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

[Plebian]

Yes, which is about as useful as the creation system in the 3.x monster manual.

yep, which is why the online tools are so nice. they don't introduce anything you can't do without them, they just make it easier for a DM to do their job and that's a nice thing.

They're apples and oranges exactly because the game falls apart if you even give monsters a different weapon in some instances, and same with giving monster stuff to players.

yeah this was wrong when it first was stated and is still wrong; there are plenty of rules for monsters using normal magical weapons, and if you mean just giving them another weapon for flavor that doesn't effect the game at all anyway. now giving 'monster' stuff to players could make it harder to balance, since monsters abilities are not balanced to be the same as player abilities, but saying that the game falls apart because of a game mechanic that works perfectly is pretty stupid; monsters aren't meant to have player powers, players aren't meant to have monster powers, within this rule things work just fine

And it's bullshit that you can't take magic poison bows from yuan-ti and what not.

so maybe the yuan-ti, being a seclusive and paranoid race in most fluff, decide to attune their magical items to the yuan-ti holding them. though I am really amused that amongst all the "just farm things for loot" attitudes yours is the one that flies against them and attacks the system for its inability to farm things for loot.

Stop putting fucking words in my mouth; I never said that it was a bad thing to have monster creation be easy, just that they should use the same system as PCs.

then it won't be easy, because balancing player powers to be used against players is a horrible, horrible goal. it's why PvP in any tabletop is stupid. players will basically always have abilities that, used against other players, will either nuke the guy who rolled lower on init or shut the guy who rolled lower on init down.

It's really fucking stupid to have to write up a lizard man race or something because 4e monsters are bloated sacks of hit points, XP, and arbitrarium that have no way of interacting with the world outside of combat and have powers that aren't supposed to be balanced with players.

this argument also never stops being stupid. you know why the MM gives combat stats? because out of combat stats don't matter nearly as much in any tactical combat game like all of the D&Ds, RP is the DM's job not the system's job. it's not hard to understand; monsters have stats, a DM can easily guess at trained skills if it's absolutely necessary and they're not listed.

in addition, if they're not in combat? they're not monsters, they're NPCs. this is the most common misunderstanding I'm seeing, people just assuming that because of in-combat terminology nothing can ever be used outside of combat. and for people who really love to throw out names of logical fallacies it's amusing that you fail to see this.

"well the game gives combat stats for kobolds but doesn't tell me that they can exist outside of combat, therefor obviously nothing exists outside of combat"

So I don't see it as a problem that the players might be inconvenienced by it, given that they can very easily pop out death wards and true resurrections if they really want.

this kind of attitude is hilarious and why I moved away from 3e

"well if you have a caster you can negate enemy caster's nasty stuff, assuming your caster likes you and/or memorized enough Death Wards and/or the enemy caster is stupid and doesn't try to dispel protections before dropping his spells"

And I made a mid-level caster monster for a campaign I'm going to run, and it was both easy and fun.

care to share its spell list? oh and which spells are memorized? is it going to be a smart caster, or will it have access to level 5 spells and yet fight to the bitter end for no reason other than it's easier to not use enemy casters full abilities?

this is a problem with 3e casters; you have to play them as stupid because if they were smart they would do an inordinate amount of damage to the party and have several ways of escaping, though you do have the silly arms race of Teleport/Dimensional Anchor/so on

[Psychic Robot]

Yes, we all agree that 3e is overly complex and that monster creation is tedious. That doesn't make 4e's monster system good. It makes it a bad alternative. 3e allowed for a lot of variety and strange monsters, but putting them together was a hassle. 4e makes using monsters easier, but the entire system amounts to "just bullshit it." This is bad for people who want the game to make a semblance of sense.

[Xur]

Yes, we all agree that 3e is overly complex and that monster creation is tedious. That doesn't make 4e's monster system good. It makes it a bad alternative. 3e allowed for a lot of variety and strange monsters, but putting them together was a hassle. 4e makes using monsters easier, but the entire system amounts to "just bullshit it." This is bad for people who want the game to make a semblance of sense.

