How much of the anti-4E sentiment is actually justified?

[PhoneLobster]

how does being intellectually dishonest feel

I dunno, instead of focusing on those things where you are wrong but you can wave your hands and shout like you are doing in an attempt to pretend you aren't, why don't you focusing on replying to me and Finkin?

1) This isn't just anecdotal, every bit of actual data available from sources up to and including WOTC is consitent with the smaller scale anecdotes and tells us that you 4rries are wrong wrong wrong and look what you went and did to D&D.

2) No REALLY. What DO You think mechanics do OTHER than heavily effect fluff? I am REALLY waiting on that answer with baited breath. Your credibility seriously teeters on the precipice on that one. And I am sure there is an audience sitting on the edge of their seats waiting to break into uproars of laughter the moment you actually explain WTF you are going on about in your claims that mechanics totally don't do that.

[Josh_Kablack]

Damnit.

I thought I only needed to ignore February registrations. Looks like that's insufficient.

4e has good points, but its fans who have joined this forum recently are not among them.

[Data Vampire]

Good, now you can learn to read the fourth word of the sentence. Which is can.

I did make an error,but you are hiding behind weasel words.

See, 4rry telling us 4e is doing great financially.

No, he asked you to proof.

also loooooooooool at being unable to tell a story because of the mechanics of 4e, that shit is hilarious. you honestly think mechanics influence fluff to that degree?

They influence story. See, if at some point, someone casts Wall of Stone to seal off a tunnel, so that everyone runs out safely, that is an event in the story, an event that is in fact not replicable in 4e, and so the story shuts down.

Wall of stone is a druid power that doesn't need to sustained, but instead crumbles at the end of the encounter. Encounters end when you stop to take a short rest. So yes this can happen.

You need to pick another example.

No, we actually said it is not D&D because it can't be used to tell the same stories that D&D could tell for the last 30 years.

Didn't D&D change enough over other editions to do this at several points? I do not know much before 3rd, so I'm not exactly sure.

[Plebian]

how does being intellectually dishonest feel

I dunno, instead of focusing on those things where you are wrong but you can wave your hands and shout like you are doing in an attempt to pretend you aren't, why don't you focusing on replying to me and Finkin?

1) This isn't just anecdotal, every bit of actual data available from sources up to and including WOTC is consitent with the smaller scale anecdotes and tells us that you 4rries are wrong wrong wrong and look what you went and did to D&D.

2) No REALLY. What DO You think mechanics do OTHER than heavily effect fluff? I am REALLY waiting on that answer with baited breath. Your credibility seriously teeters on the precipice on that one. And I am sure there is an audience sitting on the edge of their seats waiting to break into uproars of laughter the moment you actually explain WTF you are going on about in your claims that mechanics totally don't do that.

1) oooh how about some of this actual data oh right it doesn't exist. unless you think that somehow Hasbro doing poorly in any way indicates it's one of their very tiny acquisitions' faults

plus it's really funny that you take "hey got any proof for your position" as me claiming 4e is doing great, or something, when, really, it's just me asking you to back up your claims. also when 90% or more of the games in my area are 4e, the gaming stores stock mostly 4e books because that's what sells, I feel safe assuming it's not tanking so my anecdotal evidence is better than yours

2) you made some idiotic claim that because wizards weren't a solve-any-problem button in 4e that any previous edition's modules would not be playable in 4e. this is either enormously stupid or you played modules that I never did, because only a module that required wizards actively casting game-altering spells would be difficult to transfer to 4e; very nearly any application of magic can be handled by a ritual. just because you don't like something you don't have to make up bullshit to justify your dislike, you are allowed to state your preferences without made-up justifications

[Kaelik]

2) you made some idiotic claim that because wizards weren't a solve-any-problem button in 4e that any previous edition's modules would not be playable in 4e. this is either enormously stupid or you played modules that I never did, because only a module that required wizards actively casting game-altering spells would be difficult to transfer to 4e; very nearly any application of magic can be handled by a ritual. just because you don't like something you don't have to make up bullshit to justify your dislike, you are allowed to state your preferences without made-up justifications

1) Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are all the same person disagreeing. Phone Lobster is not me, and I am not him, he did not say anything about previous editions modules.

2) You are still failing to read what I actually said. It's the after action reports, not the modules that I am contesting can be converted. Lots of modules may not specifically require casting "any non combat spell" IE, the list of spells you explicitly declared broken. But most games will at some point feature someone casting invisibility, and when that happens, 4e can't compute.

