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

[RobbyPants]

I'm not doing it to be right. I'm doing it for my own sanity.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Not worth the paper it's printed on.

[K]

I, and many others, have noticed, however, that you're completely unwilling to discuss points, which rather makes it difficult for anyone to take you seriously.

+1

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Rich, coming from someone with nothing but a few snipes and and unwillingness to actually discuss the problems with the example.

[K]

Rich, coming from someone with nothing but a few snipes and and unwillingness to actually discuss the problems with the example.

There are almost 30 pages proving that you are a troll with nothing to say. I already regret my mistake of entering the thread without reading the whole thing.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Assuming you omitted a you, I came in halfway through, and have repeatedly attempted to engage people who are apparently incapable of debate.

[Doom]

Are you referring to a thread on SA? You're certainly not referring to a thread here.

Let's again, give you yet another chance: What are you trying to prove, exactly?

[Winnah]

Even if an argument is defined, the goalposts will inevitably be shifted, just as they have been time and time again.

It's an entertaining distraction, but not what I am here for.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

That the ridiculous ire you have here for 4E is based on willful misconceptions and gross misinterpretation of the rules. The reactions to the marketing campaign are nothing short of ridiculous, tantamount to saying you can't change anything without it being a direct insult to the players of previous editions.

[Winnah]

I don't have any ire for 4e. I play it once a week.

It is a system riddled with problems. It failed to meet the criteria that the designers set for it. However, I am quite happy to spend a few hours a week killing monsters with my friends. If there was enough interest in any other gaming system, I would be playing that instead.

Getting you panties in a twist because people on the internet don't share your opinons is pretty lame. Go get some fresh air and find a woman or a good book to curl up with.

[Doom]

That the ridiculous ire you have

I have no ire, ridiculous or otherwise. I grant that such ire may exist somewhere, but you're making a false assumption if you're talking to me.

here for 4E is based on willful misconceptions

And how exactly are you going to show my intent to misconceive? I don't believe I have any such intent, nor do I believe I've seen anyone else have such intent. How do you plan on showing someone else's intent? I believe you've given yourself an impossible mission here.

and gross misinterpretation of the rules.

Ok, this is a bit more specific. Which rule do you feel has been grossly misinterpreted?

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Getting you panties in a twist because people on the internet don't share your opinons is pretty lame. Go get some fresh air and find a woman or a good book to curl up with.

I'm taking care of an ill fiancee and our daughter. This conversation is just one of the many things I'm doing at the moment, you condescending ass.

Doom, I can only assume you intended to deceive with your example of how many things can happen in one turn, unless you're very bad at expressing yourself clearly. You left out at least two of the effects causing damage and showed each effect as several pieces of data when they would actually be given to a player as 1/3 to 1/2 of the numbers given.

The ire statement was more in reference to earlier posts (you in this instance was the forum, not you specifically) where the advertisements are referred to as insulting, when they're pretty clearly meant to be informative as well as amusing.

Rules I've seen misinterpreted: minions, scaling DCs, and monster levels to name a few.

[LR]

Psychic Robot, do you really run encounters between two NPCs?

Encounters with NPCs aren't strictly needed unless the NPC is performing some important function. If NPCs have stats, you can compare their ability sets. Then you can just figure out the probabilities and roll a single die.

Along with that is pages and pages of misinformation and arguing about how a real world economy is more important than game balance.

It's not, but the two are not mutually exclusive and a good system will let the two coexist. There are people who want their characters to hold down a job and have that mean something, but very few people want to farm until they can start the game with a +7 ASSKLLR. Appeasing the first group but not the second is possible if you drop the Diablo magic item system, but for some reason 4e took the lazy way out and just removed the economy.

That the ridiculous ire you have here for 4E is based on willful misconceptions and gross misinterpretation of the rules. The reactions to the marketing campaign are nothing short of ridiculous, tantamount to saying you can't change anything without it being a direct insult to the players of previous editions.

Hating on tabletop games and making new systems and hacks for old systems is pretty much all that goes on here. 3.5 has gotten plenty of heat in the past.

