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

[CCarter]

This isn't PvP. A wizard NPC is perfectly legal in 3E rules. It's just another thing you may encounter. The fact that 3E uses PC rules to generate NPCs and 4E doesn't is irrelevant.

We're dealing with possibly encounters you may have in either edition. You're the one trying to move the goalposts.

We've been discussing ranged combat vs. monsters and you had to throw in caster balance as well.
3E fighter vs. wizard is a PC vs. PC build - hence complex balancing issues.
An actually equivalent example in 4E would be to run a PC wizard build against a PC fighter build . Which never happens at all.

I mean, if I'm GMing a 3.5 game I can just put some shit together and claim its a wizard regardless of how similar it is to the real article. Possibly have an orc adept and give it a pointy hat. Which is basically what the designers of 4E decided to do as the basic rule in monster design.
There is a massive double standard at work here. 'Fighter vs. wizard' gets trotted out whenever the editions are compared and I'm annoyed when really 4E can't do this either.

[Kaelik]

Combat:

Black Dragons prefer to ambush their targets, using their surroundings as cover. When fighting in heavily forested swamps and marhses, they try to stay in the water.

Blue Dragons attack from above or burrow beneath the sands until opponents come within 100ft. Older dragons use their special abilities, such as hallucinatory terrain, in concert with these tactics to mask the land and improve their chances to surprise the target.

Green Dragons stalk their targets, picking the best time to strike and the most appropriate tactics.

Red Dragons land to attack only weak creatures.

White Dragons prefer sudden assaults, swooping down from aloft, or bursting from beneath water, snow, or ice, they lose their breath weapon, then try to knock out a single opponent.

(Good dragon descriptions are all boring, because they are all about how they are nice dragons that usually don't fight, but they do mention explicit kiting strategies in all of them except gold dragons.)

So what do we learn about Dragons? They are kiting bastards.

Or, to quote from the Draconomicon's "Running a Dragon" chapter:

"dragons are better off using their breath weapons, employing their good speed to remain out of harm's way while strafing their foes with breath attacks"

"Flyby Attack is an all but essential feat for dragons, for it makes the 'strafing run' (This is a giant diagram in the chapter explaining how to set up strafing runs on the party with your dragons) possible. Using this feat, a dragon can start flying, use it's breath weapon against creatures on the ground, and continue flying, keeping out of reach. It can remain out of reach until it's breath weapon is ready to use again, then return for another run."

[FatR]

any DM who uses the strafing dragon technique isn't using the dragon for an interesting combat encounter, unless it's against an almost entirely ranged party, it's being used to either punish the party or to herd them into doing what the DM wants and that's shitty, unimaginative railroading

No, it's just that cretins like you, or shitty game engines like 4E cannot deal with any variety in encounters, or anything non-standard happening in the game. Now, normal people or semi-decent games actually can. No farther than two sessions ago I, in fact, confronted my 3.X party that paid no attention to ranged combat before with a strafing dragon of CR=level. They dealt with him, despite having only one (and barely competent) Big Five caster on the roster.

[fectin]

"Big Five"?

[Bobikus]

Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Archivist, Artificer ?

[Kaelik]

"Big Five"?

He's a slave to the Char Op/BG group think that goes:

Wizard/Artificer/Druid/Cleric/Archivist is the Tier 1:

Psion/Sorcerer/Favored Soul tier 2

Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/lots of other casters Tier 3.

Nevermind that anything that puts Favored Souls above Beguilers and Dread Necros is fucking terribly retarded. That's how they think. So they fap to Archivists, who aren't any better than Beguilers or Dread Necros, because JaronK once put them in Tier 1, and so now thinking with their brain about relative class power ist verboten.

EDIT: And sometimes spell to power erudite. Don't even get me started on that shitty argument.

DId you know that cast spontaneously from over 40 5 level spells is like twice as good as prepared casting level 8 spells? Me neither.

[mean_liar]

Y'all gettin' trolled. You're basically having an argument with a slightly more coherent shadzar.

