The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

[Darwinism]

Novembermike: I think you're completely wrong. In a video game, the only things that work are things that were programmed in to work. So the "DM" (the game designer) has decided: "I'll give them the macguffin if they bring the X back from the Cave of Horrors." And then you go do that, and then the DM decides to give you the macguffin.

In an open-world game the players can decided to do any number of things. But a game where anything they decide to try works is dumb, because it doesn't matter what decisions they make--so if any approach I use to getting the macguffin will work, it's not a game.

On the other hand, you could say nothing works except things the DM decides works. But then we're back in a video game.

Or you could say that things work if the DM decides they should work. But then the game you're playing is "psychoanalyze your DM," and has very little to do with the actual fantasy world you're supposed to be doing.

Or you could give the DM some objective rules for determining whether something the players do work or not.

Wait are we still talking about 4E here because it has all that

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

So now we're getting to the problem of the level treadmill where convincing the king to stop taxing the peasants to death never gets any easier.

This is so disingenuous. At heroic tier that's a good challenge for the players. At paragon tier you're asking the king to agree to a peace treaty with a country they've been at war with since before the king was born. At epic, you're asking the king to step down and offering nothing but a small trinket in return. That there are DCs for higher levels doesn't mean that that particular task is harder, a more level appropriate task is harder.

[lighttigersoul]

So now we're getting to the problem of the level treadmill where convincing the king to stop taxing the peasants to death never gets any easier.

The level treadmill where it clearly says by the time you're paragon tier kings treat you with the same deference as another king, and by epic you're running around talking to gods and planar players?

If you're convincing the king through gentle negotiation in epic tier, something has gone terribly wrong with your game.

[Prak]

So now we're getting to the problem of the level treadmill where convincing the king to stop taxing the peasants to death never gets any easier.

The level treadmill where it clearly says by the time you're paragon tier kings treat you with the same deference as another king, and by epic you're running around talking to gods and planar players?

If you're convincing the king through gentle negotiation in epic tier, something has gone terribly wrong with your game.

...or your character isn't an unstable little shit minded stabby smurf...

[lighttigersoul]

...or your character isn't an unstable little shit minded stabby smurf...

So the mayor should treat the head of the local vagrant gang with the same deference as the governor or the President?

[Kaelik]

So yeah, this goes too fast for me to keep up with direct quoting:

So:

1) Metagaming, no it's not. It's not metagaming to know about the wall of stone spell, because it's a DC 20 spellcraft check to know what the wall of stone spell does, it's in the rules. It's a DC 25 spellcraft check to see a wall of stone and know that someone actually made that wall with the spell wall of stone.

2) Yes, having rules for making things is good. And if there aren't any rules for making something with magic, it can't be made with magic in my games, because that's the whole point of playing a game with a complete ruleset that the players can actually know things about the world.

3) If you have any questions you feel aren't answered, please post them again, because I can't go back through two pages of this.

The great advantage is that, unlike previous editions, 4th at least MADE AN ATTEMPT to create non-combat encounters with rules for helping advance characters without killing mobs, something 3rd edition doesn't have at all and many games either ignore it, or focus completely on it.

This is false, 3.5 already has rules that allow for non combat advancing characters, and it actually has better rules for non combat actions in general, by which I mean "Any at all."

The fact that the combat is better balanced, smoother, and easier for players to actually run makes it better for the combat section than 3.5.

First of, 4e combat is not easier to players, or better balanced, and I'm not sure what you mean by smoother, but it probably wasn't that either. Secondly, it is irredeemably boring, and fun is more important than other things.

[LR]

So now we're getting to the problem of the level treadmill where convincing the king to stop taxing the peasants to death never gets any easier.

The level treadmill where it clearly says by the time you're paragon tier kings treat you with the same deference as another king, and by epic you're running around talking to gods and planar players?

If you're convincing the king through gentle negotiation in epic tier, something has gone terribly wrong with your game.