To be honest, this is something in Pathfinder I really like. The SRD provides you with tables of how many HD, damage, and whatever your monster is supposed to have (average) on a given level, sorted by type. Very handy as a guideline to refer to every once in a while.

[Plebian]

Yes, we all agree that 3e is overly complex and that monster creation is tedious. That doesn't make 4e's monster system good. It makes it a bad alternative. 3e allowed for a lot of variety and strange monsters, but putting them together was a hassle. 4e makes using monsters easier, but the entire system amounts to "just bullshit it." This is bad for people who want the game to make a semblance of sense.

4e makes using and making monsters easier, actually, and the entire system amounts to "hey follow these rules and you can have confidence that it will be balanced against your party"

and just because you dislike a system doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I dislike 3e but you don't see me claiming the system doesn't make sense. because it is internally consistent and it works with itself, it just isn't particularly good.

now 4e makes perfect sense, you just dislike it, so you make claims about it not making sense because I really have no idea, it's just a tabletop dude you don't have to make shit up

[Darth Rabbitt]

yep, which is why the online tools are so nice. they don't introduce anything you can't do without them, they just make it easier for a DM to do their job and that's a nice thing.

You failed to address my point about the fact that without this tool, it's completely unworkable, which indicates that the system presented in the core books is just as crap as 3e.

yeah this was wrong when it first was stated and is still wrong; there are plenty of rules for monsters using normal magical weapons, and if you mean just giving them another weapon for flavor that doesn't effect the game at all anyway. now giving 'monster' stuff to players could make it harder to balance, since monsters abilities are not balanced to be the same as player abilities, but saying that the game falls apart because of a game mechanic that works perfectly is pretty stupid; monsters aren't meant to have player powers, players aren't meant to have monster powers, within this rule things work just fine

Have you really never seen how a flying monster with a bow can destroy any party that doesn't focus on ranged combat?

And

so maybe the yuan-ti, being a seclusive and paranoid race in most fluff, decide to attune their magical items to the yuan-ti holding them. though I am really amused that amongst all the "just farm things for loot" attitudes yours is the one that flies against them and attacks the system for its inability to farm things for loot.

It's not stupid because you can't farm them, it's stupid because it makes you have to go out of the way to figure out what the fuck

then it won't be easy, because balancing player powers to be used against players is a horrible, horrible goal. it's why PvP in any tabletop is stupid. players will basically always have abilities that, used against other players, will either nuke the guy who rolled lower on init or shut the guy who rolled lower on init down.

It's a horrible goal to be able to fight evil clerics/wizards/fighters/rogues/whatever?

Those are all totally iconic villains in D&D, and it makes far more sense to have them be made using the same rules as players, so players aren't fucking confused about why the fuck they can't learn the same spells/powers/maneuvers/whatever as their opponents that are supposed to be a mirror match.

this argument also never stops being stupid. you know why the MM gives combat stats? because out of combat stats don't matter nearly as much in any tactical combat game like all of the D&Ds, RP is the DM's job not the system's job. it's not hard to understand; monsters have stats, a DM can easily guess at trained skills if it's absolutely necessary and they're not listed.

in addition, if they're not in combat? they're not monsters, they're NPCs. this is the most common misunderstanding I'm seeing, people just assuming that because of in-combat terminology nothing can ever be used outside of combat. and for people who really love to throw out names of logical fallacies it's amusing that you fail to see this.

