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

Novembermike · Post by **Novembermike** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:31 am

I don't have my books on me and I don't actually play 4e that often, but I'm pretty sure Wizards have invisibility.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:33 am

Novembermike wrote:EDIT: Explain the theory of Conservation of Energy with respect to "Delayed Blast Fireball".

Protip: When people aren't talking to you, don't try to understand what they are saying, we talk down to you so you can get an idea of what we are saying, but when I'm talking to MGuy, I don't talk like a retard to make it easier for him, so you apparently can't follow along.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:37 am

I would also rule that radiant damage can't light a fire because I agree with Novembermike--it's closer to holiness than actual light. It's moral superiority in your sword, and it pisses the undead off something fierce.

Novembermike · Post by **Novembermike** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:39 am

Kaelik wrote:
Novembermike wrote:EDIT: Explain the theory of Conservation of Energy with respect to "Delayed Blast Fireball".
Protip: When people aren't talking to you, don't try to understand what they are saying, we talk down to you so you can get an idea of what we are saying, but when I'm talking to MGuy, I don't talk like a retard to make it easier for him, so you apparently can't follow along.

If you want to PM somebody PM them.

It's so funny watching you guys take this stuff so seriously though.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:41 am

I'm willing to sidestep science for a reasonable explanation. I don't care, or know, the exact science of light but if "radiant" damage isn't light searing something with a great amount of heat then what the fuck is it? Seriously ANY 4E defender that scoffeed at the fact that I complained I couldn't light my campfire with it PLEASE explain to me what RADIANT damage IS and HOW it hurtz people and things.

If its positive energy from the positive energy plane it should ALWAYS heal as I understand positive energy always heals organic life in 3E. If its your God's "holiness" why can I use it to damage doors or really any thing else the MC declares is "target" enough to be a "target" whether the target be your god's peon or not?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:51 am

Seriously ANY 4E defender that scoffeed at the fact that I complained I couldn't light my campfire with it PLEASE explain to me what RADIANT damage IS and HOW it hurtz people and things.

If its positive energy from the positive energy plane it should ALWAYS heal as I understand positive energy always heals organic life in 3E. If its your God's "holiness" why can I use it to damage doors or really any thing else the MC declares is "target" enough to be a "target" whether the target be your god's peon or not?

This is a pretty good point. If you presented that argument to me in game, I would probably change my mind and let you light a campfire. I forgot that paladins use radiant damage for their at-wills and it's not a special smite anymore.

Novembermike · Post by **Novembermike** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:54 am

Well, first off it's all magic so it works just like your DM says it does outside of combat. There's no real world analogue so you're pretty much fucked as far as a hard definition goes. But conceivably it could create burns without heat, such that instead of igniting the fire it would turn all of the logs you had gathered to ash.

Also, it isn't positive energy but it's close. It's supposed to fill the same niche but it doesn't have the same metaphysical properties.

EDIT: I'm not trying to be a dick and if I were DM you would have had a nice, cozy fire. But there's a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the flavor where the DM was correct, and he's the arbitrator of the game.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:05 am

Great both it giving off heat or just disassembling shit with light is fine. Now why couldn't they write that in the damn book?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:08 am

MGuy wrote:I'm willing to sidestep science for a reasonable explanation. I don't care, or know, the exact science of light but if "radiant" damage isn't light searing something with a great amount of heat then what the fuck is it?

It is a keyword like all in 4th edition that have no meaning outside the context of the power.

Replace "radiant" with "fart" for all instances and it still works the same way.

4th edition keywords, have no meaning to the real words used to represent them.

Someone could simply create a strap-on for female characters, give it the "type: weapon" and it would be effective for all powers that require weapon, as their implement.

The keywords have absolutely no meaning or rationale outside of the fact that all similar keywords are usable by all things requiring that keyword.

Just because some of the keywords make sense in 4th, doesn't mean they were all designed to do so.

change every instance of the keyword "weapon" to "pancake", and the system functions just the same way and as confusingly because the keywords were attempted to be associated with real definitions and at the same time redefine real words for the game.

the keywords have as much usefulness and meaning in 4th edition as the word "level" has had in the whole of D&D.

in regards and relation to it being, in any edition, "holy" damage, then it is damage form the god itself, which doesnt function on the level of positive energy, but a godly strike wielded by the hands of the mortal.

you would have to get WotC to defend their asinine keyword system to explain why they chose certain words and strove to redefine the english language, when they could have bought a thesaurus or jsut made up a word for which to keyword things to that had no real world meaning, and expectations, like you own, along with it.

