The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

[Jilocasin]

Sooo, what's wrong with Simple Trick exactly?

[MGuy]

You know what I just figured out the question I need to ask, because I think I'm beginning to see how you guys are thinking about this. What exactly do you think a "Defender" should be doing?

[Piell]

It really seems like most of those are "as bad as official rules" types complaints, eh?

No, it's far worse than official rules.

Simple trick is bad because: It's a minor action, meaning it conflicts with the marking ability. Blinded (save ends) is probably too powerful for a minor action encounter. When combined with the save penalty, it's a permanent blind at high levels.

[lighttigersoul]

It really seems like most of those are "as bad as official rules" types complaints, eh?

No, it's far worse than official rules.

Simple trick is bad because: It's a minor action, meaning it conflicts with the marking ability. Blinded (save ends) is probably too powerful for a minor action encounter. When combined with the save penalty, it's a permanent blind at high levels.

Let's not forget it's a Con VS Will Weapon attack.

[Josh_Kablack]

You need a better word

Well I have to say that the current crop of [place insult here]s are the first people to have issues with that particular usage of verisimilitude since I proposed it 8 and a half years back

Does this mean we're insular on the Den? Or does it just mean that yinz newcomers is lookin' for things to getch yer panties in a twist about?

I don't care. IGNORES FOR EVERYONE!!!

[DragonChild]

Remember this was written when 4e "balance" included orbizards with a -12 save penalty throwing around a Burst 5, Ongoing Damage + stun (save ends), and the cleric's Righteous Brand hadn't been nerfed, and none of these had been changed after SEVERAL "patches". When BaneGuard was written, that was the balance standard. Save or dies not only existed, but were available in paragon in massive AOEs.

[Piell]

You know what I just figured out the question I need to ask, because I think I'm beginning to see how you guys are thinking about this. What exactly do you think a "Defender" should be doing?

Defenders should be able to defend their allies, usually by marking enemies in a way that encourages them to attack the defend over another weaker target (and from the attempted design, this is what the bane guard is trying to do as well). However, the bane guard doesn't really do this. The mark goes on someone near the bane guard, and then he gets -2 to hit to attack someone other than the bane guard. However, the special mark abilities then go off whether the enemy attacks the bane guard or not. From the power lists, it seems more controller or striker like, especially since enemies are freely able to ignore the mark. Most of the powers are either dropping strong controller abilities (stun, blind) or just do massive amounts of damage. Few of them contribute to pinning enemies down or making them want to attack the defender.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Who gives a shit about the Bane Guard? It's a fucking strawman (by the detractors) on top of an original strawman (Frank's original design). Just because FrankTrollman designed a class that's kind of naff doesn't suddenly invalidate all of his other points.

It's an ad hominem distraction and I don't appreciate you guys bringing it up in an attempt to derail the thread. Same goes for you morons trying to defend it.

At level 30, a fighter can take 10 to burst adamantine chains or force open an adamantine portcullis.

That information comes from the same table where you found the stone wall, I guess you must have overlooked it.

I didn't overlook it. I specifically chose the stone wall because it seemed like the most impressive example and because adamantine is a fictional metal with no real-world counterpart. You bringing this up is like me going 'Big deal, all Ben Grimm can do is benchpress a tank' and you going 'You forgot that the Thing can punch through an elephant and also bend an adamantium bar into a pretzel!'

That still doesn't change the overall point that the base chassis for supposedly super-strong badasses is barely more impressive than real world feats. Putting them firmly in VAH territory.

Against well-optimized players high level 4e deities actually don't have too much HP (ok, they used to not; maybe nerfs have seriously damaged the offensive ability I remember). They just can't put up a comparable offense despite having uber auto-daze, 50-square enemy teleports, minor action attacks, and shit (like demogorgon) because this isn't comparable to the PC's ability to just one round them.

And that is a severe imbalance in the game mechanics in that some parties can take out an epic-level solo before their third turn rolls around while other parties struggle to reach 120 DPR. The amount of whupass between, say, a Wizard / Ranger / Runepriest / Fighter / Warlord party and an Invoker / Shaman / Avenger / Warlock / Swordmage is gigantic.

Of course 4E is supposed to be balanced nao because the difficulty takes a sharp nosedive after heroic tier, so even unoptimized parties are invited to a game of laser tag and a pizza party after the big game. If the difficulty bar was set between 'unoptimized party' and 'optimized party' it'd be really that 4E didn't really fix the imbalance, they just don't make the loser configurations feel so bad about themselves anymore.