"well the game gives combat stats for kobolds but doesn't tell me that they can exist outside of combat, therefor obviously nothing exists outside of combat"

No, it just means that you have to bullshit stats mid-game for monsters-turned NPCs which eliminates any convenience that your stupid system proposes.

this kind of attitude is hilarious and why I moved away from 3e

"well if you have a caster you can negate enemy caster's nasty stuff, assuming your caster likes you and/or memorized enough Death Wards and/or the enemy caster is stupid and doesn't try to dispel protections before dropping his spells"

care to share its spell list? oh and which spells are memorized? is it going to be a smart caster, or will it have access to level 5 spells and yet fight to the bitter end for no reason other than it's easier to not use enemy casters full abilities?

this is a problem with 3e casters; you have to play them as stupid because if they were smart they would do an inordinate amount of damage to the party and have several ways of escaping, though you do have the silly arms race of Teleport/Dimensional Anchor/so on

Sure, I'll list the basic concept.

Lizardfolk druid who casts walls in his hideout when he knows he's about to be attacked, buffs the fuck out of himself and his animal companion, and then drops entangles and wails on the party in melee, retreating if it seems he might lose.

That's fairly optimal for a druid (who can't pull contingencies out of his ass) and still allows the party several ways to interrupt his tactics while not making it an unbeatable encounter if his strategy goes according to plan.

And from my experience it's only the really high level casters who do outrageous, game-breaking things, because 9th-level spells are ridiculous.

Well, I'm getting fucking tired of listening to your tirades when you still haven't addressed many points of mine, so on Ignore you go, and the world is a better place for both of us.

[TheFlatline]

yep, which is why the online tools are so nice. they don't introduce anything you can't do without them, they just make it easier for a DM to do their job and that's a nice thing.

It's possible to keep track of/use all the errata generated for 4th edition without using the online tools?

I thought everyone more or less agreed the only way to keep track of that bloated mass of verbal puke was to use the online tools.

[Plebian]

You failed to address my point about the fact that without this tool, it's completely unworkable, which indicates that the system presented in the core books is just as crap as 3e.

in the exact same way 3e is unworkable without online tools

oh shit online tools for 3e don't exist outside of 3pps with primitive Visual C++ programs damn that must mean 3e isn't playable

or you're just dumb

Have you really never seen how a flying monster with a bow can destroy any party that doesn't focus on ranged combat?

yeah I've seen it and then I laughed at it because martial characters in 4e are at the very least every bit as competent at ranged combat as martial characters in previous editions so it's a hilarious point to make

It's not stupid because you can't farm them, it's stupid because it makes you have to go out of the way to figure out what the fuck

not really, I don't keep myself awake at night going "but but but the goblins had something and I didn't take it how will I minmax my character now without those magical items

It's a horrible goal to be able to fight evil clerics/wizards/fighters/rogues/whatever?

in 3e it is because unless the DM plays them retardedly they're going to push your shit in

Those are all totally iconic villains in D&D, and it makes far more sense to have them be made using the same rules as players, so players aren't fucking confused about why the fuck they can't learn the same spells/powers/maneuvers/whatever as their opponents that are supposed to be a mirror match.

why? why should they be a mirror match? magic is supposed to be this mutable, researched-by-individual-wizards thing, in theory, but in 3e practice it becomes a stupid who-has-the-most-system-mastery dickwaving contest that proves nothing but who has the most income to waste on splatbooks and time to waste reading them

No, it just means that you have to bullshit stats mid-game for monsters-turned NPCs which eliminates any convenience that your stupid system proposes.

yeah, man it's hard to estimate the noncombat stats of a creature whose core six stats you know and whose level you know and when you know training equals + 5 to a skill, shit that's totally harder than calculating a max skill rank of 3+level and skill points.

Sure, I'll list the basic concept.

Lizardfolk druid who casts walls in his hideout when he knows he's about to be attacked, buffs the fuck out of himself and his animal companion, and then drops entangles and wails on the party in melee, retreating if it seems he might lose.

That's fairly optimal for a druid (who can't pull contingencies out of his ass) and still allows the party several ways to interrupt his tactics while not making it an unbeatable encounter if his strategy goes according to plan.

awesome you pretended to address my point but didn't actually list any spells past Entangle, it really does seem like you have that spell list planned out in a bullshit-the-party-no-he-can-totally-do-this way

And from my experience it's only the really high level casters who do outrageous, game-breaking things, because 9th-level spells are ridiculous.

