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

[mean_liar]

It looks like to me like that's what his second paragraph is.

[K]

It looks like to me like that's what his second paragraph is.

No, he's making a claim that people are lying when they talk about minions. He's not actually pointing out any lies as supporting facts or any places where the rules contradict anyone's statements or any examples that support his claim.

It's an insult and nothing more.

My first paragraph here is an argument, for example, because I'm pointing out facts that support my claim that he is not making an argument.

[LR]

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.

When there are people who can take on the entire Royal Guard and put the king to the sword, I can't see 1st level kings at all.

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.

You're missing the point. Do you think that the heroes that slay the dragon should be able to walk off with a mountain of gold? If not, why not?

[Doom]

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.

Oh crap, I made a mistake on the example...guess it was even more complicated just moving a single character. Please, enlighten me as to these additional complications, I meant no deception. But, as I claim, the game is rather complicated, so even an experienced player can miss one of the dozens of factors that go into a single turn by a single player.

What two effects did I leave out? I note you say "at least" two, so even you're not sure if I missed something. Are you confident that you'll be able to impress upon me how simple it is seeing as you can't even say with confident how many things I, allegedly, have left out?

How did I leave the effects out, AND show them as several pieces of data?

What does it mean, as '1/3 to 1/2' of the numbers given? As near as I can tell, you seem to think a calculation made by the GM is somehow less of a calculation than one made by the player. In any event, it's really two levels of calclulation, as the GM has make those calculations (for each hit), then the player must similarly subtract/add to his hit points...Probably more fair to say the calculations are double to triple what I've indicated. Perhaps that what you meant?

Please, clarify, keeping in mind that, as we go into our third page of discussion of how simply taking a single turn by a single player is complicated, that perhaps 3 pages on discussing and clarifying all the rules considerations simply dealing with damage and healing (and ignoring all else) by a single move by a single player, your case that there isn't some level of complexity gets weaker and weaker.

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

I see others are attempting to engage you in a conversation on these, starting with minions.

But do get back to me on the factors I left out. Did you ever glean the issue with the beholder?

[Koumei]

I assumed per default that all of the SA crowd just wants to provoke hilarious answers that can be copy-pasted to the grognards.txt-thread.

Do you remember when "Threads that make us Laugh, Cry or Both" was banned, because Roy and PR went on a crusade of trolling other forums?

Basically that's what the entirety of SA is: trolling other places, then giving each other handjobs over what a great job they did. I mean, at least Roy and PR did it for their own amusement, rather than to be part of the special wank club.

[Psychic Robot]

at least Roy and PR did it for their own amusement, rather than to be part of the special wank club.

Thank you.

[Plebian]

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.

but most of the basic rules engine is just a reflavoring of 3e?

*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).

stats in every edition have been meaningless for defining your character as an individual because of the way stats are linked to class abilities. if you tell me race/class and perhaps build for a 3e character I can very easily tell you what your stats are going to be like; they're both stupidly reliant on stat systems.

this is a weakness that's hard to address and stay close to nerd comfort zones about stats. hell, there are people who still think HP is a direct representation of health and that charisma is how pretty you are.

*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.

status effects are very nearly always worthwhile, unless you think things that give the party a 10% bonus to hit an enemy, prevent enemies from engaging you with their powerful attacks, force enemies into only one action per round, etc are not worthwhile for some reason. and you know why attacks don't separate riders into different rolls? it'd be pointlessly complex because it adds nothing to the game but another roll.

*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.

I agree here

*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.

just like half damage on a save? also HP has always been abstract. here's an example: a ballista does 3d8 damage, so do you honestly think a direct, max-damage hit from it, dealing 24 damage, is the exact same hit to a level 1 warrior as a level 30 warrior? unless HP is abstract the level 1 dude is a corpse and the level 30 dude is walking around with a ballista in his chest and not giving a shit.

*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).

so you're attacking reflex, which could mean you watch and see which one is moving more naturally. harpies use magic to force people towards them. helpless people add everything to their AC, which is odd, but exists because it's pointlessly complex to have to reduce AC by Y when a flat +10 bonus against helpless targets performs the same function as reducing their AC to simulate helplessness. if cleave actually did decent damage that'd be an issue, but part of reducing pointless complexity is removing die rolls for 4 damage. and I don't know about ettins, and that sounds silly, but we're not trying to simulate physics, here. two brains, two moves, sure why not.

