chris Pramas noted in a recent article, if you wanna roleplay in 4e "just write whatever you want" in your sheet.

I'm going to have to ask you to back that ass up with a link.

[Zinegata]

So 4E is broken. Because as Chris Pramas noted in a recent article, if you wanna roleplay in 4e "just write whatever you want" in your sheet.

I'm going to have to ask you to back that ass up with a link.

Sorry, meant Chris YOUNGS:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dn ... 2009August

Don't worry about feeling forced to reflect that story decision mechanically. Just write it on your character sheet. Liberating, isn't it?

And Chris Youngs is merely editor of WoTC's very official Dragon magazine.

[Psychic Robot]

The Wizards of the Coast website is temporarily down for maintenance. We apologize for any inconvienence, please check back soon!

[RandomCasualty2]

So 4E is broken. Because as Chris Pramas noted in a recent article, if you wanna roleplay in 4e "just write whatever you want" in your sheet.

It's "liberating", but it's also outside the rules. Conclusion? Wanna roleplay in 4E? Go outside the rules and likely break the game.

I don't really even see a big deal about that.

Having shit like profession or craft didn't fucking do anything in 3E. I mean nobody cares if you can forge a sword. As the article said, it was a skill that you never used during gameplay. 4E does the sensible thing and doesn't make people light skill points on fire to get skills they don't use.

I mean, seriously, why not hand that shit out for free?

Why bust your players balls because they want to know how to brew their own beer or make normal nonmagical arrows?

[Zinegata]

So 4E is broken. Because as Chris Pramas noted in a recent article, if you wanna roleplay in 4e "just write whatever you want" in your sheet.

It's "liberating", but it's also outside the rules. Conclusion? Wanna roleplay in 4E? Go outside the rules and likely break the game.

I don't really even see a big deal about that.

Having shit like profession or craft didn't fucking do anything in 3E. I mean nobody cares if you can forge a sword. As the article said, it was a skill that you never used during gameplay. 4E does the sensible thing and doesn't make people light skill points on fire to get skills they don't use.

I mean, seriously, why not hand that shit out for free?

Why bust your players balls because they want to know how to brew their own beer or make normal nonmagical arrows?

First of all, check out TD's statement. My post was in reply to his.

Secondly, if you're going to claim that a system will likely get broken if you go beyond the rule set, then it must apply equally to all systems. You can't say that going beyond the rules breaks 3.X, but it won't for 4E.

Personally, I think TD's initial statement was a pile of BS. A system gets broken based on the knowledge of the players and their willingness/unwillingness to exploit it.

In fact, you've just demonstrated precisely this - in 3.X, giving people Brewing/Fletching skills didn't really help nor hinder anyone. If a group is equipped with this knowledge, they can make the right choice about it.

I'm not stating that roleplaying will break 4E. I am, however, stating that the 4E developers themselves have stated that people should go beyond the written rules, and TD's statement is asinine for declaring that you'll likely break the system if you go outside the rules. 4E's own devs have already said to forget about the rules in certain situations. Does it mean 4E will break because of this?

No sir, it will not break if your players are conscious about a system's pitfalls. However, it does point to the fact that you really do have to live with the developer's design choices (Psychic Robot's original point). If they don't provide non-combat rules, all your roleplay will be virtually free-form.

[FatR]

Now if you want to say your character was a blacksmith's apprentice and knows how to make his own sword, just say so. Don't worry about feeling forced to reflect that story decision mechanically. Just write it on your character sheet. Liberating, isn't it?

And now, they came out and just admitted openly that their fvcking system does not interface with their fvcking world.

Then you've got skill challenges. While they do include mechanical elements, they provide a structure that DMs can use to navigate complex non-combat situations. Most importantly, this is the first time the game has given DMs an easy way to reward characters for their participation. In other words, 4th Edition includes incentives to incorporate roleplaying (and other non-combat) situations into your game.