Well, I'm getting fucking tired of listening to your tirades when you still haven't addressed many points of mine, so on Ignore you go, and the world is a better place for both of us.

Glitterdust oh dear now a 2nd level spell renders almost any enemy in melee blind wait why do more DMs not use this against their parties oooooohhh that's right because it introduces pointless difficulty because it was designed to be used by players against monsters only because they use the same system there is no reason for the opposite to not happen




but make sure to do the apparently tried and true TGD bullshit; you're incapable of making coherent arguments against a system without the opposing party assuming the system in question is bad so you feel the need to ignore me and then state your ignore because you know you can't actually win any arguments

well done

yep, which is why the online tools are so nice. they don't introduce anything you can't do without them, they just make it easier for a DM to do their job and that's a nice thing.

It's possible to keep track of/use all the errata generated for 4th edition without using the online tools?

I thought everyone more or less agreed the only way to keep track of that bloated mass of verbal puke was to use the online tools.

in the same way that 3e or 3.5e errata was followable by the masses, sure

online tools just make it easier


though I do enjoy your implication that 4e has more "verbal puke" than 3.5 where they had to release new errata with almost every new 3pp splatbook that introduced a new retarded ability

[Doom]

Of course, again, pointing out problems in 3e in no way validates or addresses problems in 4e.

[Psychic Robot]

4e makes using and making monsters easier, actually, and the entire system amounts to "hey follow these rules and you can have confidence that it will be balanced against your party"

and just because you dislike a system doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I dislike 3e but you don't see me claiming the system doesn't make sense. because it is internally consistent and it works with itself, it just isn't particularly good.

now 4e makes perfect sense, you just dislike it, so you make claims about it not making sense because I really have no idea, it's just a tabletop dude you don't have to make shit up

4e's system doesn't make sense because it lacks internal consistency. In 3e, you could reverse-engineer monsters. If I wanted to know why a monster had a +15 attack bonus, I could figure it out because the monsters followed the same rules as the PCs. (Granted, this has some drawbacks, but it made sense.) In 4e, the monsters are thrown out there with powers attached to them and their ability scores have no bearing on anything except for the occasional skill check.

In 3e, a pixie of the same level as a fire giant would be incredibly different--as it should be, as one's a massive creature standing a dozen feet high whereas the other is a flying nymph. In 4e, their only difference comes from the role. If they're the same role and level, they're going to do the same damage and have the same attack bonus (whereas what makes sense is the pixie being accurate, hard to hit, and a weak damage-dealer while the fire giant is inaccurate, easy to hit, and a heavy damage-dealer).

[Plebian]

4e makes using and making monsters easier, actually, and the entire system amounts to "hey follow these rules and you can have confidence that it will be balanced against your party"

and just because you dislike a system doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I dislike 3e but you don't see me claiming the system doesn't make sense. because it is internally consistent and it works with itself, it just isn't particularly good.

now 4e makes perfect sense, you just dislike it, so you make claims about it not making sense because I really have no idea, it's just a tabletop dude you don't have to make shit up

4e's system doesn't make sense because it lacks internal consistency. In 3e, you could reverse-engineer monsters. If I wanted to know why a monster had a +15 attack bonus, I could figure it out because the monsters followed the same rules as the PCs. (Granted, this has some drawbacks, but it made sense.) In 4e, the monsters are thrown out there with powers attached to them and their ability scores have no bearing on anything except for the occasional skill check.