*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.

you're not gimped and the average adventures definitely do not assume you're being brutally optimal. a level 3 fighter with 18 strength will have, at the very least, +7 to hit if he hasn't taken a single feat and. average AC at that point is around 17-18, so he'll hit on a 10-11.

+1 is still very nice, just like previous editions, because it's a 5% boost to your chance to hit. and it's really nice that +1 actually means something.

*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.

yeah, no. I really don't know how you think this; my Ranger's got feats that let him prone people he hits twice, a feat to do bonus damage to prone targets, a feat that gives him +1 to attack with axes and lets him reroll 1s on damage dice, and is eagerly awaiting the next even level so he can do even more nifty stuff. this is one example; every character I've made has had access to far more good, and just flavorful, feats than slots to put them in.

[fectin]

yeah, no. I really don't know how you think this; my Ranger's got feats that let him prone people he hits twice, a feat to do bonus damage to prone targets, a feat that gives him +1 to attack with axes and lets him reroll 1s on damage dice, and is eagerly awaiting the next even level so he can do even more nifty stuff. this is one example; every character I've made has had access to far more good, and just flavorful, feats than slots to put them in.

Is that really what flavorful means to you? Knocking people down and some bonuses so minor and situational that you might forget about them?

I'll take rocket launcher tag. Thanks all the same, but your way sounds stultifying.

[Maxus]

Dancing Chains (Su): A chain devil’s most awesome attack is its ability to control up to four chains within 20 feet as a standard action, making the chains dance or move as it wishes. In addition, a chain devil can increase these chains’ length by up to 15 feet and cause them to sprout razor-edged barbs. These chains attack as effectively as the devil itself. If a chain is in another creature’s possession, the creature can attempt a DC 15 Will save to break the chain devil’s power over that chain. If the save is successful, the kyton cannot attempt to control that particular chain again for 24 hours or until the chain leaves the creature’s possession. The save DC is Charisma-based.

A chain devil can climb chains it controls at its normal speed without making Climb checks.

Natural Linguist: Changelings add Speak Language
to their list of class skills for any class they adopt.

Minor Change Shape (Su): Changelings have the
supernatural ability to alter their appearance as
though using a disguise self spell that affects their
bodies but not their possessions. This ability is not
an illusory effect, but a minor physical alteration of
a changeling’s facial features, skin color and texture,
and size, within the limits described for the spell. A
changeling can use this ability at will, and the alteration
lasts until she changes shape again. A changeling
reverts to her natural form when killed. A true seeing
spell reveals her natural form. When using this ability
to create a disguise, a changeling receives a +10
circumstance bonus on Disguise checks. Using this
ability is a full-round action.

Enlarge Person
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 1, Strength 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes


This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creature’s size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a –1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.

A humanoid creature whose size increases to Large has a space of 10 feet and a natural reach of 10 feet. This spell does not change the target’s speed.

If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature attains the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using its increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If it fails, it is constrained without harm by the materials enclosing it— the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size.

All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell. Melee and projectile weapons affected by this spell deal more damage. Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature’s possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage, and projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them. Magical properties of enlarged items are not increased by this spell.

Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.

Enlarge person counters and dispels reduce person.

Enlarge person can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

Material Component: A pinch of powdered iron.

Those are example from official publications--the SRD and Eberron, specifically.

C'mon with the fluff/flavor examples. I'll admit to not having played 4e, so, please, provide some specifics. I'm interested.

[Plebian]

yeah, no. I really don't know how you think this; my Ranger's got feats that let him prone people he hits twice, a feat to do bonus damage to prone targets, a feat that gives him +1 to attack with axes and lets him reroll 1s on damage dice, and is eagerly awaiting the next even level so he can do even more nifty stuff. this is one example; every character I've made has had access to far more good, and just flavorful, feats than slots to put them in.

Is that really what flavorful means to you? Knocking people down and some bonuses so minor and situational that you might forget about them?