The MC is never given real examples of how easy or hard a task is. If you're supposed to use a hard and fast rule except "when the MC doesn't feel like it", then your system has given you no information other than the rule. That rule says to put people on the level treadmill. "You can magic tea party it" is not an argument, especially in a game where the Green Arrow is supposed to fight Darkseid and Sinestro.

[jadagul]

Lighttigersoul: first of all, whether 4e does this is a very different discussion from whether this is a good thing; so far I've mainly been arguing with the people (actual people, like Novembermike, who've actually posted in this thread making these arguments) that this is something the game shouldn't do.

Now, I'll still claim that 4e doesn't have a very good system for this because it doesn't have objective DCs--if my players encounter a troll warband and want to talk them into opening a trade route instead, I have no way of determining the DC for this. There are no rules for evaluating how hard it should be to jump a 25 foot canyon with a running start. The rules say I should decide whether a task is easy or hard and set a DC accordingly, but I want the rules to tell me whether a task is easy or hard, by giving me a DC which will then be either easy or hard for the characters considering the task.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

First of, 4e combat is not easier to players, or better balanced, and I'm not sure what you mean by smoother, but it probably wasn't that either. Secondly, it is irredeemably boring, and fun is more important than other things.

What metrics are you using?

There are no rules for evaluating how hard it should be to jump a 25 foot canyon with a running start.

Page 182-3

[Psychic Robot]

This is just getting confusing. Too many people talking over one another.

[Darwinism]

1) Metagaming, no it's not. It's not metagaming to know about the wall of stone spell, because it's a DC 20 spellcraft check to know what the wall of stone spell does, it's in the rules. It's a DC 25 spellcraft check to see a wall of stone and know that someone actually made that wall with the spell wall of stone.

Just gonna address this one; it is metagaming.

Not because he knows the mechanics of the spell. Because he, as a player, has decided that Wall of Stone is obviously the spell being used and extrapolates power of the caster from there. Then he makes some long-winded explanation about how his character would obviously know this, even though he's only justifying the metagaming.

Not metagaming would be him rolling Spellcraft to see if he knows of any spells that might be able to pull off similar results and then saying, "Wow that is a lot more powerful/a lot weaker than me but I can't quantify it in a strict linear progression table because those things don't actually exist!"

[Kaelik]

Just gonna address this one; it is metagaming.

Not because he knows the mechanics of the spell. Because he, as a player, has decided that Wall of Stone is obviously the spell being used and extrapolates power of the caster from there. Then he makes some long-winded explanation about how his character would obviously know this, even though he's only justifying the metagaming.

Not metagaming would be him rolling Spellcraft to see if he knows of any spells that might be able to pull off similar results and then saying, "Wow that is a lot more powerful/a lot weaker than me but I can't quantify it in a strict linear progression table because those things don't actually exist!"

Um.... No. First of all, he only knows it's Wall of Stone because I told him first, so he's not an example of anything. He only has knowledge that it was created by wall of stone because I said it.

If he had a Wizard character of level 9, the level I start that campaign/segment at, he would of course not be told in advance that it was wall of stone, but he Wizard would have a 100% chance of knowing the spell wall of stone exists, and knowing exactly what it does, because skill rolls don't critically fail. Since this is the case, and his character knows both that Wall of Stone exists, and that the tower popped up over night, any extrapolation he makes about the likely causes of the tower being wall of stone would be entirely based on character knowledge. Hence, not metagaming.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

First of, 4e combat is not easier to players, or better balanced, and I'm not sure what you mean by smoother, but it probably wasn't that either. Secondly, it is irredeemably boring, and fun is more important than other things.

It's easier, faster and better all around. 3.X was all about who could get the instant win spell off first.

[Kaelik]

First of, 4e combat is not easier to players, or better balanced, and I'm not sure what you mean by smoother, but it probably wasn't that either. Secondly, it is irredeemably boring, and fun is more important than other things.

What metrics are you using?

Um... for what?