3) I'm especially interested in this comment though "very nearly any application of magic can be handled by a ritual"

Are you claiming:

a) 4e rituals actually cover most 3e uses of magic (that aren't covered elsewhere).
b) That you can just make up a ritual and declare that ritual that you just made up that no MC who actually chooses to play 4e will allow to be the reason why 4e stories are not missing out on all the stuff they obviously are missing out on.

Sort of c) Are you completely unaware of how shitty 4e ritual mechanics are, in the sense of firstly costing money to obtain, secondly, permanently sapping your killing things budget every time they are cast, thirdly, taking a full 600 rounds of uninterrupted chanting to cause anything to take place, fourthly, having extremely bullshitedly small effects after all that.

And finally, on the note of rituals sucking, It may have been some other 4rry, but if it was you, who claimed that people object to 4e rituals because people besides Wizards can do magic, are you even aware of the actual mechanics for rituals work, such that if they ever where actually worth using, the Wizard and Cleric would actually be able to use Rituals, and the Fighter, because he has no Int/Wis, and almost certainly isn't going to burn two feats from his killing people fund to get the skill tagged, and the ability to ritual, and he doesn't get free rituals, the fighter will still not be able to use rituals?

[LR]

also yeah, those spells really are plot breaking unless the DM plans around them and no DM ever is capable of planning for every spell a wizard has at his disposal; removing the wizard's spell-for-every-situation aspect was a brilliant move and should've been done earlier

How exactly does a Wizard go about "breaking" the plot? The plot is being written in real-time, so unless the DM gets sloppy and generates a plot hole, the plot can't actually be broken. I'd understand if a spell hit a logic error and the plot became "undefined" until the DM made a ruling, but almost all of the PHB spells have well-defined inputs and outputs. It's not like we're talking about Walls of Shadow Stone here.

[TheFlatline]

it's only not possible if you're one of those if-it's-not-in-the-rules-it's-not-possible types, in which case I ask you how any tabletop character is alive because breathing isn't in the rules

So you're arguing that I should have to labor to finish a ruleset I just paid significant money to acquire... so I wouldn't have to write a ruleset?

I honest-to-god can't believe you are using houserules to defend bad game design. That's like selling a car whose seat belts don't work, and you don't advertise it, but you figure that any alert owner will realize this and install working seat belts at some point in the future.

PS: You want a story that 4th edition completely fucks over with it's approach to powers and rules? One of my most enjoyed "modules" I ever wrote involved the PCs, at around level 5, had to essentially survive in a town for one night, and protect the villagers, while they were being actively hunted by a pack of werewolves. The game in AD&D and 3rd was tense because you had a steadily dwindling supply of powers, and you couldn't save all the villagers. In 4th ed there was absolutely no tension at all since the majority of characters were sitting on 75% of their abilities every encounter.

4th edition as a paradigm choice said "fuck you" to the idea of scarcity of resources, among other paradigm choices.

So say what you want (And I'm sure you'll either say that's a stupid plot or I should just break 4th edition's rules and houserule), but 4th edition doesn't let me tell the kind of stories I've been telling for 20 years in previous versions of D&D.

[PhoneLobster]

1) oooh how about some of this actual data oh right it doesn't exist.

Er... the poster I refered to specifically just discussed some data sources in detail. And you responded by ignoring it, and now claiming it never happened. And he isn't even siting the same data sources I have seen sited on this site in the past, including submissions to a court of law, by WOTC, and WOTC attempts to talk up their success to stock holders... with numbers that were significantly inferior to the same ones they used to use to talk up their success in the 3E era. Which you COULD find if you spent some time to actually pour over the OTHER 4E threads or made any attempt to research or follow the topic YOURSELF.

I mean what? I need to go reading through that whole 100's of thousands is bigger than millions debacle AGAIN because you want a reference? Get off your arse and find one yourself, another poster on this thread already gave you a head start, I'll give you another, I'm pretty sure a lot of it appeared in "the end of 4E" thread go use a search feature and waste a few hours of YOUR time sifting through a prior 4E players melt down into innumeracy in an attempt to justify his endless and ridiculous fan boy faith in 4E.

as me claiming 4e is doing great, or something, when, really, it's just me asking you to back up your claims.

