The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

[Mystic Mongol]

Be fair, it's the cloying feeling of self-righteousness. It's warm and soothing, like swimming in a deep pool of limeaid.

[LR]

Actually 4E gives Fighters and Wizards equally nice things to play with while Frank's reply to reality-bending Wizards is to try and make Fighters bend reality too only it doesn't work nearly so well. But hey keep your inappropriate analogies because they're so much more sensationalist!

How does it feel to be the Fox News of the tabletop arena?

I bet it feels like disappointment.

You keep saying that Fighters have nice things. Where are the nice things? A working revision to skill challenges has yet to be printed and 4e doesn't have a ritual expense account, so what nice things do Fighters get that don't involve killing monsters or aren't taken directly out of their killing monsters fund?

Anyway, we're not saying that 4e isn't fun. I'm sure that it is for many people. However, Cops and Robbers is also fun and we don't need 3 books+extras to play it. If you convince us that 4e is better than Cops and Robbers and we're just playing it wrong somehow, then most people here would probably be happy, because it would mean that they wouldn't have to play Smash Brothers when the MC pulls out 4e.

[Mystic Mongol]

Oooh, I know that one! Fighters get interesting powers and play a vital role in controlling the battlefield that can't simply be replaced by a summon. When a fighter crushes his way through the front line scattering his opponents like chaff to mark and base the enemy artillery, suddenly that archer has very few options, and all of them are wrong. Plus, literally this week my fighter kicked a titan in the stomach, grabbed it by the throat, and slammed it head-first into the ground.

Unapologetically awesome.

Now, if you insist on focusing out of combat, well that depends on the fighter in question. Mine collects incredibly elaborate uniforms and talks about how quaint his surroundings are, but if you want a fighter who's a little less... how, do I put this... flamingly gay, give him ritual caster and let him handle the party's ritual needs. Or you could pick up Cloak of Shadows, make him a thief multiclass and give him the thievery skill. In fact, a 4e fighter can fill ANY out of combat role, from combat medic to artesian baker, and that's pretty great.

[Koumei]

Be fair, we bash Trollman for a lot of the stupid stuff he says! The Bane Guard's just a hilarious example.

Please tell me about this Bane Guard.

[Books]

Please tell me about this Bane Guard.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22bane+guard%22

First result.

edit: Basically it's a mess of a class that veers wildly back and forth between being overpowered (a late-game Daily that flat-out kills an opponent) and being complete shit (having three different primary stats)

And the fluff descriptions of the powers are laughably bad, if you care about that sort of thing.

[MGuy]

Holy crap... there are more of them!

but first straight to my point because I've been waiting for someone to challenge me on the "I can't use my powers out of battle" thing.

Just gonna focus on this because.... what? Powers work fine outside of combat. Christ, there are powers specifically focused on out of combat uses and many powers, like those including teleportation or flying, have tons of uses outside of combat. If you're not interacting with the world that's not the game's fault at all. It's either you believing you can't or your GM not actually moderating the game by the rules.

Now Let me tell you a story of a paladin who had holy strike. An ability that ignites his weapon in a holy flame. He could not light his campfire with his holy flame, he could not light his way in a dark tunnel with his flame, he could however use it as a signal flare if and only if he was smashing stuff with it... But this isn't the end of his sad story. Because later he would get a utility power. But oh which should he get? The one that gave him a+4 to diplomacy (which was a skill he didn't invest in)the one that gives him a +1 bonus he didn't care about, or the ability to take damage for an ally all only fucking usable once a day... He failed a skill challenge for the group because Intimidate automatically causes failure in certain diplomatic situations and that was the only social skill he invested in and he HAD to participate. This is skipping over the uninteresting combat because I also soloed an otyugh while drowning for 10 rounds before the group finished off the rest of the encounter and came for me.

Now I can reasonably believe that had I played a class that was good at the very least the combat would have been marginally more exciting for me, but bottom line "Mother May I?" is the only way I get my campfire lit.

[Mystic Mongol]

The story (as I'm sure I will be corrected on shortly) is that Mr. Trollman set about showing how shallow 4e classes were by making a complete, balanced 4e class, from level 1 through 30, in two days. And indeed, there is now a Baneguard class, with full complement of powers, written out in more or less the 4e format.