Balance? It's not more balanced, because it's just as balanced, in that some builds are obscenely broken, and some builds instantly win the game without trying, and other builds are tragically terrible, and all sorts of builds are actively worse for being in a party with other builds. That's pretty similar. I mean, I guess if you fap to Pun Pun or Wish/Gate cheese, 4e seems more balanced, because even the super broken characters are only invulnerable and boring, instead of absurdly deadly.

And easier for combat... In 3e you have spells, you cast spells, or you have other stuff to do it, and it's cool whatever. In 4e, you have to keep track of tons of tiny bullshit bonuses, and arbitrary stupid powers. I mean yeah, it's easy to win, because you just make a build that wins, or a party that does, or you play a Cleric and pick the right daily, but whatever, it's still tons of boring accounting and meaningless decisions that takes forever to actually do combat.

I mean, I agree that 3e is harder in the sense that your decisions actually matter, so it's possible to choose wrong, and you might actually lose, but that's not what I think most people mean by easier combat.

First of, 4e combat is not easier to players, or better balanced, and I'm not sure what you mean by smoother, but it probably wasn't that either. Secondly, it is irredeemably boring, and fun is more important than other things.

It's easier, faster and better all around. 3.X was all about who could get the instant win spell off first.

Um... I guess you never played 3e?

[Doom]

Holy gawd, no. I'll qualify this with "combat past 10th level" and "before the changes that made the MM worthless":

4e combat is miserably complicated, requires extensive play aids (battle map, miniatures, marker, initiative chart, status effect markers, marking tokens, power cards that must be consulted with near every use, and I'm sure I've missed a few things), is often unbalanced to the point of irrelevance, basic fights took 2 hours by design, and any fight that WAS challenging too a LONG time (2.5 hours or more).

[Kaelik]

Holy gawd, no. I'll qualify this with "combat past 10th level" and "before the changes that made the MM worthless":

Not sure about said MM changes, having not played for some time, but yes, at low levels, it's just boring, instead of boring and tedious.

[Darwinism]

4e combat is miserably complicated, requires extensive play aids (battle map, miniatures, marker, initiative chart, status effect markers, marking tokens, power cards that must be consulted with near every use, and I'm sure I've missed a few things), is often unbalanced to the point of irrelevance, basic fights took 2 hours by design, and any fight that WAS challenging too a LONG time (2.5 hours or more).

Actually none of those 'required' play aids are required at all; they just make the entire thing easier to keep track of. It's extremely well balanced unless you have a party actively built around trying to break the system in which case grats you can do that in any P&P good job you have a really big e-penis, and large fights can take around two hours but uh I played 2E and 3E too and any fight that wasn't against a stupidly small amount of enemies took roughly the same amount of time only instead of everyone looking at their powers it was the Fighter full-round attacking and then the Wizard taking up the rest of the time trying to find the right templates to apply to the base stats so he could use that Dire Badger he just summoned.

[Darwinism]

One thing I notice; how come people attacking 4E never actually provide any support for their idiotic claims like, "classes are imbalanced to the point of irrelevance," or such but any positive support is rapidly met with, "BUT CAN YOU PROVE IT?"

Burden of proof? PSHAW 4E IS THE WORSTEST WORST GAME EVER I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE BECAUSE PAGE 1 DID THE SAME THING LOOK AT IT!

[DragonChild]

One thing I notice; how come people attacking 4E never actually provide any support for their idiotic claims like, "classes are imbalanced to the point of irrelevance," or such but any positive support is rapidly met with, "BUT CAN YOU PROVE IT?"

Burden of proof? PSHAW 4E IS THE WORSTEST WORST GAME EVER I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE BECAUSE PAGE 1 DID THE SAME THING LOOK AT IT!

There is a 47 page thread that you have obviously not read (because you won't read the fucking POSTS you respond to) specifically to avoid having to rehash things over and over. Fuck, the LAST time a 4e person came in here, he claimed that "hundreds of thousands" sounded more impressive than "millions". That was basically the tipping point that made it so nobody wanted to waste their time rehashing the same shit over and over. Read the thread, respond to specifics in it, or don't blame us for not having arguments. Because it's there, you're posting in it, just choosing to ignore it.