[MGuy]

Getting you panties in a twist because people on the internet don't share your opinons is pretty lame. Go get some fresh air and find a woman or a good book to curl up with.

I'm taking care of an ill fiancee and our daughter. This conversation is just one of the many things I'm doing at the moment, you condescending ass.

Doom, I can only assume you intended to deceive with your example of how many things can happen in one turn, unless you're very bad at expressing yourself clearly. You left out at least two of the effects causing damage and showed each effect as several pieces of data when they would actually be given to a player as 1/3 to 1/2 of the numbers given.

The ire statement was more in reference to earlier posts (you in this instance was the forum, not you specifically) where the advertisements are referred to as insulting, when they're pretty clearly meant to be informative as well as amusing.

Rules I've seen misinterpreted: minions, scaling DCs, and monster levels to name a few.

I have a mission for you Doctor. Go back in the thread, before Darwin and your Troll squad invaded and read the posts. If you can form a solid argument based off of what you read there (quotes included) then a proper discussion can be had. If you CAN'T do that and you're going to rant about how we're "doing it wrong" then fewer and fewer people will fall into the trap of having anything to say to you at all until you are on ignore by everyone. honestly I should already have you on ignore but I don't. If you can do this one thing then I believe you'll prove to be someone worth talkin' to.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Encounters with NPCs aren't strictly needed unless the NPC is performing some important function. If NPCs have stats, you can compare their ability sets. Then you can just figure out the probabilities and roll a single die.

I just choose the more interesting outcome. It's the same thing but I don't make a show of being impartial. I want the game to be fun and interesting, I don't feel randomness is required or useful where the players aren't.

It's not, but the two are not mutually exclusive and a good system will let the two coexist. There are people who want their characters to hold down a job and have that mean something, but very few people want to farm until they can start the game with a +7 ASSKLLR. Appeasing the first group but not the second is possible if you drop the Diablo magic item system, but for some reason 4e took the lazy way out and just removed the economy.

It's done because wealth is a measure of power in D&D and has been since magic items had gold value. It's the simplest way of making it work for the players. It also gets rid of the need to strip every monster of any article of clothing it might have, and all the weapons and carry a wagon full of them into town.

Hating on tabletop games and making new systems and hacks for old systems is pretty much all that goes on here. 3.5 has gotten plenty of heat in the past.

I'm not saying you can't say 4E has problems, I'm saying misrepresenting those problems is counter-productive.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

I have a mission for you Doctor. Go back in the thread, before Darwin and your Troll squad invaded and read the posts. If you can form a solid argument based off of what you read there (quotes included) then a proper discussion can be had. If you CAN'T do that and you're going to rant about how we're "doing it wrong" then fewer and fewer people will fall into the trap of having anything to say to you at all until you are on ignore by everyone. honestly I should already have you on ignore but I don't. If you can do this one thing then I believe you'll prove to be someone worth talkin' to.

No, I'm not taking missions. Get over yourself, I'm happy to discuss in a natural way, and I will use the rest of the thread as a reference (as I have been) but I'm not taking the time to comb through the thread yet again for what I can only assume will be an argument you will reject outright anyway. I'm happy to discuss, but I'm not your toy.

[LR]

I just choose the more interesting outcome. It's the same thing but I don't make a show of being impartial. I want the game to be fun and interesting, I don't feel randomness is required or useful where the players aren't.

I'm not super concerned about skipping the dice roll, but I'd be much happier with the outcome of a plot event if I knew that it would actually be feasible in the setting. There are lot of things that would work in real life that don't work in D&D, and people who make plot events without consulting rules usually don't have a good grasp of how the world works in D&D. How many people realize that you can't really kill people in 3e by throwing them off a cliff?

It's done because wealth is a measure of power in D&D and has been since magic items had gold value. It's the simplest way of making it work for the players. It also gets rid of the need to strip every monster of any article of clothing it might have, and all the weapons and carry a wagon full of them into town.