I'll save you a length analasys, but everything about that class is terrible. It's powers lack theme, and seem to fill every role. It has a marking mechanic which literally never activates. It shows no understanding of the relative power of other classes... for example, fighters, the fightiest class, can get a +1 to hit with all attacks. The baneguard can get a +charisma bonus to hit all marked targets, which would be overwhelmingly good because charisma can be the bane guard's primary stat, except that as I said, the marking mechanic never triggers. The effects of the powers are just madness, it gains at will powers as it level basically at random, and the relative effectiveness of these powers is inconsistant even at the same level band. Level 29, for example, features a power that literally instantly petrifies one target as an at will... or you could take the power that requires two hit rolls to do less damage than a basic attack from a fighter.

But best of all are the downright magical power descriptions. They are the gift that keeps on giving.

WICKED GLARE
You stare at an enemy so hard they turn to stone.

DOOM STRIKE
You crush your opponent. With doom.

AMOK
With little concern for your safety, you run around stabbing things.

STAMP OF DISPAIR
You stomp your foot and your opponent's hopes are crushed.

I've read other things Trollman's written, I know he can do better... so I have to think he made these hilariously tragic powers on purpose. Or maybe, just maybe, making a balanced, internally consistent, functional class that fills a unique combat position without stepping on the toes of any other class including dozens of powers takes more than two days.

We don't hate Trollman. How could we hate the man who wrote, "You drawn an opponent to you and cut them down mid air"? But we do make fun of him, bunches.

[Books]

Now Let me tell you a story of a paladin who had holy strike. An ability that ignites his weapon in a holy flame. He could not light his campfire with his holy flame, he could not light his way in a dark tunnel with his flame, he could however use it as a signal flare if and only if he was smashing stuff with it... But this isn't the end of his sad story. Because later he would get a utility power. But oh which should he get? The one that gave him a+4 to diplomacy (which was a skill he didn't invest in)the one that gives him a +1 bonus he didn't care about, or the ability to take damage for an ally all only fucking usable once a day... He failed a skill challenge for the group because Intimidate automatically causes failure in certain diplomatic situations and that was the only social skill he invested in and he HAD to participate. This is skipping over the uninteresting combat because I also soloed an otyugh while drowning for 10 rounds before the group finished off the rest of the encounter and came for me.

Now I can reasonably believe that had I played a class that was good at the very least the combat would have been marginally more exciting for me, but bottom line "Mother May I?" is the only way I get my campfire lit.

Campfire "problem" is the result of poor imagination (or, more likely, willful obtuseness) on your part, your DM runs skill challenges poorly, and you don't seem to understand how Defenders work.

Maybe checkers is more your speed.

[Mystic Mongol]

Holy crap... there are more of them!

How rude. I haven't even brought out my radical beliefs.

Now Let me tell you a story of a paladin who had holy strike. An ability that ignites his weapon in a holy flame. He could not light his campfire with his holy flame, he could not light his way in a dark tunnel with his flame, he could however use it as a signal flare if and only if he was smashing stuff with it... But this isn't the end of his sad story.\

It's about as far as I feel like reading, because when you drop forty issues all at once addressing all of them just becomes frustrating and pointless. Do you mind that I chose this one to address? I swear, I only went for it because it was first.

No, there are no rules for using the paladin's ability to create a burst of radiant flame for setting things ablaze, or illuminating darkened corridors. I suppose the rules could have little indexed tables explaining the precise effects of every power in the game, but that would be tedious and take up pages and pages and pages of largely identical text saying, 'this radiant power, like every other radiant power, emits light. It can be used to damage objects. It is holy in nature, and lowers the property value of abyss real estate according to chart 39, escrow.'

What it has instead is a section on the DM guide, which I will now paraphrase. "What should I do if my players use a power in an unexpected way?" "Roll with it, use your best judgement." That's all there is because that's all there needs to be! And if you were ever in a game with a dungeon master who doesn't let you illuminate something with your flaming sword because the number of lumens it emits wasn't defined in the statblock, you had a really terrible DM.

But somehow? I suspect this story of a sad paladin isn't a story of a real event, but a crafted parable trotted out to complain about a system which you never gave a fair try.

[Darwinism]

Holy crap... there are more of them!

but first straight to my point because I've been waiting for someone to challenge me on the "I can't use my powers out of battle" thing.

Just gonna focus on this because.... what? Powers work fine outside of combat. Christ, there are powers specifically focused on out of combat uses and many powers, like those including teleportation or flying, have tons of uses outside of combat. If you're not interacting with the world that's not the game's fault at all. It's either you believing you can't or your GM not actually moderating the game by the rules.