Novembermike · Post by **Novembermike** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:14 am

MGuy wrote:Great both it giving off heat or just disassembling shit with light is fine. Now why couldn't they write that in the damn book?

It's setting specific. In setting A it might give off divine heat and in another it might be a "wrong" color that warps your body. Something like "what are the holy people doing to hurt people" should really be left up to the setting imo. DnD does have an implied setting, but it should really try to stay as generic as possible.

EDIT:Shadzar, that's correct, but I'm pretty sure you could write any edition of DnD in code like that and it would still work mechanically.

CCarter · Post by **CCarter** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:27 am

Novembermike wrote:Radiant energy is closer to Positive energy from 3e than any pseudoscientific physical light concept. You could conceivably have a monster that is resistant to fire but weak to radiant, which doesn't make much sense from the perspective of radiant = light = fire but makes perfect sense from the perspective of radiant = holy.

EDIT: Explain the theory of Conservation of Energy with respect to "Delayed Blast Fireball".

You're turning 'magic' energy into 'fire' energy?

Novembermike · Post by **Novembermike** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:31 am

CCarter wrote:
Novembermike wrote:Radiant energy is closer to Positive energy from 3e than any pseudoscientific physical light concept. You could conceivably have a monster that is resistant to fire but weak to radiant, which doesn't make much sense from the perspective of radiant = light = fire but makes perfect sense from the perspective of radiant = holy.

EDIT: Explain the theory of Conservation of Energy with respect to "Delayed Blast Fireball".
You're turning 'magic' energy into 'fire' energy?

I'm saying that the magical energy isn't necessarily fire energy.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:06 am

It's probably worth noting that 4e doesn't try to mean anything when it uses words. Not just for keywords, but the power names, monster names, roles, mechanics, ... they're not trying to represent anything.

Dissociated mechanics and all that. Dex vs Will melee standard 1[W]+Cha radiant damage and slide 2 squares could literally be called anything, and represent whatever the fuck you want it to, because the designers considered the issues of what these things are (in the game world) to be not just unimportant, but also detrimental to the design of the game.

'S funny that all they considered was the numbers, and then the numbers didn't work in a few fundamental ways. Of course, there's monsters in 3e have too many HP, but not all of them, so it doesn't matter near as much.

quanta · Post by **quanta** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:13 am

It's insane to consider energy as a meaningful restriction in D&D.

I'm pretty sure there's got to be at least one way to set up a perpetual motion machine with a couple spells and some simple mechanical gadgets in 3e.

You may even be able to do it in 4e if you reach outside of core for the really late game rituals.

Great both it giving off heat or just disassembling shit with light is fine. Now why couldn't they write that in the damn book?

Going to be totally honest here, this is actually one of the cases where I really don't want that detail in the core book. Radiant energy is what... "the power of the (good?) gods or something?" in Forgotten Realms, but it can't be that in Dark Sun, since there are no gods there. Seriously though, radiant and necrotic are nonsensical voodoo. They really shouldn't even have a place in some settings.

I would've let you light a fire with it, but to be totally honest, I don't think I'd even vaguely worry about shit like your ability to light a fire or survive in mildly uncomfortable weather, so it probably wouldn't even come up in a game I ran.

Sashi · Post by **Sashi** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:21 am

If you spend too much time on the positive energy plane you you literally explode. Too much of a good things still hurts.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:18 am

No one sees what's wrong with [Radiant] being just a meaningless tag? Shouldn't it mean something so that there can be some kind of consistency when people use it for not bashing monsters in the face with it? I mean the fact that this is a first level at-will sends echoes throughout the system about what one could use any given ability at a given level for. What are their effects when not bashing people in the face? If the tags don't mean anything, the fluff doesn't mean anything, and all that matters are the in-combat effects (damage, DoT, pushes, and status effects) then doesn't this just further prove that a lot of 4E is just a videogame?

Shazbot79 · Post by **Shazbot79** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:09 am

My take on Radiant and Necrotic energy:

These are actually natural forces which aren't inherently good OR evil.

Necrotic energy is basically the force of entropy, which is the inevitable decay of all things, whereas Radiant energy is the force of creation and possibility. In D&D-land, radiant energy is what exploded from point zero of their big bang equivalent. Remember, this is in the same universe where cold is an energy source and 200 lbs. Brawler Fighters can drag a 2 ton dragon around by the nose.