[Roxolan]

And it and the other Minor Encounter combine to give the Bane Guard a shitload of options for each action as early as level 1. If you think more options is never a bad thing, you've never played 4E epic. And this is a level 1 power, when newbies are still trying to figure out this "round" thing.

[Piell]

Remember this was written when 4e "balance" included orbizards with a -12 save penalty throwing around a Burst 5, Ongoing Damage + stun (save ends), and the cleric's Righteous Brand hadn't been nerfed, and none of these had been changed after SEVERAL "patches". When BaneGuard was written, that was the balance standard. Save or dies not only existed, but were available in paragon in massive AOEs.

Yes, and those were poorly designed then too. Luckily, they have been fixed. However, Trollman doesn't even seem to recognize that his powers are terrible and unbalanced.

[Doom]

So, you could just write "Baneguards don't get weapon proficiency bonus attacks when not attacking AC"...that would pretty much eliminate the issue, eh?

Are you sure stuff like Knockdown Shot doesn't exist in the main PHB?

Anyway, Lago's right...just because he never 'fixed' the Baneguard means nothing, his point was to show how little effort it takes to write a character class.

[MGuy]

It really seems like most of those are "as bad as official rules" types complaints, eh?

No, it's far worse than official rules.

Simple trick is bad because: It's a minor action, meaning it conflicts with the marking ability. Blinded (save ends) is probably too powerful for a minor action encounter. When combined with the save penalty, it's a permanent blind at high levels.

Let's not forget it's a Con VS Will Weapon attack.

Whether or not this means anything depends on how you envision the attack working. If he's poking something in the eyes than logic says it would go against Reflex but if he's using shadows to do some kind of mystical hubba bubba to your sight than Will fits... I can't acknowledge this as a credible complaint about the attack.

How does it being a minor action conflict with anything? You can "choose" to use this with other minors if you want? IIRC you can sacrifice your Move or standard to use another minor If that's what you wanna do.

[DragonChild]

Remember this was written when 4e "balance" included orbizards with a -12 save penalty throwing around a Burst 5, Ongoing Damage + stun (save ends), and the cleric's Righteous Brand hadn't been nerfed, and none of these had been changed after SEVERAL "patches". When BaneGuard was written, that was the balance standard. Save or dies not only existed, but were available in paragon in massive AOEs.

Yes, and those were poorly designed then too. Luckily, they have been fixed. However, Trollman doesn't even seem to recognize that his powers are terrible and unbalanced.

They're not unbalanced if they're written in line with the other powers in the game that people would be using, dumbass.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The defender role as-written is a piece of shit.

Defenders only work at all under three circumstances:

1) The DM is specifically humoring you by making the defender look useful by either placing most fights in narrow corriders or just having all of the bad guys inexplicably swarm the warden.

2) If you're such a juicy target that even though you're a stone wall you also have the highest DPR so monsters will want to take you out first anyway--which of course means that your class is overpowered.

3) If you're a defender that gives the base defending mechanic the finger and/or cobbles together your own ZoC with a bunch of frankenstein mechanics (Thunderglaive, Polearm Fighter-Warpriest, Hospitaler, etc.)

[Roxolan]

Let's not forget it's a Con VS Will Weapon attack.

Whether or not this means anything depends on how you envision the attack working. If he's poking something in the eyes than logic says it would go against Reflex but if he's using shadows to do some kind of mystical hubba bubba to your sight than Will fits... I can't acknowledge this as a credible complaint about the attack.

It's a balance complaint, not a flavor one.

[lighttigersoul]

4E didn't really fix the imbalance, they just don't make the loser configurations feel so bad about themselves anymore.

Most of that paragraph is pointless and rambling. This is partly true.

The imbalance isn't in individual classes, though, it's in party optimization. A cohesive party of strong players will make mincemeat of challenges of Level and Level+1. The problem is, that cohesion isn't based on taking V, W, X, Y, and Z class, it's taking groups of powers between all five members that work better together than separately.

Some classes aren't top notch, but even the worst ones can contribute effectively in a party. A huge improvement over previous versions of D&D (And other crunchy games.) where some builds just couldn't do what they're supposed to do, and others can do everything they're supposed to do and then everything everyone else can do.

[Piell]

The defender role as-written is a piece of shit.

Defenders only work at all under three circumstances:

1) The DM is specifically humoring you by making the defender look useful by either placing most fights in narrow corriders or just having all of the bad guys inexplicably swarm the warden.

2) If you're such a juicy target that even though you're a stone wall you also have the highest DPR so monsters will want to take you out first anyway--which of course means that your class is overpowered.

3) If you're a defender that gives the base defending mechanic the finger and/or cobbles together your own ZoC with a bunch of frankenstein mechanics (Thunderglaive, Polearm Fighter-Warpriest, Hospitaler, etc.)