Normally when someone makes a counter argument like you are doing and denies evidence it is in order to disagree. I mean SURE you MIGHT be violently agreeing with me but I...

also when 90% or more of the games in my area are 4e, the gaming stores stock mostly 4e books because that's what sells, I feel safe assuming it's not tanking so my anecdotal evidence is better than yours

Oh look you ARE claiming I am wrong. AND that 4E is doing great. And YOU are doing it with Anecdotal evidence. But unlike me and those disagreeing with you NOT referring to a wide raft of well sourced data that backs it up.

So basically YOU are the sort of idiot to go "nyah nyah can't here you, mine is better than yours, no backsies infinity!". Well. I've come to expect no less from 4E fanboys. Seriously, I didn't start out thinking of all of you as juvenile idiots, it's just a new edition, you guys REALLY worked hard to earn that status with me. And apparently continue to do so.

Wait... what's OMFG, this is hilarious...

... or you played modules that I never did, because only a module that...

... whoopsie, your canned adventures are showing!

Now I could go on about how you completely avoided the question about what you think mechanics actually do other than effect fluff.

I could go on about how you seem to be getting confused about who you are talking to.

I could. But instead lets focus REALLY hard on that modules line.

You play modules. You play canned adventures. You clearly ONLY play canned adventures, to the point it didn't even occur to you that I, and many, if not MOST other players (at least prior to 4E) do not play canned adventures.

This is something I have noticed about 4E players. You guys seem to play exclusively canned adventures. This is a big deal, it says a lot. This says a VAST amount about why you see any remotely interesting player ability as plot breaking, and 4E as somehow an improvement on that front. Because when you play the most inflexible easily broken and generally crap form of the game there is OF COURSE you think that. I mean fuck, Wall of Stone, the poorly written module is over. But really is that a good thing about 4E... or is that A BAD THING ABOUT CANNED ADVENTURES.

Seriously. Your credibility is plummeting. I mean really "I dunno what 'modules' you are playing with all this scary plot flexibility in them!!!!"...

COMEDY GOLD.

[MGuy]

What does "Plot Breaking" mean exactly?

[LR]

What does "Plot Breaking" mean exactly?

Presumably it means any effect that derails the MC's carefully laid plot. That's the only definition I can think of that doesn't render the term completely meaningless.

[Username17]

Plebian is a sock puppet troll. He just registered, but miraculously mentions his "point" from "before". He goes on ignore now.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

earlier editions are far, far more like video games with their random encounter charts, random drop charts, and such.

This is simply a wrong statement.

Earlier editions gave you the option of rolling for encounters and monsters and their equipment if you don't have time to design one yourself. It was not a requirement.

Moreover, whatever equipment your monster used is also part of the loot pile. You kill an Orc with a giant battle axe? You get a giant battle axe as part of the loot pile.

That's not the case in 4E. The monster's corpse and weapons literally disappear the moment you kill them, instead leaving behind a "package" that's supposed to be tailor-fit for the party.

Only the early D&D video game series - i.e. Baldur's Gate - had monsters drop their actual equipment for people to loot. Other RPGs - i.e. Final Fantasy, Diablo - gave you loot that was totally random compared to what the monster was actually using. This is how you get gil for killing wild animals with no use for currency.

So please, stop this silliness of claiming that 4E has more versimiltude than the previous editions. Having Kobold Slingers with special ammo - but being unable to loot the special ammo off the dead slingers - was one of the most fucking retarded design decisions they ever made and it's really the turning point for me to largely swear off 4E.

That you're trying to confuse the situation by going "But 2E/3E had random encounter charts!" just demonstrates you don't know what they're for - which isn't to randomize the game, but to give DMs an extra tool in case they have to run a game in a hurry. And that you have absolutely no right to call people intellectually dishonest without being a hypocrite.

we spent years playing 3e and we are intimately familiar with how bad of a system it actually is, but most people attacking 4e recycle the same partially- or nowhere near-true attacks and just roll with them like they make sense

The problem is less with the players, but with Scott Rouse, and the other geniuses at WoTC.

They treated the 3E fanbase like shit. So when 4E failed to beat even fucking Pathfinder in terms of sales, a lot of people don't feel the least bit of sympathy for them. They proved to be charlatans who were all talk and yet couldn't deliver.

One of the absolute worst examples of this was Dragon Magazine's retarded attempt to justify the removal of non-combat skills, claiming it was more liberating to simply write down that you're a Smith in your character sheet and therefore can do smith-related things without needing to spend skill points.

In effect, WoTC is telling you that you can write down a "I can slay anything in the world by just thinking about it" as a skill on your character sheet, and it would be totally kosher. Liberating, isn't it!