In 3e, a pixie of the same level as a fire giant would be incredibly different--as it should be, as one's a massive creature standing a dozen feet high whereas the other is a flying nymph. In 4e, their only difference comes from the role. If they're the same role and level, they're going to do the same damage and have the same attack bonus (whereas what makes sense is the pixie being accurate, hard to hit, and a weak damage-dealer while the fire giant is inaccurate, easy to hit, and a heavy damage-dealer).

so 4e lacks internal consistency because you can't use 3e rules to reverse engineer 4e monsters

also it's really stupid how you require to be able to know exactly why something that exists for five rounds of combat has its +15 BAB. because outside of combat you would never need to know this, and inside of combat it's a pointless exercise because "well what is the fire giant's life story that leads him to being murdered by the players" means nothing

you, sir, are a genius

Of course, again, pointing out problems in 3e in no way validates or addresses problems in 4e.

nope, it sure doesn't, but when people claim that 3e is better than 4e then all of a sudden it becomes a valid argument because it's less about trying to validate 4e and more about comparing the two!

but since you're obviously not very bright I won't berate you too much

[Sashi]

I'm not even sure what you mean by "internal consistency". I mean, sure, I can figure out that a Remorhaz has a +16 racial modifier to strength, but does that actually get me anywhere? The tomes even have a huge rant about how the HD+LA system is completely nonfunctional and if you want to play some high level monster you basically have to throw it away and invent a completely new thing that's playable.

There's also things like how the "improving monsters" section is completely nonsensical and really boils down to "just make changes and eyeball it".

[Fucks]

4e makes using and making monsters easier, actually, and the entire system amounts to "hey follow these rules and you can have confidence that it will be balanced against your party"

and just because you dislike a system doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I dislike 3e but you don't see me claiming the system doesn't make sense. because it is internally consistent and it works with itself, it just isn't particularly good.

now 4e makes perfect sense, you just dislike it, so you make claims about it not making sense because I really have no idea, it's just a tabletop dude you don't have to make shit up

4e's system doesn't make sense because it lacks internal consistency. In 3e, you could reverse-engineer monsters. If I wanted to know why a monster had a +15 attack bonus, I could figure it out because the monsters followed the same rules as the PCs. (Granted, this has some drawbacks, but it made sense.) In 4e, the monsters are thrown out there with powers attached to them and their ability scores have no bearing on anything except for the occasional skill check.

In 3e, a pixie of the same level as a fire giant would be incredibly different--as it should be, as one's a massive creature standing a dozen feet high whereas the other is a flying nymph. In 4e, their only difference comes from the role. If they're the same role and level, they're going to do the same damage and have the same attack bonus (whereas what makes sense is the pixie being accurate, hard to hit, and a weak damage-dealer while the fire giant is inaccurate, easy to hit, and a heavy damage-dealer).

so 4e lacks internal consistency because you can't use 3e rules to reverse engineer 4e monsters

[Psychic Robot]

so 4e lacks internal consistency because you can't use 3e rules to reverse engineer 4e monsters

also it's really stupid how you require to be able to know exactly why something that exists for five rounds of combat has its +15 BAB. because outside of combat you would never need to know this, and inside of combat it's a pointless exercise because "well what is the fire giant's life story that leads him to being murdered by the players" means nothing

you, sir, are a genius

I was almost trolled by this. Almost.

[CCarter]

Have you really never seen how a flying monster with a bow can destroy any party that doesn't focus on ranged combat?

yeah I've seen it and then I laughed at it because martial characters in 4e are at the very least every bit as competent at ranged combat as martial characters in previous editions so it's a hilarious point to make

3E martial character:
melee attack: 1W+Str
ranged attack: 1W+Str.
(Slight penalty to hit at range due to using Dex modifier...but you'll probably hit their AC anyway)

4E martial character
melee attack: 1W to 3W by power (or more) +Str + slowed or on fire or some such.
ranged attack: 1W+ your crappy Dex modifier - if you can hit.

[Data Vampire]

As it has been brought up, rules for creating/customizing monsters is in the Dungeon Master's Guide. The rule for new powers are basically rip off another power, but a damage table (monster damage has been errata'd) exists as well.