I'll take rocket launcher tag. Thanks all the same, but your way sounds stultifying.

no, that's mechanical bonuses. how is +5 damage to prone people minor and situational when I create the situation? hell, even +1 to hit and, effectively, brutal 1 on all axes isn't anything like minor. this attitude is why 3e's system is horrible; +1 to hit and average damage is considered minor because, in 3e, those bonuses didn't matter. so of course in other editions where feat bloat has been tamed they must not matter.

flavor is the stuff like my Paladin of Aumanator making people he hits vulnerable to the radiant power of his god, and giving him more radiant-themed abilities.

[Doom]

People sure do overestimate the value of 'brutal'. Each "brutal 1" adds 0.5 to the average damage of a die roll.

Not terrible by 4e standards, but not exactly earthshaking.

[Plebian]

People sure do overestimate the value of 'brutal'. Each "brutal 1" adds 0.5 to the average damage of a die roll.

Not terrible by 4e standards, but not exactly earthshaking.

and when it's combined with +1 to hit it's a very good feat? not exactly sure what I'm overestimating here.

[Plebian]

Dancing Chains (Su): A chain devil’s most awesome attack is its ability to control up to four chains within 20 feet as a standard action, making the chains dance or move as it wishes. In addition, a chain devil can increase these chains’ length by up to 15 feet and cause them to sprout razor-edged barbs. These chains attack as effectively as the devil itself. If a chain is in another creature’s possession, the creature can attempt a DC 15 Will save to break the chain devil’s power over that chain. If the save is successful, the kyton cannot attempt to control that particular chain again for 24 hours or until the chain leaves the creature’s possession. The save DC is Charisma-based.

A chain devil can climb chains it controls at its normal speed without making Climb checks.

Natural Linguist: Changelings add Speak Language
to their list of class skills for any class they adopt.

Minor Change Shape (Su): Changelings have the
supernatural ability to alter their appearance as
though using a disguise self spell that affects their
bodies but not their possessions. This ability is not
an illusory effect, but a minor physical alteration of
a changeling’s facial features, skin color and texture,
and size, within the limits described for the spell. A
changeling can use this ability at will, and the alteration
lasts until she changes shape again. A changeling
reverts to her natural form when killed. A true seeing
spell reveals her natural form. When using this ability
to create a disguise, a changeling receives a +10
circumstance bonus on Disguise checks. Using this
ability is a full-round action.

Enlarge Person
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 1, Strength 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes


This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creature’s size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a –1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.

A humanoid creature whose size increases to Large has a space of 10 feet and a natural reach of 10 feet. This spell does not change the target’s speed.

If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature attains the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using its increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If it fails, it is constrained without harm by the materials enclosing it— the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size.

All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell. Melee and projectile weapons affected by this spell deal more damage. Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature’s possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage, and projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them. Magical properties of enlarged items are not increased by this spell.

Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.

Enlarge person counters and dispels reduce person.

Enlarge person can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

Material Component: A pinch of powdered iron.

Those are example from official publications--the SRD and Eberron, specifically.

C'mon with the fluff/flavor examples. I'll admit to not having played 4e, so, please, provide some specifics. I'm interested.

I am really not understanding what you're getting at here. Eberron has been officially released in 4e, Enlarge Person exists(I'm pretty sure, though I don't feel the need to memorize power lists), powers similar to the chain devil's exist if not a chain devil itself.

edit: unless your point is "show me these exact abilities in 4e" in which case... no? there's no reason a new edition should just mimic the old one to appease people who just hate new things; they changed it now it sucks has been going on since 1E and will never stop because there'll always be people waaaaay too invested in the old edition.

[tussock]

1st ed. and 2nd ed. had pretty similar spell lists and game mechanics for magic from what I've seen, though I didn't actually start until the 2e era myself. I guess warriors got some nerfs between 1e and 2e (e.g. no double-specialization, no barbarians or cavaliers) so wizards perhaps got a little stronger comparatively.

A 2e Wizard has more spells on the list (including all the rather awesome Illusionist spells that used to compensate an Illusionist for having very little else in the way of win), prepares them faster (past the first few levels where 1e's really fast), suffers less problems with being instantly killed in the surprise round, and has an easier time casting in combat. Spell resistance got tougher at high levels, biggest downside. With the splatbooks, they were weaker than Fighters for a long time still though.


EGG said he was going to cut the Wizard back to something like just Abjuration, Enchantment, and Transmutation for 2nd edition, getting a few low level spells from the other schools at higher class levels. Separate out the rest into Necromancer, Sage, and Elementalist classes, plus a dedicated Sorcerer class for planar binding.