(repeated headdesk)

[Zinegata]

Now if you want to say your character was a blacksmith's apprentice and knows how to make his own sword, just say so. Don't worry about feeling forced to reflect that story decision mechanically. Just write it on your character sheet. Liberating, isn't it?

And now, they come out and just admitted openly that their fvcking system does not interface with their fvcking world.

Then you've got skill challenges. While they do include mechanical elements, they provide a structure that DMs can use to navigate complex non-combat situations. Most importantly, this is the first time the game has given DMs an easy way to reward characters for their participation. In other words, 4th Edition includes incentives to incorporate roleplaying (and other non-combat) situations into your game.

(repeated headdesk)

Well, yes, the article was truly an act of idiocy on WoTC's part.

It's indicative of the arrogant, self-congratulatory attitude being displayed by a lot of 4E supporters wherein they fail to address any real complaints but instead pick a Strawman subject and discuss it with really, really long diatribes in the hopes that the ensuing fireworks will cause the original complaints to be forgotten.

[Psychic Robot]

To put this whole business to rest:

This is moronic. All games are built around the idea that you play within the rules. If you violate the rules, there's a good chance you'll break any game.

In case you hadn't noticed, TD is constructing a strawman argument here. My statement was, "Play like the developers or break the game." TD has misconstrued (inadvertently or otherwise) the statement to mean, "Play by the rules or you'll break the game."

My statement, of course, refers to the fact that you have to play 4e in the precise manner that the developers have set out for you to play or else you'll break the game. For instane, in 3e, if you played a cleric as a healer and a wizard as a nuker, you would run into few balance problems--as the developers playtested the game with such notions dominating the game. Once you begin to play wizards and clerics outside of their intended roles--as an example, you might begin to focus on melee offense with the cleric and use save-or-sucks as the wizard--the game begins to disintegrate.

Likewise, 4e's style of play begins to fall apart the moment that you decide to play your character as anything but what the developers have decided. We can see this with things such as the Mongol Dilemma (I think we should use this as its moniker), Rust Milking, and ridiculous in-game limitations on what your character can and cannot do (a bow-wielding paladin is out of the question, for instance). This is because the type of gameplay that 4e promotes is heavily gamist, internally inconsistent, and anti-thought. (Once you begin to consider the 4e rules as being part of a living world rather than a self-contained sphere centered on the PCs, this becomes readily apparent.)

I have digressed, unfortunately, so I will now circle back around to my point:

TD is trying to say that I'm saying that one must play by the rules to make 4e work, and that 4e breaks if you "violate the rules"--that is, 4e only breaks if you cheat--just like any other game.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Like I said, it's a strawman.

[RandomCasualty2]

Secondly, if you're going to claim that a system will likely get broken if you go beyond the rule set, then it must apply equally to all systems. You can't say that going beyond the rules breaks 3.X, but it won't for 4E.

The problem here is your definition of "beyond the rules set." In 3E, there are no rules for wearing purple clothes. Literally, we don't care if your tunic is grey, green or purple. It doesn't matter, because there is no mechanical effect to doing it. So you could just as easily say you can go beyond 3.5 by wearing a purple costume.

In 4E, being able to smith swords or brew beer doesn't do anything meaningful within the game system. Like the purple shirt, it adds a little descriptiveness and flavor to your character, but it doesn't actually grant you any meaningful mechanical bonuses. I mean fuck you can't even sell the mundane swords you craft because of the 4E economy. You claim that it will somehow break the system, but I have no clue how you expect it to do that.

In fact, you've just demonstrated precisely this - in 3.X, giving people Brewing/Fletching skills didn't really help nor hinder anyone. If a group is equipped with this knowledge, they can make the right choice about it.

Yeah it did. It was a kick in the balls to someone who wanted to add flavor to their character. Why should the dwarf who wants to brew his own beer have to suffer with a reduced climb or spot skill? Is brewing your own beer that fucking awesome that it requires you to nerf yourself to do it?

It's just a roleplayer's trap. Someone who wants a more detailed background than "I kill things for a living, and that's all I do" has to fucking pay for it with real mechanical power.