[Fuchs]

Wall of Stone being a druid power instead of a wizard spell is enough to wreck continuity if that means wizards cannot cast it anymore in 4E.

[Plebian]

earlier editions are far, far more like video games with their random encounter charts, random drop charts, and such.

This is simply a wrong statement.

Earlier editions gave you the option of rolling for encounters and monsters and their equipment if you don't have time to design one yourself. It was not a requirement.

Moreover, whatever equipment your monster used is also part of the loot pile. You kill an Orc with a giant battle axe? You get a giant battle axe as part of the loot pile.

That's not the case in 4E. The monster's corpse and weapons literally disappear the moment you kill them, instead leaving behind a "package" that's supposed to be tailor-fit for the party.

oh sweet now I get to use "This is simply a wrong statement" when you make an incorrect statement

first off no, AD&D literally told you to use the random loot tables and gave you entries in the MM to use. a lot of DMs ignore this because it was stupid. shit, even 3E used terms like "Standard" and "Double Standard" for the treasure a monster had.

and you know what's funny? it's that nothing stops a DM who knows what gear his players want (that should be all DMs outside of RPGA games because the DMG states you should either get a wishlist or know what's suited to your characters) and can integrate it easily into the monsters, but if you insist on things magically disappearing I guess that's what you want out of it

Only the early D&D video game series - i.e. Baldur's Gate - had monsters drop their actual equipment for people to loot. Other RPGs - i.e. Final Fantasy, Diablo - gave you loot that was totally random compared to what the monster was actually using. This is how you get gil for killing wild animals with no use for currency.

AD&D: roll treasure on tables A C F and G

So please, stop this silliness of claiming that 4E has more versimiltude than the previous editions. Having Kobold Slingers with special ammo - but being unable to loot the special ammo off the dead slingers - was one of the most fucking retarded design decisions they ever made and it's really the turning point for me to largely swear off 4E.

verisimilitude is a nice goal if you take it at face value but among people who use it seriously it seems to mean something very, very different from the actual definition. now, non-lootable items is a valid bitch but if that was the turning point for you swearing off 4e how are you still playing any tabletop; they're all rife with idiotic decisions in the name of verisimilitude that make sense in the name of balance

That you're trying to confuse the situation by going "But 2E/3E had random encounter charts!" just demonstrates you don't know what they're for - which isn't to randomize the game, but to give DMs an extra tool in case they have to run a game in a hurry. And that you have absolutely no right to call people intellectually dishonest without being a hypocrite.

oh so you can quote in the DMG where it says those charts are only for using if you are in a hurry because otherwise they are meant for use in the actual normal playing of the game, and while you and I may think they should be used otherwise that's not how the core rules present them

The problem is less with the players, but with Scott Rouse, and the other geniuses at WoTC.

They treated the 3E fanbase like shit. So when 4E failed to beat even fucking Pathfinder in terms of sales, a lot of people don't feel the least bit of sympathy for them. They proved to be charlatans who were all talk and yet couldn't deliver.

sorry this is another one of those cases where you need to actually provide proof, feel free to say that I'm claiming 4e is outselling Jesus but until you actually provide numbers supporting claims like this you are just parroting claims you think make 4e look bad but in actuality make yourself look like a giant twat for not bothering to do the research
(protip there are no numbers so no one can claim either system is outselling the other it's a fool's game)

One of the absolute worst examples of this was Dragon Magazine's retarded attempt to justify the removal of non-combat skills, claiming it was more liberating to simply write down that you're a Smith in your character sheet and therefore can do smith-related things without needing to spend skill points.

In effect, WoTC is telling you that you can write down a "I can slay anything in the world by just thinking about it" as a skill on your character sheet, and it would be totally kosher. Liberating, isn't it!

combat skills were entirely useless, the skill list was pointlessly bloated, and your example is beyond idiotic but I do not expect you to be able to grasp that killing things with your brain is not a non-combat skill like blacksmithing or basketweaving; the only purpose noncombat skills played was to provide some structure for RP that was completely unneeded

then again I bet you're one of those people who think charisma is a measure of physical attractiveness and HP is a direct measure of health

Plebian is a sock puppet troll. He just registered, but miraculously mentions his "point" from "before". He goes on ignore now.

-Username17

wow you're one paranoid dude, obviously I couldn't have been referring to a point I made all of three or four posts before, no I have to be a sock puppet

also good job feeling that you have to announce your ignore list, you're a tool

[Data Vampire]

That's not the case in 4E. The monster's corpse and weapons literally disappear the moment you kill them, instead leaving behind a "package" that's supposed to be tailor-fit for the party.