[CCarter]

stats in every edition have been meaningless for defining your character as an individual because of the way stats are linked to class abilities. if you tell me race/class and perhaps build for a 3e character I can very easily tell you what your stats are going to be like; they're both stupidly reliant on stat systems.

this is a weakness that's hard to address and stay close to nerd comfort zones about stats. hell, there are people who still think HP is a direct representation of health and that charisma is how pretty you are

To an extent - 3E was worse than 2E in this regard (the universal mechanic meant a stat modifier applied to every roll); further degeneration between 3E and 4E here in that half the stats have little effect (e.g. don't contribute to defenses), and the prime requisite stat always provides the hit/damage.

status effects are very nearly always worthwhile, unless you think things that give the party a 10% bonus to hit an enemy, prevent enemies from engaging you with their powerful attacks, force enemies into only one action per round, etc are not worthwhile for some reason. and you know why attacks don't separate riders into different rolls? it'd be pointlessly complex because it adds nothing to the game but another roll.

While it would add another roll, assuming that roll had about a 50% chance of failure on average, it would reduce the number of conditions that needed tracking by half. Also, conditions could then be stronger without being imbalanced.

just like half damage on a save? also HP has always been abstract. here's an example: a ballista does 3d8 damage, so do you honestly think a direct, max-damage hit from it, dealing 24 damage, is the exact same hit to a level 1 warrior as a level 30 warrior? unless HP is abstract the level 1 dude is a corpse and the level 30 dude is walking around with a ballista in his chest and not giving a shit.

While older editions assumed some HP is due to skill, luck or whatever this gave them an ability to 'roll with the punches' rather than avoiding damage altogether i.e. a sword thrust through the heart to the 1st level dude is a nick on the arm to the 30th level dude. This makes more sense than swimming through lava for a few rounds and then doing some positive thinking to restore your lost self-esteem points. Though I'm fine with saying a 30th level dude is superhuman.

so you're attacking reflex, which could mean you watch and see which one is moving more naturally. harpies use magic to force people towards them. helpless people add everything to their AC, which is odd, but exists because it's pointlessly complex to have to reduce AC by Y when a flat +10 bonus against helpless targets performs the same function as reducing their AC to simulate helplessness. if cleave actually did decent damage that'd be an issue, but part of reducing pointless complexity is removing die rolls for 4 damage. and I don't know about ettins, and that sounds silly, but we're not trying to simulate physics, here. two brains, two moves, sure why not.

3E would give you an 0 Dex if you're helpless of course, decent damage on Cleave and better handling of all the the above cases e.g. harpy song tagged as a mind-affecting compulsion. In any case I'd probably find more holes if I could be bothered (books not on me). Oh and I forgot to mention invisible wizards getting +2 to hit with Sleep

you're not gimped and the average adventures definitely do not assume you're being brutally optimal. a level 3 fighter with 18 strength will have, at the very least, +7 to hit if he hasn't taken a single feat and. average AC at that point is around 17-18, so he'll hit on a 10-11.
+1 is still very nice, just like previous editions, because it's a 5% boost to your chance to hit. and it's really nice that +1 actually means something.

How significant a +5% is varies depending on what your current base likelihood of hitting is, of course. If your going from hitting on a 20 to hitting on a 19-20, it just doubled your to-hit chance, whereas a shift from 11+ just on the d20 (50%) to 10+ (55%) is less noticeable. As such +1s are less valuable in previous editions where primary attack is more likely to high in most cases. I wouldn't agree that piling up tons of tiny bonuses is fun, but again I suppose whatever flicks your switch.

yeah, no. I really don't know how you think this; my Ranger's got feats that let him prone people he hits twice, a feat to do bonus damage to prone targets, a feat that gives him +1 to attack with axes and lets him reroll 1s on damage dice, and is eagerly awaiting the next even level so he can do even more nifty stuff. this is one example; every character I've made has had access to far more good, and just flavorful, feats than slots to put them in.

yay for splat bloat, I suppose. Most of this is stuff a 3E character can do with feats though; at best I'd consider 4E to be slowly catching up here. With the 3E two-weapon trip guy its more like you'd trip a dude as a touch attack with the crappest of your 5 attacks and then slam him another four times. Combo potential is more in 3E since all the powerful effects hadn't yet been eaten by the powers system - you could in theory cleave, knock down, stun or do several things with feats to someone at once with a single attack, or with different attacks out of your attack routine, rather than having to pick just a single power and do one each round.