That's about as stupid as the shit where they want you to pay hundreds of thousands of gold to buy a castle, which you now lose out to buy magical items.

Doing cool stuff that has no effect on you mechanically should not gimp you in any way. It's actually anti-roleplaying because it encourages you to make dull undetailed characters. An RPG system should never encourage you to do that.

[Zinegata]

The problem here is your definition of "beyond the rules set." In 3E, there are no rules for wearing purple clothes. Literally, we don't care if your tunic is grey, green or purple. It doesn't matter, because there is no mechanical effect to doing it. So you could just as easily say you can go beyond 3.5 by wearing a purple costume.

So talk to TD and explain to him that he's an idiot for asserting that going beyond the rule set breaks the game. You just gave another reason why that statement was idiocy.

Yeah it did. It was a kick in the balls to someone who wanted to add flavor to their character. Why should the dwarf who wants to brew his own beer have to suffer with a reduced climb or spot skill? Is brewing your own beer that fucking awesome that it requires you to nerf yourself to do it?

Some people do happen to think that their characters not being able to Climb is an acceptable price for being able to make the finest brews.

Plus, one only has to look at MMORPGs (i.e. WoW) to see that one can segregate combat and non-combat skills and yet still have mechanics for them.

[RandomCasualty2]

Some people do happen to think that their characters not being able to Climb is an acceptable price for being able to make the finest brews.

And some people think that fighters are balanced in 3E. Some people are wrong.

Plus, one only has to look at MMORPGs (i.e. WoW) to see that one can segregate combat and non-combat skills and yet still have mechanics for them.

In MMORPGs, crafting does something for you. You can make shit like leather armor or whatever that actually helps you in combat, or you can sell it to other people for money.

Note that stuff like magic item crafting absolutely should cost something to attain, because that's an ability with mechanical benefit. Making your own beer however, or making swords in a game with no economy is a trivial ability. It's like declaring that your character dresses in purple or can play the harmonica well. Seriously, nobody really cares. You could be dressing in green and play the harmonica horribly and it wouldn't change how the game plays out.

[Zinegata]

And some people think that fighters are balanced in 3E. Some people are wrong.

So argue with those people, because I agree this is wrong.

In MMORPGs, crafting does something for you. You can make shit like leather armor or whatever that actually helps you in combat, or you can sell it to other people for money.

Note that stuff like magic item crafting absolutely should cost something to attain, because that's an ability with mechanical benefit. Making your own beer however, or making swords in a game with no economy is a trivial ability. It's like declaring that your character dresses in purple or can play the harmonica well. Seriously, nobody really cares. You could be dressing in green and play the harmonica horribly and it wouldn't change how the game plays out.

If nobody cares, then doesn't it mean that it won't hurt if someone wants to take Brew Beer over Climb?

[Titanium Dragon]

Please don't call me a liar. None of what I wrote is anything but truth.

Well, if you don't tell the truth, by definition, you're a liar. Sooooo...

And a great deal of what you wrote was, at best, subjective.

Does it really matter if you can go through point by point and nullify each statement individually? I look at that list and the responses and come to the conclusion that for some reason 4E caused a portion of it's otherwise satisfied customers not unsatisfied.

Yes, actually, it does, because if a lot of it is false, what does it say? It says that some of the base is unpleasable and, ergo, not worth listening to. If, no matter what you do, they'll complain, and make up things to complain about, what that says is not "these people are dissatisfied" but "These people are batshit".

Here's something that MUST be understood - gamers are the biggest whiners in the universe. Period. I've never met a whinier bunch of people. We whine about EVERYTHING.

Random whining on forums is utterly meaningless.

Um... what? That's your only response to this?

Yes, actually, because that's the only response there is to it. It is mindless whining, which is exactly what I've come to expect from PR.

What does "cartoon-character healing" mean? Nothing. Its a meaningless statement because it lacks precision.

In a game where you're trying to tell a story, having a character that just got run through with a sword and is bleeding out (due to death rolls) and is suddenly fine after a 5 minute rest is pretty bad.