Additionally I'm not aware of any splat book for this, except for the essentials version of the DMG that most likely has some rules.

And it's bullshit that you can't take magic poison bows from yuan-ti and what not.

I think I found the what you are referring to.

Longbow (standard, at-will) Poison, Weapon

Ranged 20/40; +15 vs AC; 1d10+6 damage, and Iphariul makes a secondary attack against the same target. Secondary Attack: +13 vs. Fortitude; the target takes ongoing 5 poison damage (save ends both).

Equipment: arrows (30) , longbow , scimitar .

I really doubt that the bow is actually magical, but rather being a snake person the yuan-ti poisoned it itself.

On another note the weapon poisoning looting potential seems to be inconsistent.

Scimitar (standard, at-will) Poison, Weapon

+14 vs AC; 1d8+3 damage (crit 2d8 + 11), and the snaketongue celebrant makes a secondary attack. Secondary Attack +12 vs Fortitude; ongoing 5 poison damage (save ends).

Equipment: hooded robe, poisoned scimitar

This one you can apparently loot with the poison effect.

[LR]

I'm not even sure what you mean by "internal consistency". I mean, sure, I can figure out that a Remorhaz has a +16 racial modifier to strength, but does that actually get me anywhere? The tomes even have a huge rant about how the HD+LA system is completely nonfunctional and if you want to play some high level monster you basically have to throw it away and invent a completely new thing that's playable.

An entirely new system derived from mechanics that already exist.

CR and the Elite Array never stopped being things.

[Swordslinger]

It's a horrible goal to be able to fight evil clerics/wizards/fighters/rogues/whatever?

Those are all totally iconic villains in D&D, and it makes far more sense to have them be made using the same rules as players, so players aren't fucking confused about why the fuck they can't learn the same spells/powers/maneuvers/whatever as their opponents that are supposed to be a mirror match.

This argument never made sense to me, and only seems to come from people who have never DMed 4E. The 4E monster system lets you create something that conceivably looks and feel like anything you want. If for whatever reason you wanted to create a monster with fighter-like abilities, There is nothing at all stopping you from doing that.

[Sashi]

3E martial character:
melee attack: 1W+Str
ranged attack: 1W+Str.
(Slight penalty to hit at range due to using Dex modifier...but you'll probably hit their AC anyway)

4E martial character
melee attack: 1W to 3W by power (or more) +Str + slowed or on fire or some such.
ranged attack: 1W+ your crappy Dex modifier - if you can hit.

Seriously what planet are you on? A 3E fighter will have a magicked-up sword with d6's of extra damage and power attack. If he switches to ranged he's down from 4d6+11 to 1d8+4 if he dropped the cash on a strength bow, and he's not going to have any of the feats and items that a dedicated bowyer uses to keep afloat. In either edition the MC is going to have to use puffball enemies that are designed to be fought by the nerfed attack stats if he goes Mongol on a primarily melee party.

The Mongol Problem is universal across gaming systems. stop pretending like the MC stops the game at some point and says "I just noticed my BBEG has like a dozen flying monkeys with crossbows and none of you fuckers is carrying a ranged weapon so TPK I win!, assholes."

[RelentlessImp]

Over NINE THOUSANNNNNNNND unreadable bullshit posts.

Okay, this has gone on long enough. I'm going to point you to this and this, and suggest you read them before making one more idiotic, unreadable post, wherein you invoke the largest pile of flamebaiting bullshit the internet has seen since Aelryinth in post after post and refuse to use even the remotest form of grammar.

Now, I'll ask you nicely to quit being a complete and total fuckwad.

[CCarter]

Seriously what planet are you on? A 3E fighter will have a magicked-up sword with d6's of extra damage and power attack. If he switches to ranged he's down from 4d6+11 to 1d8+4 if he dropped the cash on a strength bow, and he's not going to have any of the feats and items that a dedicated bowyer uses to keep afloat.