[Plebian]

what is NOT fun about a gigantic dragon just flying around and around, outside of most of the party's reach, waiting for the 1d4 rounds for its breath to recharge so it can move in for another single round of actual combat? man that just sounsd like fun! I love playing encounters where the party gets to do something every 1d4 rounds!

man that's so heroic, sure does sound like a game I would want to play and not some silly game that actually gave the party something fun to do. even in 3e it's an uninspired and idiotic tactic.

oh and last dragons I fought in 4e were a pair of black dragons, each used sneaky tactics. the first we confronted in its lair, and it ducked into the series of underwater tunnels lacing the lair and continually popped up to try and attack vulnerable party members. we countered it by blocking off as many of the entrances as we could and then doing our best to prevent its movement. it was a fun encounter.

the second we fought in the middle of a town square and we used cover to try and avoid her breath attack until she got annoyed enough to engage us in close-range combat. though even then she liked to land on rooftops and use her reach to swipe at the party beneath her.

neither fight was easy, both were satisfying, and at no point did the DM have to resort to silly "but a dragon would do this because everyone knows all NPCs only ever pick the smartest moments to attack the enemy, especially dragons who are by any writeup terribly arrogant and overconfident about being able to defeat stupid two-legged mortals"

oh and Kaelik how do you deal with the line about red dragons reading:

Because red dragons are so confident, they seldom pause to appraise an adversary.

woops you mean red dragons are prone to underestimating enemies and labeling potentially strong enemies as weak because of their draconic confidence? huh, that's neat

No, it's just that cretins like you, or shitty game engines like 4E cannot deal with any variety in encounters, or anything non-standard happening in the game. Now, normal people or semi-decent games actually can. No farther than two sessions ago I, in fact, confronted my 3.X party that paid no attention to ranged combat before with a strafing dragon of CR=level. They dealt with him, despite having only one (and barely competent) Big Five caster on the roster.

this kind of attack on 4e is made extra hilarious by the fact that 4e and 3e share the exact same system, it's just power mechanics are more uniform and balanced in 4e.

oh and if they paid no attention to ranged combat, also, that means any martial character you had probably didn't even have a composite longbow, which means they were likely attacking, say, an Adult Red Dragon with a +14 BAB if they were equally leveled, which translates to hitting the dragon on a 15 or higher for a full BAB class, while 2/3rds classes would need a 19 or better to land a hit.

of course if they paid a little attention to it they might have +2 weapons, meaning a fighter could totally hit on a 14 and a rogue on a 17. man, that sounds like a fun encounter

[FatR]

oh and if they paid no attention to ranged combat, also, that means any martial character you had probably didn't even have a composite longbow, which means they were likely attacking, say, an Adult Red Dragon with a +14 BAB if they were equally leveled, which translates to hitting the dragon on a 15 or higher for a full BAB class, while 2/3rds classes would need a 19 or better to land a hit.

of course if they paid a little attention to it they might have +2 weapons, meaning a fighter could totally hit on a 14 and a rogue on a 17. man, that sounds like a fun encounter

It's funny to see how the thing you use in place of a brain tries to process the situation, but remains stuck in stiffling confines of 4E world and therefore incapable of doing so.

[Kaelik]

what is NOT fun about a gigantic dragon just flying around and around, outside of most of the party's reach, waiting for the 1d4 rounds for its breath to recharge so it can move in for another single round of actual combat? man that just sounsd like fun! I love playing encounters where the party gets to do something every 1d4 rounds!

It's funny because you actually can't figure out how to play D&D. Hey, instead of whining about how you play one in four rounds, (and it will be more than that, Dragons can also cast spells you know) you could use your actions to do something productive in the fight besides waste time waiting for the dragon to come back.

at no point did the DM have to resort to silly "but a dragon would do this because everyone knows all NPCs only ever pick the smartest moments to attack the enemy, especially dragons who are by any writeup terribly arrogant and overconfident about being able to defeat stupid two-legged mortals"

I just posted the dragon write ups. Did you seriously not read how every single dragon specializes in being a huge dick who specifically ambushes and tricks people, and doesn't underestimate people (except Red Dragons, who are specifically called out as making snap judgements and then not using optimal tactics against weak opponents only).

