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

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:42 pm

Actually, he's right. Thri-Kreen should be able to market their poison, and 3E rules don't cover it very well.
I'm not sure what point he thinks that supports though.

Plebian · Post by **Plebian** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:44 pm

Darth Rabbitt wrote:Why does that invalidate my claim?

I just pointed out that your examples were stupid.

you claimed my comparison was a false dichotomy which must not have the same definition of an actual false dichotomy because the only claim I made is that it's equally silly for both races to not sell things they had access to, and I don't see a situation where only two outcomes are considered and other outcomes are valid

please post your definition of false dichotomy I want to edit it into Wikipedia for you

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:57 pm

Plebian wrote:
Darth Rabbitt wrote:Why does that invalidate my claim?

I just pointed out that your examples were stupid.
you claimed my comparison was a false dichotomy which must not have the same definition of an actual false dichotomy because the only claim I made is that it's equally silly for both races to not sell things they had access to, and I don't see a situation where only two outcomes are considered and other outcomes are valid

please post your definition of false dichotomy I want to edit it into Wikipedia for you

Are you stupid deliberately, or did you just eat a lot of wall candy? He's saying that the two examples are not equivalent. You being too lazy to phrase your argurements well doesn't make it any less of a dichotemy.
The "false" part is arguable, but you've been too busy with ad hominems are to actually address anything which anyone has said.

Plebian · Post by **Plebian** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:05 am

how aren't they equivalent, exactly? they're both things the races in question have access to but, for reasons we cannot know, do not market even though both races could profit from them if they did.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:19 am

I would assume he thinks so for the reason he gave above:

Darth Rabbitt wrote:Kobold slingers' ammo presumably isn't made from their own by-products.

I happen to (sort of) agree with you, and think that the logical conclusion is that there is an aftermarket for Thri-Kreen saliva.
It's still much easier to not have that market though, because the Thri-Kreen get their thing as a supernatural ability, and the kobolds are carrying around actual items.

LR · Post by LR » Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:24 am

Plebian wrote:thinking about it, picking out kobold slingers' ammo as a stumbling block is funny; did it bother you in 2E or 3E that thri-kreen didn't bottle and sell their saliva? oh man look it's a creature ability that would be very marketable in anything resembling a real economy but there are no rules for it!

They were pushed out of the market by carrion crawler spinal fluid. The secondary damage apparently wasn't enough to make up for the lower DC and weaker delivery method. Do you expect the game to cover every niche market?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:37 am

fectin wrote:but you've been too busy with ad hominems

Ad hominem? Plebian can't even add numbers!

And PR, regarding that list:
Yes, casters can easy-mode all of those*. A competent Rogue can also do them though (indeed, replacing some of those . The fact that fighters are shit doesn't mean anything - there should be somebody in the party who can handle it. And yeah, a 3E fighter belongs in 4E, he's right at home there surrounded by other idiots who can't solve problems.

It is true that 3E has serious problems - such as "Fighters are dumb and can't do anything useful". 4E took the wrong approach to that and made everyone equally useless.

Also, anyone remember the time I posted sup/tg/ transcripts on the "Koumei's Races" thread, and that guy whatsisname cropped up briefly? Apparently he's a Goon on grognards.txt and has never hidden his hate for this place. So chances are he was the one who sicked the wild dogs onto here.

Hmm. I have perma-ops on sup/tg/. I should abuse them.

*Except the last one, which is "Rogue or Factotum, specific build only"

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:25 am

And again, it's worth pointing out, observing a splinter in 3.5 or earlier versions of D&D in no way validates the logs in the eyes of 4e.

Data Vampire · Post by **Data Vampire** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:04 am

fectin wrote:Zinegata already said that. In the bit you just quoted. he went on to explain why it was still a relevent example. Why is that bad again?

It's not a relevant example because it is backed with a appeal to consequences.