Not really. The point of a good marking mechanic is that it makes enemies want to hit you - fighters and wardens get to hit you if you don't attack them, for example. If you don't attack the fighter/warden, he basically gets double damage, putting him heavily in striker level damage territory, and it works similarly for other strikers.

Secondarily, defenders should be hard to get away from. You can't shift away from a fighter without getting hit. You can try to run away from a swordmage, but he's just gonna teleport to you if you try to hit someone else.

[LR]

The defender role as-written is a piece of shit.

I don't think that they're going to understand unless you explain the actual power level of pre-4.E classes to them. They seem to be the type to play the game "as intended."

[Piell]

The defender role as-written is a piece of shit.

I don't think that they're going to understand unless you explain the actual power level of pre-4.E classes to them. They seem to be the type to play the game "as intended."

Bullshit, I've broken 3.5 just as much as anyone. I've played natural spell druids and conjuration specialized wizards, so the idea that somehow I just don't get it is you projecting your own failure at understanding game design on me.

[lighttigersoul]

Whether or not this means anything depends on how you envision the attack working. If he's poking something in the eyes than logic says it would go against Reflex but if he's using shadows to do some kind of mystical hubba bubba to your sight than Will fits... I can't acknowledge this as a credible complaint about the attack.

How does it being a minor action conflict with anything? You can "choose" to use this with other minors if you want? IIRC you can sacrifice your Move or standard to use another minor If that's what you wanna do.

The problem isn't the flavor, as Roxolan pointed out, the problem is it's a Melee Weapon attack, which receives a proficiency bonus on top of the other bonuses. While this isn't unheard of, it's not exactly something a Defender does.

The defender role as-written is a piece of shit.

Defenders only work at all under three circumstances:

1) The DM is specifically humoring you by making the defender look useful by either placing most fights in narrow corriders or just having all of the bad guys inexplicably swarm the warden.

2) If you're such a juicy target that even though you're a stone wall you also have the highest DPR so monsters will want to take you out first anyway--which of course means that your class is overpowered.

3) If you're a defender that gives the base defending mechanic the finger and/or cobbles together your own ZoC with a bunch of frankenstein mechanics (Thunderglaive, Polearm Fighter-Warpriest, Hospitaler, etc.)

The defender role is as effective as its punishing mechanic. In the case of the fighter, it's the ability to stop shifting and follow up attacking friendlies with his own OA. The Paladin does instant damage if his mark is ignored. The Swordmage can either obviate some damage, or teleport to the target and attack him as punishment. All of these, in addition to changing the numbers due to the Marked condition itself encourage the DM to choose to attack the defender over the other party members.

2 Applies specifically to Fighters, and they don't do 'the most damage' though they do significant amounts. They also have lower AC or mobility than other defenders, barring I think the Warden who gets controller abilities to supplement his shtick.

[Roxolan]

Remember this was written when 4e "balance" included orbizards with a -12 save penalty throwing around a Burst 5, Ongoing Damage + stun (save ends), and the cleric's Righteous Brand hadn't been nerfed, and none of these had been changed after SEVERAL "patches". When BaneGuard was written, that was the balance standard. Save or dies not only existed, but were available in paragon in massive AOEs.

Yep, at that time you could eventually become overpowered by min-maxing your wizard the proper way. With the Baneguard, you just need to take the wrong power. There's at least one per level. Starting at level 1.

And that's not even going into the numerous and major BG design issues that aren't balance-related.

[Lago PARANOIA]

it's taking groups of powers between all five members that work better together than separately.

Yes, a team designed to work together will aggravate the imbalance gap (radiant mafia anyone?) but the individual classes are imbalanced enough that even if the group isn't specifically optimized that it will happen all the same.

The difference between a Bravura Warlord and an INT/WIS Artificer is huge. Barbarians can throw out damage numbers that make monks cry. The wizard outclasses every other controller and looks good while doing it. The bow ranger will spank the pants off of a sorcerer. There was a brief period in the edition when the power gap in the edition was fairly reasonable (this period mostly happened between the first round of errata and the second) but asymmetric nerfs followed by blatant creator favoritism creates a power gap almost as bad as 3E's.

Some classes aren't top notch, but even the worst ones can contribute effectively in a party.

This is also not true. When you have an extended party size it also jacks up the difficulty because the DM has to add more monsters--this does not come with a consummate increase in average treasure or experience. If the new person isn't as good as their teammates, then they're jacking up the difficulty because they're reducing (or increasing, if the players are already worse than) the gap in effectiveness of the party and team monster. It's not just a matter of 'Yay, Timmy the Striker did 25 damage to the tarrasque OMG you're so helpful!'