It's not every write up that says it, it's you read Tolkien one time, and you just assumed that every other Dragon is like that, and so did everyone you played with, but you never bothered to read the actual descriptions.

oh and Kaelik how do you deal with the line about red dragons reading:

Because red dragons are so confident, they seldom pause to appraise an adversary.

woops you mean red dragons are prone to underestimating enemies and labeling potentially strong enemies as weak because of their draconic confidence? huh, that's neat

Probably by having red dragons make snap judgements (which by the way, is not the same thing as stupid judgement, It means quick. IE, if the party plays themselves down, they are more likely to be meleed) but then, if they discover an error, using the amazing super broken ability to fly back up into the air, and retreat, and come back later with a better strategy.

[Plebian]

It's funny to see how the thing you use in place of a brain tries to process the situation, but remains stuck in stiffling confines of 4E world and therefore incapable of doing so.

it's cute how you avoid the point that the encounter you stated implies that you're an incompetent DM, but I really doubt it actually happened it was just you trying to prove a point

and prove a point you did; a level 14 fighter, with a +2 bow, against a CR 14 dragon would have a 30% chance of doing 1d8+4, or so, damage every time the dragon came around to do 12d10 save for half.

of course if your make believe party never dealt with ranged before it's doubtful they even have +2 ranged weapons, which makes them even more comically inept against the dragon.



also Kaelik if you would stop assuming that everyone playing 3e is a caster who is perfectly prepared for the situation at hand it'd be really neat, your shtick is getting really old at this point and it never has proved any points

[Orion]

Actually Smaug attacked by strafing the village with his breath weapon, and since none of the PCs had good ranged attacks had to be killed by an NPC.

[Plebian]

Actually Smaug attacked by strafing the village with his breath weapon, and since none of the PCs had good ranged attacks had to be killed by an NPC.

that is one horrible example because Smaug was killed by a single plot arrow, also Tolkien dragons were very nearly invincible; the only reason Smaug was able to be harmed at all was because he was such a lazy fucker that he had merged with his treasure except one small plot-hole in his armor.

[Username17]

The bottom line is that the most damaging complaint against 4e is that its proponents are 4rries. The 4rries are dishonest and incoherent, and their self indulgent tirades spam boards and stifle rational discussion.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

also Kaelik if you would stop assuming that everyone playing 3e is a caster who is perfectly prepared for the situation at hand it'd be really neat, your shtick is getting really old at this point and it never has proved any points

I'm not. I'm assuming they are playing a good class, and that whatever class it is, they are well built. Even if they have no idea what is coming, they can still have a good fight against a Dragon, that involves actions besides waiting for it to come back.

I know, the concept of actions that don't suck confuses you, because you play 4e.

[Plebian]

also Kaelik if you would stop assuming that everyone playing 3e is a caster who is perfectly prepared for the situation at hand it'd be really neat, your shtick is getting really old at this point and it never has proved any points

I'm not. I'm assuming they are playing a good class, and that whatever class it is, they are well built. Even if they have no idea what is coming, they can still have a good fight against a Dragon, that involves actions besides waiting for it to come back.

I know, the concept of actions that don't suck confuses you, because you play 4e.

only your assumption of a 'good' class is one that has a handy response for anything the DM throws at them, and this response always seems to be the ideal caster with the ideal permutations of equipment and spells to nullify a very specific circumstance.

but you've proven over and over that you're not interested in any actual conversation about 4e, so I understand how you need to try and prove that 3e is better, even though this is a horribly stupid position to take because you're incredibly obviously skewing any results in your favor by saying really, really retarded shit like "well if the character has this exact PrC and these exact items and this specific Contingency prepared then Mage's Disjunction will fail, therefor Mage's Disjunction is useless"

The bottom line is that the most damaging complaint against 4e is that its proponents are 4rries. The 4rries are dishonest and incoherent, and their self indulgent tirades spam boards and stifle rational discussion.

