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

[K]

"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?

The reason I wrote out the argument and the counter-argument is to show people how arguments actually work. Kenny apparently has some kind of learning disability where he thinks arguments are the same as comments and insults.

So the argument of "Minions rules let people feel like badasses when they cut down enemies and that benefit is worth the story-killing effects of the abstraction" is countered when I point out the weakness where AoEs remove minions as working pieces of that entirely. The very reason to have minions with 1 HP is removed when you have AoE damaging effects because no one feels like a badass when the minions get cleared by the Wizard on round 1 (or maybe round 2 if you space them out specifically to bone the Wizard).

Now, you may think that minions being nothing more than a one or two action tax for characters like Wizards is not a big deal. I personally believe that the mechanic is terrible since it does not accomplish it's stated goal and harms the main goal of the game (to tell compelling cooperative stories).

The fact that the minion mechanic means that you can't do a lot of other iconic fantasy things like fighting near lava is also another way that it kills stories.

At the end of the day, you judge a system based on the mechanics. People dislike 4e because it has shitty mechanics that don't do the things they were designed to do, and that's a fair judgment.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

You don't get what the argument was about. I was making one point and you decided that that one point wasn't enough? It's ridiculous to say "this is a problem" and then reject when people say "no it's not and this is why."

At the end of the day, you judge a system based on the mechanics. People dislike 4e because it has shitty mechanics that don't do the things they were designed to do, and that's a fair judgment.

You have failed to show even one instance of this.

[K]

You don't get what the argument was about. I was making one point and you decided that that one point wasn't enough? It's ridiculous to say "this is a problem" and then reject when people say "no it's not and this is why."

You haven't made any points. I know, because I reread the entire thread and checked every post.

At no point have you argued anything. You've commented on things, agreed or disagreed with people, insulted people, and generally been in the thread, but at no point have you made an argument or a counter-argument. At best, you've been a distraction.

Maybe you thought you were making points. Maybe in your head you sound brilliant, but from the outside I can tell you that you should either get tested for a learning disability and then take a college-level writing course that is not creative writing.

That being said, you are going on Ignore.

[name_here]

He seems to have made a point, namely that minions don't have 1 HP when PCs aren't present. It's not exactly a counterpoint, because he doesn't sensibly address the issues that exist with the mentioned examples when the PCs are present.

[K]

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.

If that was the only consequence, then I'd agree.

The actual consequence is that you can't have auto-damage in the game of any kind, even if that would speed up play immensely. In a game with a lot of fiddly little bits, more fiddly bits is a major problem.

This means any rockslide that has a chance of inflicting even token damage to a player must also kill the minions. You also have to roll attacks on every mob which adds time at the table where no one is having any fun.

Now, you could try to have a double standard where the rockslide that does minor damage to the players can't affect minions, but double-standards tend to make players very angry. Dice throwing tends to happen.

Of course, 4e is based on double-standards so maybe it only attracts players who don't care if large sections of the rules are pointless and seem to exist simply eat up play time. I mean, no one seems to really care that the system of scaling DCs for skill checks means that you'd be better off to not have skill points at all and just use fixed DCs and stat checks.

[Josh_Kablack]

Well if you ask me, he's quite successfully made the point that the answer to the thread title is "All of it and then some."

[K]

He seems to have made a point, namely that minions don't have 1 HP when PCs aren't present. It's not exactly a counterpoint, because he doesn't sensibly address the issues that exist with the mentioned examples when the PCs are present.

It's not a point because the issue of whether they have HPs outside of combat is immaterial; all of the arguments and counter-arguments I made only dealt with combat. This is why I mentioned fighting near lava as a constant environmental damage (he tried to make a counter point of "but you can just give them fire resistance," but that fails as a counter because he's not dealing with the problem, but it trying to change the example so the problem won't come up.... you can't counter an argument by adding assumptions).

I included the full argument and counter-argument on one post. I was seeing if he could make any kind of actual argument if I did all the work. He failed.

[CCarter]

The scope of the discussion is wider than I can reasonably address, but...

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.