Now Let me tell you a story of a paladin who had holy strike. An ability that ignites his weapon in a holy flame. He could not light his campfire with his holy flame, he could not light his way in a dark tunnel with his flame, he could however use it as a signal flare if and only if he was smashing stuff with it... But this isn't the end of his sad story. Because later he would get a utility power. But oh which should he get? The one that gave him a+4 to diplomacy (which was a skill he didn't invest in)the one that gives him a +1 bonus he didn't care about, or the ability to take damage for an ally all only fucking usable once a day... He failed a skill challenge for the group because Intimidate automatically causes failure in certain diplomatic situations and that was the only social skill he invested in and he HAD to participate. This is skipping over the uninteresting combat because I also soloed an otyugh while drowning for 10 rounds before the group finished off the rest of the encounter and came for me.

Now I can reasonably believe that had I played a class that was good at the very least the combat would have been marginally more exciting for me, but bottom line "Mother May I?" is the only way I get my campfire lit.

So wait why was a Paladin intimidating things? Also it really sounds like you someone (wink wink!) played that paladin really stupid! Why should holy radiant power start a fire or provide any sort of light without a specific prayer to your deity to which the deity would respond, "Instead of relying on me why don't you light a fucking torch?" Oh and you never have to participate in a skill challenge, it's up to the player. But I don't blame you the stupid player controlling the Paladin for not knowing that! It's just right there in the rules, not like those are important or anything you can bypass them and just judge the system.

But then I guess you can always blame the system for making you ask the DM if your god will light a fire for you instead of breaking out flint and steel, that makes perfect sense to me.

[LR]

We don't hate Trollman. How could we hate the man who wrote, "You drawn an opponent to you and cut them down mid air"? But we do make fun of him, bunches.

I wonder what you guys think of the War-Warrior.

Now, if you insist on focusing out of combat, well that depends on the fighter in question. Mine collects incredibly elaborate uniforms and talks about how quaint his surroundings are, but if you want a fighter who's a little less... how, do I put this... flamingly gay, give him ritual caster and let him handle the party's ritual needs. Or you could pick up Cloak of Shadows, make him a thief multiclass and give him the thievery skill. In fact, a 4e fighter can fill ANY out of combat role, from combat medic to artesian baker, and that's pretty great.

Okay, but what are your character's goals, and how do his abilities help him achieve those goals?

Edit:

No, there are no rules for using the paladin's ability to create a burst of radiant flame for setting things ablaze, or illuminating darkened corridors. I suppose the rules could have little indexed tables explaining the precise effects of every power in the game, but that would be tedious and take up pages and pages and pages of largely identical text saying, 'this radiant power, like every other radiant power, emits light. It can be used to damage objects. It is holy in nature, and lowers the property value of abyss real estate according to chart 39, escrow.'

Alternatively, they could have just updated the 3e Breaking and Entering rules, which are a page long and tell you everything you need to know about how to handle swords and sorcery meeting scenery and give you useful guidelines for cases such as flammable objects.

[Orion]

And Darwinism instantly disproves Mystic's defense. Mystic says: There's no need for any *rules* about what powers do out of combat, even basic stuff like whether radiant damage illuminates a room or fire powers ignite combustibles. Obviously any DM will realize that you can light a fire with a flaming sword.

Darwinism says: Why should your DM let you light a fire with your flaming sword?

So Mystic, given that Darwinism exists... would you like to reconsider your "no rules" position?

[Books]

And Darwinism instantly disproves Mystic's defense. Mystic says: There's no need for any *rules* about what powers do out of combat, even basic stuff like whether radiant damage illuminates a room or fire powers ignite combustibles. Obviously any DM will realize that you can light a fire with a flaming sword.

Darwinism says: Why should your DM let you light a fire with your flaming sword?

So Mystic, given that Darwinism exists... would you like to reconsider your "no rules" position?

"Does the system have to hold your hand? Do whatever works."
"Does your god have to hold your hand? Your question is stupid."

Yeah, entirely incompatible. Looks like you've managed to trip up these trolls, Duke Orion.

[Piell]

And Darwinism instantly disproves Mystic's defense. Mystic says: There's no need for any *rules* about what powers do out of combat, even basic stuff like whether radiant damage illuminates a room or fire powers ignite combustibles. Obviously any DM will realize that you can light a fire with a flaming sword.

Darwinism says: Why should your DM let you light a fire with your flaming sword?

So Mystic, given that Darwinism exists... would you like to reconsider your "no rules" position?

A) Holy Strike doesn't even claim to be flame - the flavor text just says holy light and the power does radiant damage. Thus, Darwinism is correct that a holy light probably wouldn't set something on fire.

B) If you did, for example, have a power that did fire damage, then following the DMG guidelines and deciding that it can light a fire makes sense, so Mystic Mongol is right.

As to the point about not being able to use it as a flashlight out of combat, the point of the power is that you are calling upon your god to help you smash something!