-Username17

hey Frank until you can make an argument that a) doesn't contain factual inaccuracies about 4e (hahaha monsters can't use magical items and there are no rules for breaking down doors) and b) refrain from mind-bogglingly stupid pejoratives you really don't have room to call anyone else dishonest or incoherent.

also if we wanted to switch that standard around, 3e had Roy defending it

checkmate




one thing I've noticed about the insecurity of people on this board; I have never once seen any 4e player make up some childish term to attempt and insult other tabletop players, but for some reason everyone attacking 4e here feels threatened enough by a tabletop that they need to try and assert their dominance over it with silly made-up words

it's kinda sad

[Kaelik]

only your assumption of a 'good' class is one that has a handy response for anything the DM throws at them, and this response always seems to be the ideal caster with the ideal permutations of equipment and spells to nullify a very specific circumstance.

but you've proven over and over that you're not interested in any actual conversation about 4e, so I understand how you need to try and prove that 3e is better, even though this is a horribly stupid position to take because you're incredibly obviously skewing any results in your favor by saying really, really retarded shit like "well if the character has this exact PrC and these exact items and this specific Contingency prepared then Mage's Disjunction will fail, therefor Mage's Disjunction is useless"

No, just because you can't tell the difference between "Not Fighter" and "Optimized Wizard" doesn't mean that I am talking about optimized Wizards. It just means I am not talking about Fighters.

I explicitly stated, that if you don't have buffs, Disjunction isn't worth preparing against, because Disjunction doesn't do anything if you don't have buffs. You lose one item, which you instantly replace, and everyone is happy. Seriously learn how saving throws work, this isn't 4e.

[shadzar]

hey Frank until you can make an argument that a) doesn't contain factual inaccuracies

I don't care what it is you are talking about, but this is a bit much to expect on ANY subject.

As for your 4e player making up terms to insult other players, you msut not have seen the 4th edition advertising prior and shortly after its release...

I think Frank is including the designers in his part as well, because they have no idea what theya re talking about with their own game. They just make the fact up and have to be shown where they said or did something else in blogs, or the rules themselves.

The point is that, like when 3rd edition came out, previous edition players disliked the new edition players for the lies spoken about the previous edition in order to claim "it was a failure".

a previous edition isn't a failure because it still isnt around. it isnt still around because someone decided they wanted to put their name in history and make a new edition. There is nothing that can prove the failure of ANY previous edition, yet there is PLENTY that can prove the failure of new editions...

AD&D was a failure to earlier edition players who never adopted it at getting them as players.

2nd edition was a failure to earlier edition players who never adopted it at getting them as players.

3rd edition was a failure to earlier edition players who never adopted it at getting them as players.

4th edition is a failure to earlier edition players who never adopted it at getting them as players.

ANY person thinking a previous edition was a failure on some level, though it is what gave you New Edition #X is the problem because, without the previous edition succeeding you couldnt have the new one as the line would have ended.

This stems in part from the makers of the game, not knowing its history, or claiming they somehow "forgot" it while making new editions because some lame excuse that the new edition made them forget everything they were trying to fix form older editions and passing on lies about problems in older edition to newer players that REALLY don't know the history of the game, or anything about past editions. So new players pass on wrong information as well and the lies/factual inaccuracies keep snowballing.

See my thread about where it went wrong for some of that fixed history where people are making mistakes passed on by "newer" edition creators and the players thereof taking the current edition designers word as gospel.

Also a major thing that keeps edition wars burning, because people just making stuff up.

Ergo why I for the most part don't like 3rd edition players, or discusing it with them, because the majority have no idea what previous editions did, because they only take the lies used to market 3rd edition as facts about a previous edition.

See the 4th edition promo video "ze game will remain ze same" for an example of this in regards to 4th, and realize that is what was done each time.

So those biggest 4rries, are employed by WotC/HASBRO, and like 4th edition just pass things down to their mindless minions.