[Darwinism]

One thing I notice; how come people attacking 4E never actually provide any support for their idiotic claims like, "classes are imbalanced to the point of irrelevance," or such but any positive support is rapidly met with, "BUT CAN YOU PROVE IT?"

Burden of proof? PSHAW 4E IS THE WORSTEST WORST GAME EVER I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE BECAUSE PAGE 1 DID THE SAME THING LOOK AT IT!

There is a 47 page thread that you have obviously not read (because you won't read the fucking POSTS you respond to) specifically to avoid having to rehash things over and over. Fuck, the LAST time a 4e person came in here, he claimed that "hundreds of thousands" sounded more impressive than "millions". That was basically the tipping point that made it so nobody wanted to waste their time rehashing the same shit over and over. Read the thread, respond to specifics in it, or don't blame us for not having arguments. Because it's there, you're posting in it, just choosing to ignore it.

Yeah I've read them and all of the examples that give any sort of evidence are shit like the table that 'proves' 4E wealth is fucked by assuming everyone sells every item they get at 20%, or Frank Trollman claiming there are no rules for breaking doors, or something equally stupid.

[Piell]

First of, 4e combat is not easier to players, or better balanced, and I'm not sure what you mean by smoother, but it probably wasn't that either. Secondly, it is irredeemably boring, and fun is more important than other things.

What metrics are you using?

Um... for what?

Balance? It's not more balanced, because it's just as balanced, in that some builds are obscenely broken, and some builds instantly win the game without trying, and other builds are tragically terrible, and all sorts of builds are actively worse for being in a party with other builds. That's pretty similar. I mean, I guess if you fap to Pun Pun or Wish/Gate cheese, 4e seems more balanced, because even the super broken characters are only invulnerable and boring, instead of absurdly deadly.

And easier for combat... In 3e you have spells, you cast spells, or you have other stuff to do it, and it's cool whatever. In 4e, you have to keep track of tons of tiny bullshit bonuses, and arbitrary stupid powers. I mean yeah, it's easy to win, because you just make a build that wins, or a party that does, or you play a Cleric and pick the right daily, but whatever, it's still tons of boring accounting and meaningless decisions that takes forever to actually do combat.

I mean, I agree that 3e is harder in the sense that your decisions actually matter, so it's possible to choose wrong, and you might actually lose, but that's not what I think most people mean by easier combat.

First of, 4e combat is not easier to players, or better balanced, and I'm not sure what you mean by smoother, but it probably wasn't that either. Secondly, it is irredeemably boring, and fun is more important than other things.

It's easier, faster and better all around. 3.X was all about who could get the instant win spell off first.

Um... I guess you never played 3e?

Damn, not only do you not understand 4E, you don't understand 3.5. 3.5 was a ridiculous situation of stacking modifiers with random conditions and durations. Try fighting a bunch of spiders with strength draining spells and web abilities backed up a by a drow casting level drains and debuffs while your wizard hastes you and the cleric is counterbuffing. That's a nightmare of modifiers constantly changing.

Also 3.5 is full of spells that are commonly known as Save or Die, perhaps you have heard of them. Sleep and Glitterdust are basically instant wins at low level for example, or Dominate Person, Hold Monster, and Flesh to Stone at mid levels.

[Vnonymous]

Piell, its' obvious from your comment about low level save or dies that you haven't played low level 3.5 At low levels "I hit it with my sword" is a fucking save or die, and the enemy doesn't even get to roll anything! A first level wizard casting a first level spell is looking at like DC 15 for the saves to avoid it, and depending on the enemy that save can be made at pretty much the same rate that enemies survive the "get hit with a greatsword" save or die. Save or dies aren't even a particularly big problem - the balance problem comes from spells like Major Image and the like that allow Wizards to do awesome shit both in and out of combat.