So you're saying every game with magical healing is utter crap? Virtually EVERY game works this way, after all, and not just in terms of P&P RPGs either - video games work this way as well.

And why is this? Is this becaue they're all idiots?

No, its because its fun for things to work this way.

Moreover, hit points do not indicate that you can be stabbed in the jugular vein 30 times.

Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve - all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.

You might regin hit points through rest, heroic resolve, or magic.

Moreover, this isn't new.

Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some characters, hit points may reprsent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you'll be hard pressed to convince bystandards that she doesn't have the favor of some higher power.

Moreover, you aren't fine and dandy five minutes later; you're down healing surges.

And the final fantasy pheonix down style healing really annoys me. Because it's basically a system where no PC drops, like ever. You actually get taken out of combat longer by getting a 1 round stun effect, as opposed to actually getting KOed, because healing is just too powerful. Throwing in the "always heal from 0" rule is just total craziness, since it makes it so you always heal fallen characters all the time. There's really no reason to ever leave someone down.

No, there isn't. But the problem is you think this is bad, when it is actually good. Why is it good? Because the least fun part of D&D is when you're sitting there unable to do anything.

Honestly I'm curious how you'd make the super HP stacked solo monsters into a fun encounter that isn't grindy.

They're actually quite fun as-is. They don't actually have that many HP; they have 5x normal monster hp. Which is to say, the same amount of HP of a standard encounter with 5 monsters. Their hp total isn't excessive until normal monster hp totals reach the same point, somewhere in epic tier. Even then, due to the 5 encounter powers you have, as well as the possibility of spending a daily every encounter, its only 4ish rounds of at-will use against most encounters, which isn't all that bad, and its less for some characters (not to mention the fact that stuns also change that number). The only time it actually gets bad is hard fights, at which point it does start to matter - level +3 encounters can be a bit laborious, though on the other hand, it does feel hard fought. Its just it takes a little longer than it should at epic.

Basically how 4E works you're going to want to eliminate the weaker monsters first, simply because you can drop them faster. So you're going to nuke the hell out of the standard monsters/minions and be left with the solo, probably with just your at wills left to grind it down.

Depends on what your encounter powers are, among other things. Typcially speaking I haven't found that to really be a big issue with solo monsters. Not to mention, they'll use their dailies in any encounter which is a solo + other creatures, and probably use as many as they have as it will be a level +3 encounter.

Actually that's not true. As Frank pointed out earlier, 4E has no synergy at all between ranged combat and melee combat. Ray of frost is actually fucking awesome, except for the fact that you've got melee guys that make it almost useless. In fact, the ranged guys really don't have much at all to make the melee guys better, and the melee guys don't help out the ranged guys much.

Both help out the other, actually. Melee characters keep the monsters off the ranged characters, while the ranged characters can concentrate fire on the guys the melee characters are fighting better than melee characters can.

Movement impairment spells are worse with melee characters... if you hit. Thing is, you likely aren't going to hit all the foes, and melee monsters are worse off sitting back and taking hits from the hammers and javelins than they are engaging, even if they have to break into two groups.

The only difference is that if you split half and half, the melee guys are taking almost all the damage, and therefore have a greater chance of dropping and that's bad.

This means that you want either an all melee group or an all ranged group so the damage is divided more evenly.

They're actually the worst groups because without ranged characters the melee folk have trouble concentrating damage and on turn denial and without melee characters the ranged characters end up taking a ton of extra damage in melee, which basically grants the enemies extra turns.

Can you try a real counter-argument with minions, detailing exactly how, past level 5, four minions really are remotely as challenging as a comparable leveled monster? Use some sort of mathematical argument, please, beyond "you guys are idiots", if possible.

Old minions are not. The math breaks down for the MM1 minions. That's because MM1 minions have far too low damage.

The MM2 minions, however, deal a lot more damage (rather, their higher level ones scale more correctly) - up through lower paragon tier they seem to work out fine, though they're high damage, high death rate.