[Mystic Mongol]

And Darwinism instantly disproves Mystic's defense. Mystic says: There's no need for any *rules* about what powers do out of combat, even basic stuff like whether radiant damage illuminates a room or fire powers ignite combustibles. Obviously any DM will realize that you can light a fire with a flaming sword.

Darwinism says: Why should your DM let you light a fire with your flaming sword?

So Mystic, given that Darwinism exists... would you like to reconsider your "no rules" position?

No, and I'll even tell you why.

Ultimately, role playing is a form of expression, guided primarily by the dungeon master. Ultimately he defines the world's rules and primary assumptions. Different DMs run things differently, hopefully making concessions to the player's expectations. Communication is important in this, as is compromise, and the entire endevor is an exercise in collaborative storytelling!

God, doesn't that phrase make you want to vomit?

Anyway, the long and the sort of it is, having a big hash table indicating exactly which fire and radiant powers, items, and racial abilities can ignite which kinds of flammable objects doesn't actually help define a world, it just gives number fetishists something to wank over. And if that's what you're into... well, not only is GURPS much better at it, but every edition of D&D is pretty terrible as a physics simulator.

Besides, I tend to reskin my paladins into corrosive lizardman alchemists, and thus even if the big list of powers existed, it wouldn't be any help to me.

Okay, but what are your character's goals, and how do his abilities help him achieve those goals?

He's on tour in the prime material plane, taking in the sights. Whenever he calls something quaint, it reinforces how much better the Feywild is than wherever he happens to be. His elaborate, ever-changing wardrobe serves to remind all the humans he meets how plebian they are, and he subtly suggests that they should go back to whatever turnip farming business they were up to before he arrived.

[LR]

"Does the system have to hold your hand? Do whatever works."
"Does your god have to hold your hand? Your question is stupid."

Yeah, entirely incompatible. Looks like you've managed to trip up these trolls, Duke Orion.

Good to know. When a player asks me what happens when they swing their sword, I'll just tell them whatever I feel like. Do they expect the game to hold their hand or something?

He's on tour in the prime material plane, taking in the sights. Whenever he calls something quaint, it reinforces how much better the Feywild is than wherever he happens to be. His elaborate, ever-changing wardrobe serves to remind all the humans he meets how plebian they are, and he subtly suggests that they should go back to whatever turnip farming business they were up to before he arrived.

Okay, but what does he plan on accomplishing in his adventures? What are your character's hopes and dreams? Is he already wealthy or powerful? If so, why is he adventuring?

[FatR]

Oooh, I know that one! Fighters get interesting powers and play a vital role in controlling the battlefield that can't simply be replaced by a summon. When a fighter crushes his way through the front line scattering his opponents like chaff to mark and base the enemy artillery, suddenly that archer has very few options, and all of them are wrong. Plus, literally this week my fighter kicked a titan in the stomach, grabbed it by the throat, and slammed it head-first into the ground.

Unapologetically awesome.

That's a cool system. Mind pointing us to it? I bet it will totally kick 4E ass.

Now, if you insist on focusing out of combat, well that depends on the fighter in question. Mine collects incredibly elaborate uniforms and talks about how quaint his surroundings are, but if you want a fighter who's a little less... how, do I put this... flamingly gay, give him ritual caster and let him handle the party's ritual needs. Or you could pick up Cloak of Shadows, make him a thief multiclass and give him the thievery skill. In fact, a 4e fighter can fill ANY out of combat role, from combat medic to artesian baker, and that's pretty great.

Out-of-combat parts are fucking mundane and boring, though. But as 4E has the same problem...

[Vnonymous]

Wow, this is like going back in time to when 4e first came out and people were shitting all over it in the reviews. I can't wait to see "Skill challenges have math that just works" and "You're just upset because your wizard doesn't rule the entire game anymore".

I guess we're going to see "Well I'M having fun with it so you're obviously an idiot who doesn't want other people to have fun, nor can you understand how amazing this game is." pop up soon too.

[Books]

Good to know. When a player asks me what happens when they swing their sword, I'll just tell them whatever I feel like. Do they expect the game to hold their hand or something?

Yes, do exactly this as far as fluff goes. Does the as-written fluff say "you bisect your enemy" or whatever? Who cares, say the character hit them with the flat of the blade so hard their eyes popped out.

The very simple point, since you seem to be purposefully failing to grasp it, is that rules aren't needed for fluff bullshit that a DM can give an answer for without more then two seconds' thought. Lighting something on fire is fluff bullshit because it's mundane and boring and I guarantee everyone else in your game group cannot wait for you to shut up about how clever you are with how you're making charcoal out of the dungeon's floorboards.