Wealth=Power is not a good system. It makes the Lord of the Lands an invalid character archetype and makes dragon hoards feeble. Telling people that they can't strip down the Jade Tower because it's not part of a treasure parcel is just as bad as letting people turn the Jade Tower into magic swords. If you want an in-depth explanation of how to do fantasy economics, you can read the Economicon.

I'm not saying you can't say 4E has problems, I'm saying misrepresenting those problems is counter-productive.

You haven't really explained how those are misrepresented. I know that there are legitimate criticisms for minions and scaling DCs.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

I'm not super concerned about skipping the dice roll, but I'd be much happier with the outcome of a plot event if I knew that it would actually be feasible in the setting. There are lot of things that would work in real life that don't work in D&D, and people who make plot events without consulting rules usually don't have a good grasp of how the world works in D&D. How many people realize that you can't really kill people in 3e by throwing them off a cliff?

You can't kill high level people (1% of the population at the outside) that way.

Wealth=Power is not a good system. It makes the Lord of the Lands an invalid character archetype and makes dragon hoards feeble. Telling people that they can't strip down the Jade Tower because it's not part of a treasure parcel is just as bad as letting people turn the Jade Tower into magic swords. If you want an in-depth explanation of how to do fantasy economics, you can read the Economicon.

I think the 4E system is functional, and that's more than enough for me. I usually can't be bothered to remember to pay for my drinks in in game bars. 4E is trying to reduce the amount of bookkeeping and making monetary concerns come down to "can I afford it" certainly does that.

You haven't really explained how those are misrepresented. I know that there are legitimate criticisms for minions and scaling DCs.

There might be, but "minions die in a sandstorm" and "why is a wall harder to climb at level 20 than level 1" aren't legit criticisms, and I haven't heard anything else here.

[K]

You haven't really explained how those are misrepresented. I know that there are legitimate criticisms for minions and scaling DCs.

There might be, but "minions die in a sandstorm" and "why is a wall harder to climb at level 20 than level 1" aren't legit criticisms, and I haven't heard anything else here.

They are legit criticisms. The fact that you don't see that makes me think you don't know how to make or recognize an argument as opposed to an opinion. (Don't feel bad, because most people can't tell the difference.)

In fact, I went back over all your posts in this thread, and found that you have not expressed even one argument. You've commented in about 10% of posts, and insulted in the other 90%.

So you can see why people are done with talking to you? We can't argue with your opinions or insults because they aren't based on rational arguments. I mean, I've been reading this whole thread and haven't been able to comment because nothing was being said.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

I'll do you a favor and ignore the parts of your post which are complete bullshit. I'll go ahead and cover one of the criticisms you claim is legitimate so you don't have any more posts with which to pretend your numbers reflect reality: minions

Minions have one hit point. In combat. This is so they take one hit from a PC to die, not a reflection of their overall healthiness. HP (in D&D) hasn't ever been a representation of pure physical health, it's always been a combination of luck, health, close calls etc. To suddenly claim that it has to be a model of how hardy these monsters are outside of combat because it suits your argument is disingenuous.

[LR]

You can't kill high level people (1% of the population at the outside) that way.

D&D assumes a feudalistic world where personal power equals authority. Low-level NPCs that are important to the story are a fabrication created by people who do not understand D&D.

I think the 4E system is functional, and that's more than enough for me. I usually can't be bothered to remember to pay for my drinks in in game bars. 4E is trying to reduce the amount of bookkeeping and making monetary concerns come down to "can I afford it" certainly does that.

It's "functional" in the same way that WBL is, but less so because WBL has an expense account and gives concrete examples of how much wealth a PC should have. I'd much rather have a system where I can deck out every NPC in magical bling that PCs can loot and not have that be a problem.

There might be, but "minions die in a sandstorm" and "why is a wall harder to climb at level 20 than level 1" aren't legit criticisms, and I haven't heard anything else here.

"Nobody can tell what minions are supposed to be out of combat" is a legitimate criticism. So is the lack of example DCs.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

I think it goes by where you are in the game, but I can see kings etc being level 1 if they're not going to be expecting to be in combat. Divine right of kings doesn't mean they can actually bring divine wrath down as long as people believe they can.