Something that a lot of the 4e people seem to have missed, by the way, is the reason why we like monsters to have stats outside of combat. Sure, the rules construct that is the fire giant doesn't exist until the players start interacting with her, but fighting isn't all the interacting that they can do! When the pcs get asked to recover an important ancestral item from the kobold warrens that the Giants can't get into, or to help recover the harpie matriarch's eggs from drow raiders, the abilities of those creatures outside of combat actually matter. One of the reasons people liked 3.5 was because when you negotiate with the Fire Giants and get their help, you actually know what that help is.

Now, the dm can of course just make this up on the spot, but that's bullshit. Firstly, it causes the game to just stop happening for a while as the dm works it out, and secondly it becomes a lot easier for things to become inconsistent. DMs are people too, not computers, so the DM might not remember that the hill giant from 7 levels ago managed to smash their way into a kobold warren, but it only takes one of the players to remember this for the story to come to a screeching halt. Monsters need to be able to interact with the rest of the world the same way that players do, because fighting and dying isn't all that they do, even when in the section of the game that you admit that you need rules for. Getting the dm to just make this shit up on the spot is incredibly bad design for a game system, not to mention lazy. Maybe you all play nothing but murdering hobos, but monsters are a part of the world and should be capable of interacting with it, for when you decide to talk to them or hire them or help one side of monsters in a war or need some help with a specific condition that only a sage from 800 years ago can identify or w/e. Monsters need to be able to interact with the rest of the world for you to be playing a real game.

[Darwinism]

Piell, its' obvious from your comment about low level save or dies that you haven't played low level 3.5 At low levels "I hit it with my sword" is a fucking save or die, and the enemy doesn't even get to roll anything! A first level wizard casting a first level spell is looking at like DC 15 for the saves to avoid it, and depending on the enemy that save can be made at pretty much the same rate that enemies survive the "get hit with a greatsword" save or die. Save or dies aren't even a particularly big problem - the balance problem comes from spells like Major Image and the like that allow Wizards to do awesome shit both in and out of combat.

I agree with the second part of your post to a degree, I would like to see a bit more information about monsters, but it's not a gamebreaker for me at all. I don't really mind that not every aspect of every monster is painstakingly made up. It makes things easier in some cases but in other cases it's completely invalidated by setting.

So I'll just laugh at your first point. You're focusing on low-level combat, which is the only time a meatstick will be useful in 3.5E, because later on the Cleric will cast Divine Might and do just as well in melee while throwing around spells. And save-or-dies(or their best friend, save-or-lose) spells are a huge issue because of spells like Wail of the Banshee, Finger of Death, Polymorph, and Baleful Polymorph. Then let's get into spells that do stat damage. Like Ray of Stupidity, or PrCs like Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

So yeah at first level the Wizard needs to rely on his friends but rapidly outpaces them and eventually doesn't need them at all.

Balance at level 1-4 is not balance.


Oh and if finding out that your DM is human and can make mistakes regarding the setting is enough to bring anything to a screeching halt you're probably a douchebag. Just say, "Hey I thought you said X," politely and move on.

And do your DMs live in alternate universes devoid of planning and paper? Because that's the only way I can think that they'd be incapable of knowing what they did.

[Maxus]

Monsters need to be able to interact with the rest of the world for you to be playing a real game*.

*Apart from Murderous Hobos.

[Darwinism]

Monsters need to be able to interact with the rest of the world for you to be playing a real game*.

I think the funniest part of this quote and the entire, "4E is bad," viewpoint is there are always these statements that imply 4E isn't capable of doing something when there's no real logic that gets someone there.

What, exactly, prevents 4E monsters from being able to interact with the world? Because it's nothing. But making them interact with the world when there are no players around is pointless rolling when the DM can, and should, simply decide what he wants story hooks to be.

For example, would you, as a DM, plan out a battle consisting only of little monsters versus little townsfolk and play it out with yourself and jot down the results while your players left to find a good DM, or would you just tell them, "Hobgoblins attacked this village and were barely repelled, with heavy losses to the local militia."