[Orion]

Oh and I forgot to mention invisible wizards getting +2 to hit with Sleep

Why the hell not? "It's easier to influence the minds of people who can't see you" sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[Username17]

Oh and I forgot to mention invisible wizards getting +2 to hit with Sleep

Why the hell not? "It's easier to influence the minds of people who can't see you" sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

How about "it's easier to frighten people with scary faces when they can't see you"?

Honestly, the simplicity of getting a flat bonus to offensive action when you have an advantage like being unseen is probably worth the retarded edge cases. But there are retarded edge cases.

-Username17

[fectin]

yeah, no. I really don't know how you think this; my Ranger's got feats that let him prone people he hits twice, a feat to do bonus damage to prone targets, a feat that gives him +1 to attack with axes and lets him reroll 1s on damage dice, and is eagerly awaiting the next even level so he can do even more nifty stuff. this is one example; every character I've made has had access to far more good, and just flavorful, feats than slots to put them in.

Is that really what flavorful means to you? Knocking people down and some bonuses so minor and situational that you might forget about them?

I'll take rocket launcher tag. Thanks all the same, but your way sounds stultifying.

no, that's mechanical bonuses. how is +5 damage to prone people minor and situational when I create the situation? hell, even +1 to hit and, effectively, brutal 1 on all axes isn't anything like minor. this attitude is why 3e's system is horrible; +1 to hit and average damage is considered minor because, in 3e, those bonuses didn't matter. so of course in other editions where feat bloat has been tamed they must not matter.

flavor is the stuff like my Paladin of Aumanator making people he hits vulnerable to the radiant power of his god, and giving him more radiant-themed abilities.

I strongly suspect that a one-for-one replamcement of "radient" with "spinach" has the same result. I'm not sure how you think keywords are flavorful.

I'm not sure what you mean by feat bloat; most 3.5 characters get seven feats ever. Are you arguing that's too many?

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

That would depend on the nature of said encounter.

Specifically: when the PCs are not present.

They're legit if you want your rules to actually be a representation of how your world works.

Rules for any game are absolute shit for being a representation of how the world works. They can be good for playing a game, and I think that's the only reasonable metric.

*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).

Absolutely, stats are the worst remaining sacred cow from older editions since they neutered alignment (AKA the worst mechanic). The more I see non-stat based ideas for D&D the more I like them.

*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).

I understand this but it's just a difference of perspective. It's more cohesive for a system to have you roll on offense and not on defense, or the other way around, but not sometimes one and sometimes the other.

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.

You might be essentially immune to a bull rush, but that doesn't mean you can't be moved by any means, a bull rush is only one way of pushing people around. I'm not certain I get exactly what you're meaning by the second part there.

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.

I disagree about whether the status effects are worth keeping track of, but I suppose that's just down to taste?

*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.

That doesn't really happen much. I haven't seen any traps which don't attack a defense and give a saving throw instead. Since the old saving throws from 3e were transformed into defenses it no longer makes sense to have saving throws be derived from a statistic. It's fairly simple and easy to use, which is always a positive from a rules standpoint.

*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.

Wasn't this always the case with "save for half damage"?

Plebian covered the rest pretty well.

K, do you understand that hit points in D&D are an abstraction, and furthermore, did you understand that before I said something about it? I ask not to insult, as I'm fairly sure you do, but to make a point.

[Plebian]

To an extent - 3E was worse than 2E in this regard (the universal mechanic meant a stat modifier applied to every roll); further degeneration between 3E and 4E here in that half the stats have little effect (e.g. don't contribute to defenses), and the prime requisite stat always provides the hit/damage.

prime stat was always as important; Wizards had to have int for their DCs and everything else was tertiary, Fighters basically had to have strength (or dex, I suppose) for the good static mods it gave their attacks, et cetera. also, uh, only half your stats contributed to defenses in 3e and it was always con/dex/wis. 4e at least expands it so that you take the higher of str/con for fort, dex/int for ref, and wis/cha for will. so, if anything, it forces you less into the role of having to put points/magical items onto the three core save stats. without feats, of course.