I agree there could be a better system, but I don't really see a problem with it now that monsters and PCs use different rules. In 3.x it was a huge PITA because if you wanted to outfit an NPC it would by definition increase the power level of the party more than WBL suggests. I think as a fix to the 3.x system, it's simple and effective which is a good way to change things for a mass market rule system.

Minions are supposed to be monsters like any other, but they die like schmucks in combat. They're an action movie trope, and I like using/fighting them. Fortunately, if you don't like them they're entirely optional.

[CCarter]

There might be, but "minions die in a sandstorm" and "why is a wall harder to climb at level 20 than level 1" aren't legit criticisms, and I haven't heard anything else here.

They're legit if you want your rules to actually be a representation of how your world works. However as for finding some new criticisms, here have a hate dump. I try to be reasonable with regard to 4E, but I can find something that makes me foam with rage on most pages in the PHB - much of it in the basic rules engine.

*stats that are meaningless for defining your character as an individual. Even moreso than 3E, someone who knows the system can probably tell you exactly what your stats are when I know your race/class (and perhaps build).

*defenses. Coming from 3e, 'he hits you and you take 5 damage and are also on fire' feels fucking unfair - where's my resistance roll against being on fire? (although it does like 5 damage a round so I don't *care* that I'm on fire anyway). Additionally, rider effect and main attack often seem like they'd make more sense hitting different defenses. I can be impervious to 'real' bull rush effects from a bloated CON, and still get whacked back a square by a 'hit vs. AC and push 1 square' effect, or vice versa a pushback can deals damage even though I'm armoured to the point of invulnerability. Status effects frequently not worth the extra book keeping (and it is more complex from 3.5 in general, since most powers have a secondary effect and a balanced encounter is 5 monsters rather than one.

*coin-flip saving throws. I'm fine with 'duration rolls' but the designers should either keep them for that and not add any modifiers, or build a fucking scaling system that works, instead of having the 30th level monk with 22 Dex fall into a pit with the same chance as some peon with Dex 3.

*damage on a miss powers. Negligible damage so in most cases I don't see the point. Rationalization of this is pretty feeble. Combined with HP abstraction, makes it impossible to figure out how I should even describe what happens when someone loses HP.

*powers and status effects that don't work due to too much abstraction. Armour-piercing thrust going straight through mirror image for some reason (the latter only defends against AC effects). Harpies pulling immobilized targets toward them 3 squares with their song. Helpless targets adding their Int bonuses to their AC. Cleave hitting irrespective of [secondary target] AC. Ettins running twice as fast because they have 2 heads (two move actions).

*tightened RNG meaning that monsters have to be specifically designed to a particular CR. A character who doesn't optimize for every +1 is gimped because the monsters are always matched to expected to-hit rate...your 3rd level fighter isn't going to get to fight 1st level guys or find a gelatinous cube with an Armour Class of 3, so the party start drooling over pathetic +1 bonuses.

*all useful feats removed: largely missing the point of what feats were (general customization available regardless of class) and instead making them random '+1 to power blah'. A ton of feats I might not bother writing on my character sheet if they were free in 3E (e.g. Lightning Reflexes) are Paragon feats in 4E, while stuff like criticals on a 19-20 (free with your 3.5 NPC warrior) gets pushed up to Epic.

[K]

I'll do you a favor and ignore the parts of your post which are complete bullshit. I'll go ahead and cover one of the criticisms you claim is legitimate so you don't have any more posts with which to pretend your numbers reflect reality: minions

Minions have one hit point. In combat. This is so they take one hit from a PC to die, not a reflection of their overall healthiness. HP (in D&D) hasn't ever been a representation of pure physical health, it's always been a combination of luck, health, close calls etc. To suddenly claim that it has to be a model of how hardy these monsters are outside of combat because it suits your argument is disingenuous.

Ok, so there is no argument here: this is just an insult.

An argument makes a claim and then supports it with persuasive facts. Try it once and see how it feels.

[Psychic Robot]

Psychic Robot, do you really run encounters between two NPCs?

That would depend on the nature of said encounter.