[Plebian]

also, Kaelik, no game in which you have to say "well if you just play one of the classes that aren't worthless" is a good game, sorry

I mean I know you like 3e and good for you, I don't say you shouldn't the same way I don't say people with scat fetishes should stop doing what they like, but man you probably should actually take a look at 3e some day rather than checking out its pubes all day

[DragonChild]

So 4e isn't a good game? In fact, there are NO good RPGs?

I can agree to that.

[Koumei]

Given in produces cockbag trolls like Plebian and that February crowd, I'm going to say something very similar to what Frank said: it deserves all the criticism it gets, and then some.

This just in: it turns out 4rries actually have more than a 90% positive DNA match to CRABS.

[Kaelik]

also, Kaelik, no game in which you have to say "well if you just play one of the classes that aren't worthless" is a good game, sorry

Plebian, Settlers of Catan is a game in which you must say "well if you just start on this location, you are worthless." It is the greatest boardgame of all time.

The existence of poor decisions does not invalidate the game. SC is probably still the best RTS game ever made. The existence of the 48 pool, and it's suckitude does not make the game suck. The game is great precisely because some decisions are better than others.

[Plebian]

So 4e isn't a good game? In fact, there are NO good RPGs?

I can agree to that.

well, the biggest problem is that 'good' is subjective yet a lot of people here don't seem to understand that subjective != objective, thus the "4e breaks all verisimilitude ever" and such

it's for that reason I don't claim people playing 3e are having fun wrong, but no one attacking 4e seems to understand the ever so difficult to grasp concept of people having different fun at different things



also Settlers of Catan is very specifically about fucking over your fellow man, where D&D is ideally about cooperating with your fellow man to achieve a goal. but, hey, I don't expect you to understand that in explicitly co-operative games it is a horrible decision to make certain roles inarguably better, in every way, than others

[Novembermike]

also, Kaelik, no game in which you have to say "well if you just play one of the classes that aren't worthless" is a good game, sorry

Plebian, Settlers of Catan is a game in which you must say "well if you just start on this location, you are worthless." It is the greatest boardgame of all time.

The existence of poor decisions does not invalidate the game. SC is probably still the best RTS game ever made. The existence of the 48 pool, and it's suckitude does not make the game suck. The game is great precisely because some decisions are better than others.

It's been awhile since I've played Catan, but it's a competitive game, yes? Competitive disadvantages and cooperative disadvantages have always been treated differently.

[Kaelik]

it's for that reason I don't claim people playing 3e are having fun wrong, but no one attacking 4e seems to understand the ever so difficult to grasp concept of people having different fun at different things

Funny then that literally every single one of your posts is about how shitty 3e is, and you hardly ever even address complaints against 4e, because you are too bust bashing 3e:

"also, Kaelik, no game in which you have to say "well if you just play one of the classes that aren't worthless" is a good game, sorry

I mean I know you like 3e and good for you, I don't say you shouldn't the same way I don't say people with scat fetishes should stop doing what they like, but man you probably should actually take a look at 3e some day rather than checking out its pubes all day"

Nope, nothing about defending 4e, just a massive insult to 3e.

"what is NOT fun about a gigantic dragon just flying around and around, outside of most of the party's reach, waiting for the 1d4 rounds for its breath to recharge so it can move in for another single round of actual combat? man that just sounsd like fun! I love playing encounters where the party gets to do something every 1d4 rounds!

man that's so heroic, sure does sound like a game I would want to play and not some silly game that actually gave the party something fun to do. even in 3e it's an uninspired and idiotic tactic. "

Oh look more.

also Settlers of Catan is very specifically about fucking over your fellow man, where D&D is ideally about cooperating with your fellow man to achieve a goal. but, hey, I don't expect you to understand that in explicitly co-operative games it is a horrible decision to make certain roles inarguably better, in every way, than others

This is 3e, not 4e, there are no roles. Fighter is not a role, it is a class. So is Commoner. It turns out to be the case that Fighter and Commoner suck, but Cleric and Wizard and Rogue do not. This means that the Fighter class is mostly a waste of space (actually, it means the Warrior class is a waste of space, since Fighter is the real NPC class). Having wasted book space does not make a game terrible. The Catan manual features a large amount of empty space.