While it would add another roll, assuming that roll had about a 50% chance of failure on average, it would reduce the number of conditions that needed tracking by half. Also, conditions could then be stronger without being imbalanced.

so you're adding certain complexity to reduce possible complexity.

While older editions assumed some HP is due to skill, luck or whatever this gave them an ability to 'roll with the punches' rather than avoiding damage altogether i.e. a sword thrust through the heart to the 1st level dude is a nick on the arm to the 30th level dude. This makes more sense than swimming through lava for a few rounds and then doing some positive thinking to restore your lost self-esteem points. Though I'm fine with saying a 30th level dude is superhuman.

but anyone could do that in any edition once they reached a certain point, aside from the positive thinking. it's a silly facet of HP but it doesn't change the fact that Norg the level 20 2e fighter could swim in lava with the exact same results and then just have a cleric poke him to health. now, how you want to imagine your loss of HP is up to you, but people always want to forget that humans are pretty damn fragile and a sword to the arm has a good chance of crippling you if you're not taking the lightest blow imaginable. so you parry, you dodge, you scramble out of the way, but you most likely are not taking any appreciable hits.

3E would give you an 0 Dex if you're helpless of course, decent damage on Cleave and better handling of all the the above cases e.g. harpy song tagged as a mind-affecting compulsion. In any case I'd probably find more holes if I could be bothered (books not on me). Oh and I forgot to mention invisible wizards getting +2 to hit with Sleep

and calculating the zero dex is pointless complexity when a flat +10 to hit helpless works as well without requiring removing something's stat modifiers, and now we're just talking about silly "well were I on the design team I would have done everything different" what-ifs.

How significant a +5% is varies depending on what your current base likelihood of hitting is, of course. If your going from hitting on a 20 to hitting on a 19-20, it just doubled your to-hit chance, whereas a shift from 11+ just on the d20 (50%) to 10+ (55%) is less noticeable. As such +1s are less valuable in previous editions where primary attack is more likely to high in most cases. I wouldn't agree that piling up tons of tiny bonuses is fun, but again I suppose whatever flicks your switch.

it's less noticeable, sure, but 5% always contributes in 4e, which is better than requiring a +4 bonus to attack to even be considered. and it's rare to pile up tons of random bonuses, but I just keep a blank sheet of paper in a plastic sleeve, same as my character sheets, and just track things that way. it's never gotten in the way, and I like the more tactical combat where I, as a martial, don't say "I full-round attack"

yay for splat bloat, I suppose. Most of this is stuff a 3E character can do with feats though; at best I'd consider 4E to be slowly catching up here. With the 3E two-weapon trip guy its more like you'd trip a dude as a touch attack with the crappest of your 5 attacks and then slam him another four times. Combo potential is more in 3E since all the powerful effects hadn't yet been eaten by the powers system - you could in theory cleave, knock down, stun or do several things with feats to someone at once with a single attack, or with different attacks out of your attack routine, rather than having to pick just a single power and do one each round.

you could, in theory, but you in all likelihood would not because a Fighter, who you'd have to be to get all those feats, would be pointless and it's better to build a charge abuse martial anyway? whereas in 4e my build is every bit as valid as anyone else at the table.

I mean, really "but it's possible to do a lot more random stuff in 3e if you gimp yourself" isn't a defense of the system; 4e people may be more limited in esoteric actions than a worthless 3e Fighter but they can always contribute.

I strongly suspect that a one-for-one replamcement of "radient" with "spinach" has the same result. I'm not sure how you think keywords are flavorful.

because flavor has to do with a characters individual flavor as represented by his abilities? and again with the retarded "[tag] doesn't mean anything because there's not an obscure writeup detailing everything it can do" argument. I have absolutely no problem imagining Aumanator's radiant energy expressing itself as a burst of sunlight, because that's his gig. just like a radiant attack from someone who worships Cyric would be a burst of vile, red-and-black shadowy energy. [radiant] is not one single thing because it depends on the god it's coming from, pinning it down into one strict definition would only be telling people how they had to RP.

I'm not sure what you mean by feat bloat; most 3.5 characters get seven feats ever. Are you arguing that's too many?

and how many feats were there that no one would ever take? over a thousand, would you say?