The funny thing is, I really like 3.5/earlier for different kinds of games. Every tool for the right job. It's obsessively detailed for Oregon Trail-style games and can be a lot of fun to have a "let's get drunk and make overpowered characters" one-shot. Honestly I just like seeing what facile argument you folks are going to pull out next.

[Mystic Mongol]

Okay, but what does he plan on accomplishing in his adventures? What are your character's hopes and dreams? Is he already wealthy or powerful? If so, why is he adventuring?

Although of noble birth, he is not particularly wealthy himself. Although he would not admit it in front of the lowly humans, Eladrin court is a pretty horrible place, full of casual cruelty and bitter, endless feuding. His adventuring career is basically an extended walkabout... a few years away from his relatives and social peers, whom he can't stand. Still, his upbringing makes him very different from everyone in the prime, and internal rationalization demands he believe himself better than everyone who isn't noble--if he didn't, his painful life would not have an upside, making him a victim. And he is no victim!

I'm.... not sure what this has to do with what edition he's played in? I could have run him pretty much the same in 3rd edition, except I'd need a wizard to ferry him back and forth across the planar gap and he'd be pretty shit in a fight.

[FatR]

Derp.

I do love how 95% your "counterargument" entirely boils down to arguing semantics. Perhaps you've suffered too much brain damage from being skullfucked by 4E team to realize that picking on meaning of words, when you admitted yourself that you understand perfectly what the other side means by those words, is nothing more than admission of lacking anything better to say.

It works and draws largely on works of fiction for inspirations behind the powers players use. Why does it all of a sudden become unbelievable when you don't like the system it's a part of?

It doesn't, you 4on. It is just competely small-time, and insignificant and boring. And has jack-shit to do with actual "works of fiction" too. Well, except in still observing the theme of "Amazing Wizardman and his mundane sidekicks".

Also, I know you like to claim that causality is negated, somehow,

Not "somehow". By the world being rubber-band by design. And by non-combat parts not fucking working in reality as well.

[Mystic Mongol]

I do love how 95% your "counterargument" entirely boils down to arguing semantics.

Semantics are important.

A day without semantics is like a horse's head afloat in vacuum.

[LR]

The funny thing is, I really like 3.5/earlier for different kinds of games. Every tool for the right job. It's obsessively detailed for Oregon Trail-style games and can be a lot of fun to have a "let's get drunk and make overpowered characters" one-shot. Honestly I just like seeing what facile argument you folks are going to pull out next.

This has been discussed in the past. I want to know why 4e non-combat is locked on easy mode even though a game could easily support both playstyles. Also why the Diablo magic item economy exists in a world with easy mode logistics.

Although of noble birth, he is not particularly wealthy himself. Although he would not admit it in front of the lowly humans, Eladrin court is a pretty horrible place, full of casual cruelty and bitter, endless feuding. His adventuring career is basically an extended walkabout... a few years away from his relatives and social peers, whom he can't stand. Still, his upbringing makes him very different from everyone in the prime, and internal rationalization demands he believe himself better than everyone who isn't noble--if he didn't, his painful life would not have an upside, making him a victim. And he is no victim!

I'm.... not sure what this has to do with what edition he's played in? I could have run him pretty much the same in 3rd edition, except I'd need a wizard to ferry him back and forth across the planar gap and he'd be pretty shit in a fight.

I think we have very different playstyles, then. I always have a long-term goal for my characters, and 3e makes it easier to achieve those goals because it has a well-defined game world.

[Mystic Mongol]

I think we have very different playstyles, then. I always have a long-term goal for my characters, and 3e makes it easier to achieve those goals because it has a well-defined game world.

Well, now I'm curious. What type of goal is typical for one of your characters?

If it's helpful, I've also played a rail baron (granted land rights for all land within a quarter mile of track he laid in the shadow marshes) who wanted to found a large, profitable empire upon the backs of the humanoid races, a evil bard who regularly fought with Sting and his police while trying to throw the biggest rock performance ever, and an airship captain who's objective was mostly to get drunk. I'm not sure how Eberron is less defined in 4e, but I'm interested in hearing which locations, characters, and plotlines are no longer canon.

[FatR]

Ultimately, role playing is a form of expression, guided primarily by the dungeon master. Ultimately he defines the world's rules and primary assumptions. Different DMs run things differently, hopefully making concessions to the player's expectations.

The whole point of playing a published system - particularly a rules-heaby system - is avoiding this. Is being a proponent of 4E requires sacrificing one's brain to Ctulhu, or something?