Feats like what exactly- Point Blank shot giving a mighty +1 to hit and damage out to 30', or Precise Shot which is irrelevant when other opponents aren't engaging the ranged opponent in melee? Or Manyshot which basically an extra move?
Lack of Power Attack isn't much of a problem either - there's no ranged equivalent without serious splat diving (like the 'Power Draw' class feature in Unapproachable East, IIRC). So, your opponents are going to have their damage downsized by being reduced to ranged attacks as well.

The 4E fighter has all the issues with probable lack of a magic weapon, in addition to the difference in the base damage stats from having to use a stat other than their primary for damage and being dropped back to basic attacks.

[Kaelik]

Am I the only one who thinks that literally everything Plebian has ever said about 3e is based on the premise that the PCs are a party of all (poorly made) fighters?

Because seriously, every single thing:

"Forcecage completely defeats the entire party."

"MCs don't use Glitterdust, because it would defeat the party."

"MCs don't use Wizards/Clerics/Druids/Rogues/because then they would kill the party."

It's like he's never even heard of a game where the PCs play good classes or something.

[Darth Rabbitt]

As it has been brought up, rules for creating/customizing monsters is in the Dungeon Master's Guide. The rule for new powers are basically rip off another power, but a damage table (monster damage has been errata'd) exists as well.

Additionally I'm not aware of any splat book for this, except for the essentials version of the DMG that most likely has some rules.

And it's bullshit that you can't take magic poison bows from yuan-ti and what not.

I think I found the what you are referring to.

Longbow (standard, at-will) Poison, Weapon

Ranged 20/40; +15 vs AC; 1d10+6 damage, and Iphariul makes a secondary attack against the same target. Secondary Attack: +13 vs. Fortitude; the target takes ongoing 5 poison damage (save ends both).

Equipment: arrows (30) , longbow , scimitar .

I really doubt that the bow is actually magical, but rather being a snake person the yuan-ti poisoned it itself.

On another note the weapon poisoning looting potential seems to be inconsistent.

Scimitar (standard, at-will) Poison, Weapon

+14 vs AC; 1d8+3 damage (crit 2d8 + 11), and the snaketongue celebrant makes a secondary attack. Secondary Attack +12 vs Fortitude; ongoing 5 poison damage (save ends).

Equipment: hooded robe, poisoned scimitar

This one you can apparently loot with the poison effect.

That's the problem with 4e, things that should use the same rules (like yuan-ti poisoned weapons) don't, even with regards to the same type of creature entries.

This example isn't nearly as bad as Evil Eye (where all cyclopes have a racial ability called "Evil Eye" which does totally different things for the different entries).

Am I the only one who thinks that literally everything Plebian has ever said about 3e is based on the premise that the PCs are a party of all (poorly made) fighters?

Because seriously, every single thing:

"Forcecage completely defeats the entire party."

"MCs don't use Glitterdust, because it would defeat the party."

"MCs don't use Wizards/Clerics/Druids/Rogues/because then they would kill the party."

It's like he's never even heard of a game where the PCs play good classes or something.

Knowing him, he probably really hasn't.

[Just another user]

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

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.

Or maybe that Thri-keen saliva lose its potency when exposed to air for too long (.i.e 60 seconds or more).

Which it doesn't matter when delivered by bite or spit (I can't remember how it works) but even if you were able to make true air-proof containers it would make it useless the moment you put it on your weapons.

[Doom]

Am I the only one who thinks that literally everything Plebian has ever said .

Hell, I don't even know why you keep calling Darwinism, "Plebian".

[Kaelik]

Honestly the whole thri keen poison thing is super dumb.

It`s supernatural poison. If the Thri keen is in an amf its poison is actually no longer poisonous, because it`s only made poisonous by the inherent magic of thri keen.

I have no trouble at all believing that if you take the poison away from the source of magic, it stops being poisonous, since we already know that occurs.