It's not that a legitimate complain that gluepots break the game if looted doesn't exist , but Zinegata's first statement that the items literally vanishes isn't a legitimate complaint.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:16 am

Plebian wrote:thinking about it, picking out kobold slingers' ammo as a stumbling block is funny; did it bother you in 2E or 3E that thri-kreen didn't bottle and sell their saliva? oh man look it's a creature ability that would be very marketable in anything resembling a real economy but there are no rules for it!

Wait... Did he really just say that harvesting thri-kreen saliva is on the same page as bending over a corpse and picking up a pouch of stones?

Really?

Are you that fucking new dude?

Akula · Post by **Akula** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:22 am

Data Vampire wrote:It's not a relevant example because it is backed with a appeal to consequences.

It's not that a legitimate complain that gluepots break the game if looted doesn't exist , but Zinegata's first statement that the items literally vanishes isn't a legitimate complaint.

I suppose that a better argument would be that the game loses it's balance just from looting the corpse of a single low level enemy. It would seem that from there you could say that the game either isn't supposed to allow you to obtain items that your enemies just used against you, or that it is supposed to be imbalanced. Doesn't sound like a cool game bro.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:31 am

fectin wrote:I would assume he thinks so for the reason he gave above:

Darth Rabbitt wrote:Kobold slingers' ammo presumably isn't made from their own by-products.
I happen to (sort of) agree with you, and think that the logical conclusion is that there is an aftermarket for Thri-Kreen saliva.
It's still much easier to not have that market though, because the Thri-Kreen get their thing as a supernatural ability, and the kobolds are carrying around actual items.

This.

I agree that it's stupid that Thri-Kreen can't sell their poison (I mean, there are splatbooks that allow Aboleth and Delver slime as flask weapons), but it makes a lot more sense than kobolds not being able to sell their alchemical explosives since the latter is not a natural ability.

As an aside, I would totally let my players buy Thri-Kreen poison if they wanted to.

But you still haven't addressed any of my previous claims about why 4e's monster system is stupid.

Shazbot79 · Post by **Shazbot79** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:39 am

Hi welcome.

Just popping in to say that I let my players loot Kobold Slingers in my 4E games. They usually get 1 of each special sling ammo (glue pot, stink pot, fire pot). I treat them as level 1 alchemical items and adjust treasure parcels accordingly. I've also found that these really don't break the game...instead they do what magic-type loot is supposed to do and gives the characters more options.

There are many valid complaints about 4E, but the Kobold Slinger example isn't one of them.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:56 am

I find it absolutely hilarious how 4E defenders keep circling around the Kobold Slinger - which I already said is a bad example - when in fact the main concern is that magic items used by monsters tend to stop working. Which I'd already proved anyway

Because again, items used by monsters in 4E aren't actual items. They're fucking props. Heck, people have to make a houserule just to allow the use of gluepot ammo.

Which is again closer to video game implementation than any of the previous editions - because again 4E has this bull-headed insistence on keeping PCs and monsters living in two seperate systems.

Repeat after me folks: Kobolds in 4E aren't a race, or a culture. They're bags of HP that you kill for loot and XP.

So yeah, this is really boiling down to 4E folks wanting to continue muddling the issue to get away from the fact that their edition went for an MMO-like paradigm - which isn't really that prominent in previous editions to the point you have to whine about obscure thri-keen saliva.

Shazbot79 · Post by **Shazbot79** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:39 am

I don't think that "house-ruling" is a far assessment of my example. I didn't change any actual mechanics, merely ruled as common sense dictated and did so completely within the framework of the game.

Furthermore, I don't see much practical utility in building pc's and monsters using the exact same rules...to me that's just tedium and pedantry. AD&D never did it that way, fewer complain about the lack of immersion in that version than in the current one.

Yes, it is certainly true that 4E comes off as being video-gamey...mostly because the game consists of a people around a table reciting a litany of numbers and game mechanics at one another. However, 3.x wasn't really any different in that regard.