Of course healing is so overpowered in 4E that it's almost impossible NOT to earn your bread as a leader. But a bad controller, striker, or defender artificially jacks up the difficulty. And of course if a leader is already a really good cureboy then adding a leader that doesn't add some other benefit (like a warlord) you're reducing the efficiency of healing surges and thus jacking up the difficulty.

Again the game is easy enough so that you don't notice but it happens all the same.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Not really. The point of a good marking mechanic is that it makes enemies want to hit you - fighters and wardens get to hit you if you don't attack them, for example. If you don't attack the fighter/warden, he basically gets double damage, putting him heavily in striker level damage territory, and it works similarly for other strikers.

The defender role is as effective as its punishing mechanic. In the case of the fighter, it's the ability to stop shifting and follow up attacking friendlies with his own OA. The Paladin does instant damage if his mark is ignored. The Swordmage can either obviate some damage, or teleport to the target and attack him as punishment. All of these, in addition to changing the numbers due to the Marked condition itself encourage the DM to choose to attack the defender over the other party members.

It's not effective because the health-damage asymmetry in 4E encourages monsters to completely ignore the defender and dogpile the squishiest-looking party member they can reach. Yes, some defenders are trickier to obviate than others (the Fighter) but there are ways around that (ready actions to charge past when the Fighter does something on their turn). The only reason why monsters don't do that is if the defender has some other trick to keep monsters from going past them, the defender is the juiciest target in of itself (like old-style tempest fighters), or the DM is humoring the defender.

This is exactly why low-level 4E is really lethal (well, it would be if healing wasn't so overpowered), especially for extended workdays. A melee-heavy monster party can turn even the defender into chunky salsa--which is also why CharOP guides for defenders tell you NOT to draw all of the heat.

[lighttigersoul]

This is also not true. When you have an extended party size it also jacks up the difficulty because the DM has to add more monsters--this does not come with a consummate increase in average treasure or experience.

False. There's an entire section of the DMG about how to scale treasure parcels based on size of party.

Beyond being false, your argument is 'if you play with more players than intended, the system doesn't work!'

Guess what, if you do a lot of things not as intended the system stops working. If you ignore the multiclassing rules, your players will break the game. If you use monsters of Level + 4 you're likely to break the game. Any time you move out of the intended and into the making shit up for the sake of it zone you might break the game.

If the new person isn't as good as their teammates, then they're jacking up the difficulty because they're reducing (or increasing, if the players are already worse than) the gap in effectiveness of the party and team monster. It's not just a matter of 'Yay, Timmy the Striker did 25 damage to the tarrasque OMG you're so helpful!'

They add an average of one monster to an encounter. Any class can cover that one monster they add. Some are more effective at it, like the Ranger, but any can do the job.

Of course healing is so overpowered in 4E that it's almost impossible NOT to earn your bread as a leader. But a bad controller, striker, or defender artificially jacks up the difficulty. And of course if a leader is already a really good cureboy then having a leader that doesn't add some other benefit (like a warlord) you're reducing the efficiency of healing surges and thus jacking up the difficulty.

Thankfully, only one class is amazingly good at just healing, and that's the cleric, every other leader has a different thing they're really good at. Or they heal in different ways.

Again the game is easy enough so that you don't notice but it happens all the same.

This goes back to the point of yes, an effective team against level and Level +1 encounters can steamroll. Thankfully, the rules have a section on advice on scaling up the difficulty for parties that need it.

[Roxolan]

Some classes aren't top notch, but even the worst ones can contribute effectively in a party.

This is also not true. When you have an extended party size it also jacks up the difficulty because the DM has to add more monsters--this does not come with a consummate increase in average treasure or experience. If the new person isn't as good as their teammates, then they're jacking up the difficulty because they're reducing (or increasing, if the players are already worse than) the gap in effectiveness of the party and team monster. It's not just a matter of 'Yay, Timmy the Striker did 25 damage to the tarrasque OMG you're so helpful!'

I don't think you understand what is meant by "contribute effectively in a party". It's not "make a group-size-appropriate encounter marginally easier". It's trivial that in any group, there will be characters below the group's average power level, so that interpretation is useless.

In 3E, even at low levels, a monk would quickly stop contributing effectively to the party because he does pitiful DPR and provides very little utility. At some point, you can skip his turn and not make the encounter take any longer. Eventually, all but the best built non-casters join him. This does not happen in 4E. (Well, maybe that could happen with the most crazy min-maxing group builds. Maybe.)