Actually many monsters get non-magical equipment and I cannot find any rules that they disappear when killed. Also if the treasure includes magic items, there are rules to adjust the monster's stats to account for the monster using those items.

[Zinegata]

first off no, AD&D literally told you to use the random loot tables and gave you entries in the MM to use.

Again, stop with the misdirection. You've been caught lying with your pants on fire.

Firstly, you said earlier editions, not "AD&D". So your counter argument is already built on bullshit.

Secondly, even AD&D adventures didn't use random loot tables or monsters. They had specific monster and loot entries. So your assertion that using them was mandatory is bullshit, otherwise every single adventure should have had random tables for each encounter too.

verisimilitude is a nice goal if you take it at face value but among people who use it seriously it seems to mean something very, very different from the actual definition. now, non-lootable items is a valid bitch but if that was the turning point for you swearing off 4e how are you still playing any tabletop; they're all rife with idiotic decisions in the name of verisimilitude that make sense in the name of balance

Hey, fucking idiotic moron:

I said that non-lootable items was the last straw. I didn't say it was the only straw.

Your debating tactics are again shitty and full of dishonest lies. Like how you're pretending random tables is the issue, when the real issue is the fucking idiotic non-lootabe items which help destroy versimiltude.

But since you are a fucking idiotic moron with zero intellectual honesty, you typically gloss over that fact and instead open up some other tangent.

Not gonna work. You've already admitted that you're wrong: 4E is shit for having non-lootable items, which is again closer to video game implementation than any of the previous editions.

sorry this is another one of those cases where you need to actually provide proof, feel free to say that I'm claiming 4e is outselling Jesus but until you actually provide numbers supporting claims like this you are just parroting claims you think make 4e look bad but in actuality make yourself look like a giant twat for not bothering to do the research
(protip there are no numbers so no one can claim either system is outselling the other it's a fool's game)

Actually, I'm the sales number person of TGD. And survey says...

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/18504.html

Pathfinder has tied 4E.

So really, no, 4E sucks when you look at it from the totality. Sure, you can claim your friends play it. You can claim everyone around you plays it. But that's all fucking irrelevant because the people who actually asked retailers nationwide "What is selling well?" got the answer that "4E doesn't even outsell Pathfinder"

combat skills were entirely useless, the skill list was pointlessly bloated, and your example is beyond idiotic but I do not expect you to be able to grasp that killing things with your brain is not a non-combat skill like blacksmithing or basketweaving; the only purpose noncombat skills played was to provide some structure for RP that was completely unneeded

And all the people who played basketweavers and blacksmiths say "FUCK YOU" to you too. And call your edition FAIL. And I know a lot of players who've played blacksmiths (not basketweavers though, admittedly)

So congratulations for being like WoTC - who turned off entire sections of their fanbase by being an arrogant jerkass. HAHA. Hope you and the shrinking pool of 4E players (around 1M by WoTC's last count - down from 6M back in the 3E days) don't do things like "grow old", "take more responsibilities", or "move on to other games", because as it stands you're gonna be out of people to play with in a couple of years.

So really, go ahead and continue being an arrogant jerkass. That just makes less people want to play your game. Especially a jerkass who's also a certifiable liar.

[Zinegata]

That's not the case in 4E. The monster's corpse and weapons literally disappear the moment you kill them, instead leaving behind a "package" that's supposed to be tailor-fit for the party.

Actually many monsters get non-magical equipment and I cannot find any rules that they disappear when killed. Also if the treasure includes magic items, there are rules to adjust the monster's stats to account for the monster using those items.

Check the Kobold Slinger example - you can't loot their special ammo off of them. And that ammo isn't magical.

Also, I don't recall stat adjustments for magic weapons in the original MM.

[Data Vampire]

Check the Kobold Slinger example - you can't loot their special ammo off of them. And that ammo isn't magical.

And you cannot why?

Also, I don't recall stat adjustments for magic weapons in the original MM.

It is in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

[Koumei]

He goes on ignore now.

Way ahead of you. Also, in regards to /ignore lists:

Mine's bigger

[Zinegata]

Fine, not the Slinger, bad example.

In practical terms though, you can't loot the Slinger's ammo because it breaks the system. You can now add an immobilization effect that only ends on a save to any ranged weapon ability using a sling. Seriously, that's why people in Enworld ask other peeps whether they even allow it to be looted:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discuss ... -shot.html

Because it's potentially that freaking good.