Data Vampire · Post by **Data Vampire** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:48 am

Zinegata wrote:I find it absolutely hilarious how 4E defenders keep circling around the Kobold Slinger - which I already said is a bad example - when in fact the main concern is that magic items used by monsters tend to stop working. Which I'd already proved anyway

You have not proved that monster items quit working. Instead you linked to a thread where someone confused a monster power with an item. Just as you cannot loot the wizard's magic missile power when a character dies, you cannot loot a teifling's cloak of escape or cloak of lurking powers.

Novembermike · Post by **Novembermike** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:00 am

I thought the point of 4e's drop system wasn't so much that you can't pick up anything left on the monsters but that it doesn't tend to be particularly valuable and as such isn't worth picking up. It's basically just a way to get rid of the whole stripping down corpses minutia that I don't think anyone really enjoyed after the 20th time.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:01 am

Also, anyone remember the time I posted sup/tg/ transcripts on the "Koumei's Races" thread, and that guy whatsisname cropped up briefly? Apparently he's a Goon on grognards.txt and has never hidden his hate for this place.

He's getting mad that some place on the Internet exists that he doesn't like. Where are these transcripts?

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:13 am

I find it doubly laughable that people are seriously arguing that a cloak is a monster ability.

Shazbot79 · Post by **Shazbot79** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:19 am

Novembermike wrote:I thought the point of 4e's drop system wasn't so much that you can't pick up anything left on the monsters but that it doesn't tend to be particularly valuable and as such isn't worth picking up. It's basically just a way to get rid of the whole stripping down corpses minutia that I don't think anyone really enjoyed after the 20th time.

I think that's the general assumption the game makes.

When that cropped up in my game, the players killed a little skirmish party of kobolds that had a couple of slingers in it. They always made it a point to loot everything they killed, because apparently they just HAD to claim the piddly few coppers the kobolds had between them (I was saving the big haul for the dragon's horde) and one of my players asks if he can take the slingers trick ammo. As people on the thread have pointed out, it doesn't really make sense that the glue pots and such would simply disappear after the kobolds died, so I said yes and treated them like just like consumable items.

I would make the same decision with any monster. If players kill a bunch of magic bow wielding Yuan-tis. They will find a bunch of magic bows. I'll simply cross-reference the monsters level with their magic threshold to determine the value and deduct that from the adventure's treasure parcels.

Shazbot79 · Post by **Shazbot79** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:21 am

Zinegata wrote:I find it doubly laughable that people are seriously arguing that a cloak is a monster ability.

If you kill Mordenkainen, does he drop his Faithful Hound?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:46 am

What's the tiefling cloak power, exactly?

Plebian · Post by **Plebian** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:54 am

Koumei wrote: Yes, casters can easy-mode all of those*. A competent Rogue can also do them though (indeed, replacing some of those . The fact that fighters are shit doesn't mean anything - there should be somebody in the party who can handle it. And yeah, a 3E fighter belongs in 4E, he's right at home there surrounded by other idiots who can't solve problems.

actually a rogue has to pay a much, much heavier feat tax to be able to actually contribute damage to a lot of monster subtypes that become more common the further you progress and

Koumei wrote: It is true that 3E has serious problems - such as "Fighters are dumb and can't do anything useful". 4E took the wrong approach to that and made everyone equally useless.

so actually if everyone is equally useless by the same yardstick everyone is equally useful, so that's a really nice compliment

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:27 am

Shazbot79 wrote:
Zinegata wrote:I find it doubly laughable that people are seriously arguing that a cloak is a monster ability.
If you kill Mordenkainen, does he drop his Faithful Hound?

Yeah, you pick up his spell book and copy the fucking spell.

Next?

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:30 am

Plebian wrote: so actually if everyone is equally useless by the same yardstick everyone is equally useful, so that's a really nice compliment

Useful and useless don't mean the same thing dude.

That's like saying if Person A is broke and everyone else is rich, making everyone equally broke is really making everyone equally rich, because they're all on the same level.

I'm calling intentional troll here. Nobody who has a basic grasp of grammar and typing skills is this fucking stupid.