The people of D&D-land, in their more primitive development stages, came to associate these natural forces with good and evil, because they fear death (necrotic) and revere life (Radiant).

Which brings us to the topic of necromancy. See mortalkind have souls, and these are actually comprised of equal measures of necrotic and radiant energy. When a mortal dies, this energy gradual seeps away, carrying their consciousness into the afterlife, or whatever. However, undead creatures such as zombies and ghouls, are created when the radiant energy contained within their soul dissipates, but the necrotic energy is trapped within the shell of their corpse. Usually this phenomenon requires outside intervention to accomplish, but sometimes it happens naturally.

Immortal creatures, such as devils, angels, gods...these are beings that have no necrotic energy within them...they are in fact the opposite of undead...creatures who's souls are composed entirely of radiant energy.

Immortal creatures such as demons and elementals don't actually have souls...at least not in the same way...they have neither necrotic nor radiant energy within them, as their spirits are comprised entirely of elemental energies.

Thus far, no one has been able to figure out what the hell aberrations are made out of.

So, to my reckoning there is no actual tie to radiant energy and "goodness", even though it is often associated with such do to it being the energy of creation, and oft wielded be divine casters, angels, gods, etc. Remember that the 4E version of colorspray does radiant damage. In this instance, the caster isn't blasting creatures with holy righteousness, but rather a miniaturized big bang that leaves their foes dazed.

So can the power of creation and possibility start a campfire? Fuck if I know. Is there a cat int he box or isn't there? Ask your DM. That's what they're there for.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:21 am

MGuy wrote:No one sees what's wrong with [Radiant] being just a meaningless tag?

Everyone that despises 4th edition and such systems sees a problem with bad naming conventions.

The thing is WotC has loyal sheep. They will buy into anything.

Take Final Fantasy and how they created names for NA release that matched what they r3sembled and the words real meaning, or just made them up like "materia'. Material, one simple dorp of a letter to create a new word and the material that wa being used to give certain aspects and powers to weapons became Materia.

Harmless word, that often isnt even recognized that it has a single letter missing to make it a new word, and serves its full purpose.

As was said by many when 4th came out, it followed the Magic the Gathering rules of making the game two parts.

Like the powers, each card has a set of rules for gameplay, and then some flavor text that is loosely associated with SOME part of the rules, the imagery, or the name of the card, and nothing more.

This is the same way the powers apply their flavor text, and only seem to have similar names and flavor text tot he rules and keyword system because an RPG pulls on those mental visuals more than a card game does.

They applied the wrong system to do things with.

"Radiant" has no more meaning towards heat or light as it does to being wet, as radiation occurs the same in all forms be it heat moving outwards from the source, or ripples in a pond radiating out from the center of the surface disruption.

It is a bad word to choose for things, and resembles the entire Magic Missile pushing a lever argument, because it is implying a function of force or movement, that is not even in the rules.

Magic Missile was ruled to only affect living things, but that still doesn't solve the problems. Likewise "Radiant" keyword doesnt properly define the weapon or the source. Is it saying then that radiant is energy coming out of the sword in all directions such that the pressure from that energy is causing the extra damage? If so, then it isnt anything really special. If it is a source of "holy" energy, then why not give it that keyword? If light, then give it the keyword "light", heat...keyword "heat", fire and so on....

But what do you expect form people who dont understand naming conventions enough that confused 4th edition with D&D so much as to call it that when they designed it?

They really dont understand when the keyword system was made that words have connotations, and meanings outside of the game, including but not limited to the games name.

The want these words viewed in the most gamist sense. These words have NO meaning in the game, but jsut a word for the game to identify one type of thing from another. This is why they said on more than one occasion to add whatever flavor you wanted to the powers, because they werent made to fit in a world, just to fit in the mechanics. That is how Mike "Game Mechanics" Mearls said for it to be.

4th edition is fucked up on so many levels (not character, dungeon, or spell) because of lack of intelligence, bad design and many more things. The keyword system is one such, and proves why it never worked in many more places where the word had to hold to its meaning.

The problem is that Mike Mearl, didnt see a problem with using a word that has a real world meaning and expectations that came with it, when improperly setting up the keyword system, or allowing his underlings and flunkies to do so.

So try not to blame the rest of the people that got screwed over, but place the blame on WotC for using a corrupt and bad system within the game, where they could have taken proper time to test if that system even worked.