[K]

K, do you understand that hit points in D&D are an abstraction, and furthermore, did you understand that before I said something about it? I ask not to insult, as I'm fairly sure you do, but to make a point.

Do you understand that you haven't made a point? Like, ever? For example, the above is an unsupported statement in the form of a question.

Let me make a point for you: "HPs are an abstraction and the minion rules where minions have only 1 HP is just another abstraction so that we get the effect we want which is that fighters can mow through enemies and wizards can blast them and we still get a challenging battle."

This would be my counter argument: "Every abstraction strains the storytelling ability of your system and has the potential to cause people to rebel because they crave simulationism (see the weapons list for an example). The minion rules have long-reaching effects on the rest of the system that force you to make further abstractions, further weakening your system both from a mechanics standpoint and a storytelling tool."

"For example, because minions have the defenses of level-appropriate monsters but only one HP, this means that Area Of Effect (AoE) damaging powers have to be kept as dailies to prevent people from starting every combat by using that AoE damage effect and auto-killing all those minions (thus ruining the minion mechanic's purpose entirely). It also mean that if you can ever get an AoE damaging effect as an encounter power then the entire minion mechanic has been broken."

"It also means you can't simply have things like damage from the heat from a nearby lava flow or damage from a sandstorm just being automatic because it would automatically kill minions. Everything has to become an attack vs defenses, adding more die rolls and another level of needless complication (or a double standard where minions get an unfair advantage where do aren't affected by environmental effects, a move that upsets players)."

"It also leads to more complications where any AoE effect has to be abstracted out as a leveled attack. For example, in the Adventurer's vault alchemic fire can't be a weapon but must be a leveled power. This means that you have to price it like a magic item that allows anyone to use it, turning something that was supposed to be cheap and have innovative uses into a rarely used toy costing up to 75,000 gold per vial, effectively making it something that isn't a part of your game at all. The far-reaching effects are that now everything AoE has to be leveled, making some effectively immune and some not, so things like rockslides and casks of brandy have to have stats assigned to them where either they can't affect PCs and minions or they auto-kill minions and ruin the entire minion mechanic. A double standard where some player-directed AoEs will kill minions and some won't is equally unworkable, most likely causing players at your table to throw dice at you in frustration."

Ok, that's how you make arguments. You should try it just once in this thread to see how it feels.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

So you are aware that HP isn't an exact measure of health, and that as such their only having one hit point means they only have one hit point in combat with PCs, so "sandstorm kills all minions" is a shit argument which is disingenuous at its core. Which is what we were actually talking about. I know you have trouble following a conversation, so I thought I'd point that out.

As for the rest: Minions actually have slightly better than level appropriate defenses, so that they aren't without challenge. There are several AoEs which are at-will attacks, many more which are encounters, so I don't know why you would pretend otherwise.

Easy enough to make the minion have resistance to fire up beyond what the lava will do to it, or assume that the attack actually has to come from the PCs to kill the minion, as that is the explicit point of minions.

The alternative to leveled rockslides and alchemists fire is that those are simply unable to hurt anyone over level 5, which is a much worse solution. Alchemist's fire was great in 3e right up until about level... 2. If your players throw dice at you, it is likely because they are the only people you can find who are willing to deal with how much of a prick you seem intent on being.

[Novembermike]

"For example, because minions have the defenses of level-appropriate monsters but only one HP, this means that Area Of Effect (AoE) damaging powers have to be kept as dailies to prevent people from starting every combat by using that AoE damage effect and auto-killing all those minions (thus ruining the minion mechanic's purpose entirely). It also mean that if you can ever get an AoE damaging effect as an encounter power then the entire minion mechanic has been broken."

Wizards can get AOE at wills and it doesn't break anything. Are you sure these issues you have from experience or what?

[Swordslinger]

It also leads to more complications where any AoE effect has to be abstracted out as a leveled attack.

And that's fine in a level based game. The hero that kills great wyrms and gods probably shouldn't be fearing a bargain basement alchemist fire.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Wizards can get AOE at wills and it doesn't break anything. Are you sure these issues you have from experience or what?

It's actually Druids, Invokers, Psions, Monks, Sorcerers, and Wizards who get at-will AoEs at level 1.