So 4E is broken. Because as Chris Pramas noted in a recent article, if you wanna roleplay in 4e "just write whatever you want" in your sheet.

It's "liberating", but it's also outside the rules. Conclusion? Wanna roleplay in 4E? Go outside the rules and likely break the game.

That's true of 3.x as well. And 2nd edition. And first edition. And every other edition ever.

There's nothing about having the pottery skill that makes you a better roleplayer. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

Roleplaying, by its very nature, comes entirely from the player. The game cannot roleplay for you.

In fact, you've just demonstrated precisely this - in 3.X, giving people Brewing/Fletching skills didn't really help nor hinder anyone. If a group is equipped with this knowledge, they can make the right choice about it.

Zinegata, I know you washed out on the WotC boards so came here, but seriously... you were an idiot there too.

Are you seriously suggesting that spending skill points on Brewing/Fletching didn't hinder anyone?

Of course they did. They were useless skills, or very nearly so.

Personally, I think TD's initial statement was a pile of BS. A system gets broken based on the knowledge of the players and their willingness/unwillingness to exploit it.

False. A system gets broken on the basis of its ability to break. A system which cannot be broken -le gasp- cannot be broken. And there are tons of such systems, though not in the form of RPGs.

My statement, of course, refers to the fact that you have to play 4e in the precise manner that the developers have set out for you to play or else you'll break the game. For instane, in 3e, if you played a cleric as a healer and a wizard as a nuker, you would run into few balance problems--as the developers playtested the game with such notions dominating the game. Once you begin to play wizards and clerics outside of their intended roles--as an example, you might begin to focus on melee offense with the cleric and use save-or-sucks as the wizard--the game begins to disintegrate.

This is pure stupidity. They intended for wizards to be using save or suck spells. They figured that the fact that most of them did nothing (or very little) on a successful save would mitigate them. They were wrong.

Likewise, 4e's style of play begins to fall apart the moment that you decide to play your character as anything but what the developers have decided. We can see this with things such as the Mongol Dilemma (I think we should use this as its moniker), Rust Milking, and ridiculous in-game limitations on what your character can and cannot do (a bow-wielding paladin is out of the question, for instance). This is because the type of gameplay that 4e promotes is heavily gamist, internally inconsistent, and anti-thought. (Once you begin to consider the 4e rules as being part of a living world rather than a self-contained sphere centered on the PCs, this becomes readily apparent.)

Rust milking is retarded, tis true, and that's because the rust monster is retarded. I don't think anyone will argue with that, other than the fact that, well, the entire concept is pretty stupid and its not really something you are reasonably going to be doing in game unless you have severe personality issues. Oh, wait, its you. Right.

The Mongol Dilemma is only against a small number of monsters, outdoors.

Its not at all ridiculous for there not to be a bow-wielding paladin option. Why should there be one? Seriously. In fact, it is ridiculous to expect that to be a possibility, because it is such a minor archetype.

So talk to TD and explain to him that he's an idiot for asserting that going beyond the rule set breaks the game. You just gave another reason why that statement was idiocy.

The real problem is that you don't understand something. Its known as English.

That's clearly not what I meant, and you should know that if you have half an ounce of literacy or sense.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

There is a lot of stuff I don't feel like quoting in there but I will pick out a few that popped out at me.

1. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.

Now I'm not PRand he can correct me if I'm wrong but I think this point is a valid one. I don't think its so much that it means you have to follow the RAW but that if you don't follow the style of play that the RAW encourages the game begins to fall apart.

Actually, it's not even that. If the rules actually encouraged the style of play that the devs want, 4e would be a well-designed game and all the Den's complaints would be minor nitpicks and questions of personal taste. But skill challenges encourage the best-suited PC to make all the rolls when the devs wanted to encourage everybody to participate. The devs wanted to encourage a mix of combat styles within the PC party, but having all archers or all melee characters is more advantageous. If the only thing that keeps you playing the way the devs want is a taboo that says looking at the rules is munchkiny, then the system is badly designed and it will start to break down at a lot of tables.