-------

This is a direct consequence of 4E's insistence on making PCs and Monsters live in totally seperate system. The special ammo is literally not available for PCs to purchase - it doesn't even have a price.

And while I may be wrong about the Slinger specifically, there's a whole list of other monster whose items literally stop working once you kill them:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discuss ... items.html

And the stuff you DO get to loot from them work totally differently from the monster. Because again, PCs and Monsters live in two seperate systems.

To quote an Enworlder in that thread:

In 4e, monster items are props and costumes... they're there for effect.

That's an actual design choice that made the game emulate video games far more than random loot tables ever did.

------

So to get special ammo like gluepots, the only way for you to get them is to find a Kobold Slinger and kill him. And that no Kobold Slinger ever wised up and decided to open a shop to sell gluepot ammo instead.

It would literally be easier to justify your characters as existing in an MMO - a world where you go out killing the same monster over and over again to get a specific type of loot - than to justify a world wherein there are zero enterprising Kobolds.

[Plebian]

ICv2

why am I completely unsurprised that you take a survey of hobby stores with no numbers attached as proof of 4e selling poorly

because without actual numbers, and I do not mean a chart saying "look we did the research but we can't show you any actual numbers or anything", there is no way to say anything about sales numbers


also why are you so hung about about monsters working differently than players? it was a good move; now I don't have to worry about balancing templates and PrCs and other crap. if that means that some things that aren't ideal to precious, precious ~*verisimilitude*~ well I'm content to let it be because the game's more fun for me and for most people I've met. and it shouldn't actually effect player verisimilitude at all unless you're the player that likes to read every MM entry and learn the DMG so you can rules lawyer with the DM in which case hey, that's fine, but metagaming != verisimilitude.

also there certainly could be an enterprising kobold but like you mentioned giving the players exact copies of the items would be a bad idea; monsters are balanced to take on a party of players, who have far more abilities including save-granting ones, than monsters do.

you seem really angry that WotC recognized that there was no real reason besides idiots clamoring for ~*verisimilitude*~ without realizing its actual definition to keep players and monsters on the same system. it only increases complexity of monster creation, makes balancing an encounter much more difficult unless you play almost entirely with fiat and just roll for show, and doesn't result in anything better for the players.

[Psychic Robot]

Plebian confirmed for moron tier; enjoy your videogame.

[Darth Rabbitt]

also there certainly could be an enterprising kobold but like you mentioned giving the players exact copies of the items would be a bad idea; monsters are balanced to take on a party of players, who have far more abilities including save-granting ones, than monsters do.

And that's exactly why making monsters operate on a system different from the players is a bad idea.

you seem really angry that WotC recognized that there was no real reason besides idiots clamoring for ~*verisimilitude*~

Do you really find nothing stupid about not being able to loot equipment from the monsters, or from Cyclopes having 7 different powers, all called "Evil Eye?"

without realizing its actual definition to keep players and monsters on the same system.

They're trying to keep players and monsters on different systems, that's the problem.

it only increases complexity of monster creation

While the monster creation guidelines are, and always have been, very poor in every edition of D&D, I see no reason why you couldn't write monster classes like the Fiendish classes in Tome of Fiends, and have those be used for monster creation.

makes balancing an encounter much more difficult unless you play almost entirely with fiat and just roll for show

If your opponents are made on the same system as you, that would make balancing encounters easier.

and doesn't result in anything better for the players.

Unless someone wants to play a lizard man or something.

[Username17]

While the monster creation guidelines are, and always have been, very poor in every edition of D&D, I see no reason why you couldn't write monster classes like the Fiendish classes in Tome of Fiends, and have those be used for monster creation.

Pretty much.

Now you're going to want to generate certain monsters that should never be allowed as player characters. Not because they are too strong or too weak, but because they are like giant slugs and shit. And you're going to run through a lot more monsters than players, so making a "quick monster creation" ruleset would be all to the good.

But you're still going to want monsters who are literally or essentially player characters in their own right. So no matter how many "quick monsters" you make, you'd damn sure be able to make a "PC equivalent" monster as well. And 4e does not deliver that. Hell, 4e doesn't even deliver the quick design a monster thing, because 90% of each monster is their stand-alone powers and there is no power list for team monster.

-Username17

[Sir Neil]

I know why I will not play 4th. What I don't know is why Plebian is putting air quotes around "verisimilitude".