It there any question what AD&D saves save against? Breath Weapon, sort of tells you exactly where to use it.

WotC just needs to hire people that speak english to proofread the games and test its written components before even playing it to check to make sure the chosen words work. They need an English speaking editor.

If the tags don't mean anything, the fluff doesn't mean anything, and all that matters are the in-combat effects (damage, DoT, pushes, and status effects) then doesn't this just further prove that a lot of 4E is just a videogame?

Yes. It is a gamist miniature wargame, built upon the grave of a TTRPG, that still tries to claim that it is a full RPG, but unable to use prose properly of have a level (there is that word again....) of understanding that words have meanings outside the game and with a game played mostly in the mind, those words are VERY important to use correctly. Unlike a video game where you see more so can more easily forget the words or names of things and see them for what they are displayed as, rather than what they are written down to be.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:34 am

MGuy wrote: If the tags don't mean anything, the fluff doesn't mean anything, and all that matters are the in-combat effects (damage, DoT, pushes, and status effects) then doesn't this just further prove that a lot of 4E is just a videogame?

I think everyone with more than two braincells knows that the fluff in 4E has no meaning at all, and that 4E is just a poor shadow of a (stupid) MMOG.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:27 pm

shadzar wrote:No, WotC started shitting on editions. TSR NEVER once attacked one of its previous editions in that manner, it is the infantile attitudes of WotC and those D&D and other gamers that WotC has created that take this stance.

I'm going to disagree here; I think in many significant ways 2E did a dump on many of the key elements of Gygax's AD&D game. The key was that they never really made that public and had a very nice misdirection ("we're deflecting the criticism of those religious nutjobs who think we are satan worshipers") to explain a number of significant changes to the structure that held up the framework of AD&D rules.

I think their attitude at the time was "if we don't say anything, they might eitehr go away or just buy the new edition."

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:29 pm

Kaelik wrote:I'm a little pissed because I posted in this thread more than Tzor or Lago.

Sorry, I just have most of these folks on ignore. It's a much nicer thread.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:29 pm

I do not remember any "2E sucks, play 3E, you idiot!" advertising when 3E came out. I hated the negative ads against 3E, it looked cheap and showed no class at all.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:32 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:Science + D&D doesn't work. That road leads to madness.

No that road leads to 1E.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:53 pm

tzor wrote:
Kaelik wrote:I'm a little pissed because I posted in this thread more than Tzor or Lago.
Sorry, I just have most of these folks on ignore. It's a much nicer thread.

I meant that Josh but you and Lago in the first d6, when I should be there.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:16 pm

tzor wrote:
shadzar wrote:No, WotC started shitting on editions. TSR NEVER once attacked one of its previous editions in that manner, it is the infantile attitudes of WotC and those D&D and other gamers that WotC has created that take this stance.
I'm going to disagree here; I think in many significant ways 2E did a dump on many of the key elements of Gygax's AD&D game. The key was that they never really made that public and had a very nice misdirection ("we're deflecting the criticism of those religious nutjobs who think we are satan worshipers") to explain a number of significant changes to the structure that held up the framework of AD&D rules.

I think their attitude at the time was "if we don't say anything, they might eitehr go away or just buy the new edition."

WEll Gygax himself did the same to get away from Dave, but it wasnt coming out and saying the previous edition was crap so stop playing it.

3rd edition, on the other hand came out with the 2nd edition is broke and we fixed it all line.

Then 4th with the "you have always been playing it wrong" bit.

How it goes internally is the same for every edition where the next designers tries to claim superiority over the last and make their mark on the game. The big difference is that advertising.

We all know TPTB wanted 2nd solely for the purpose of taking Gary's name off the books. But how they handled it, and i can't believe I am saying this, was with more class than WotC showed during its translations.

The constant ending of support for any edition not the newest is just a crap on the last edition anyway.

None of this way ever done until WotC. It was part of the big push and missed by many when WotC did it in the storm of OGL.

Even under 2nd a big non-crap on 1st was how everything was still compatible and said so in a great majority of the products. So I wouldn't say there wa any real public signs of it with second. 2.5 didn't even come out with a whimper, but just slipped out like a wet fart and not noticed until something began to smell.

3.5 on the other hand followed suit where 3.0 left off, and 4th jsut got worse again.

It is a pattern with WotC. Each new edition takes a bigger crap ont he previous. Probably because the designers are so full of it, it has to come out sooner or later.