Anytime you get pushed into a pit by a move effect, you get a saving throw to avoid falling in. I don't have the book on me to cite chapter and verse, unfortunately.
In a couple of places they had an alternative which I thought was better for most saves e.g. where you roll to hit the giant's Fort defense to escape.
As far as simple and easy to use...how difficult is it to add a number to a d20, anyway? The saving throw mechanic is also quite different to most other rolls in the game with the not having modifiers, since you brought up cohesiveness later.

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.

If it was just about who gets to roll the d20 that is subjective, but other mechanics (like any condition that gives either the attacker or defender a die roll penalty, or one side getting a reroll) make who actually rolls significant.
Though even if it was just subjective, I vastly prefer the old way since having to roll a Reflex save vs. fireball feels more like you're doing something to dodge, rather than being armoured by a Reflex Defense.

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

They're different kinds of complexity: the extra die roll just slows down the turn slightly but is roll and forget, while the extra conditions eventually start running into the 'how many modifiers can I apply to a roll [while drunk at 1 am] limit

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

Having HP being something besides health gives all sorts of other problems. With 4E the snake bites you and you spend some 'dodge points' since you weren't bloodied then have to roll to resist the poison anyway. Or you're definetely seriously injured at negative HP, then the warlord yells at you and you're back up. I'm unable/unwilling to do the mental contortions required to pretend this makes sense.

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'd also count playing 4e as 'gimping myself' given the elimination of various options throughout the system.

[Plebian]

He seems to have made a point, namely that minions don't have 1 HP when PCs aren't present. It's not exactly a counterpoint, because he doesn't sensibly address the issues that exist with the mentioned examples when the PCs are present.

It's not a point because the issue of whether they have HPs outside of combat is immaterial; all of the arguments and counter-arguments I made only dealt with combat. This is why I mentioned fighting near lava as a constant environmental damage (he tried to make a counter point of "but you can just give them fire resistance," but that fails as a counter because he's not dealing with the problem, but it trying to change the example so the problem won't come up.... you can't counter an argument by adding assumptions).


I included the full argument and counter-argument on one post. I was seeing if he could make any kind of actual argument if I did all the work. He failed.

so you posited a mock argument in which you made mock idiotic assumptions and then, when it was revealed, claimed that it was just you testing Kenny all along

brilliant debate tactics. "no I wasn't being retarded, I was just testing you! look how hard you failed!"

[Plebian]

Having HP being something besides health gives all sorts of other problems. With 4E the snake bites you and you spend some 'dodge points' since you weren't bloodied then have to roll to resist the poison anyway. Or you're definetely seriously injured at negative HP, then the warlord yells at you and you're back up. I'm unable/unwilling to do the mental contortions required to pretend this makes sense.

HP is and will never be direct representation of health because it's an idiotic assumption that a man becomes less susceptible to a sword in the gut as he gains experience. if it were a direct representation of health then a 8 on a sword would do the exact same physical damage to a level 1 and level 30 character. since it does not, HP is not physical health.

I'd also count playing 4e as 'gimping myself' given the elimination of various options throughout the system.

oh, well, since it's just number of options and we don't have to judge a system by itself we can just say "D&D as a whole sucks ass because it doesn't have the options Exalted has!" and it would be every bit as valid as your bitch here.

oh and the only real gimping that occurred was to spellcasters but don't let that stop you from claiming that it's to everything without any evidence. I mean, everyone knows that the 4e hate here is 99% because spells got nerfed, most of you are just too stupid to admit it, because the skill system (outside of skill challenges, of course) is nearly identical and the combat system is nearly identical except with a standardized template.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

I made the point I was arguing, namely that the sandstorm kills minions idea is ridiculous because a) hp don't work that way and b) nothing in the game exists when not being interacted with.

The lava I said you could give fire resistance to because to have monsters ready made for any kind of ridiculous scenario made only to make a point about the system is not a logical use of the time needed to design a monster and only makes a difference in edge cases, where any mechanic fails because mechanics don't model a world, they are a method of conflict resolution. Not that K will see this because he's incapable of participating in an actual discussion.

The actual consequence is that you can't have auto-damage in the game of any kind, even if that would speed up play immensely. In a game with a lot of fiddly little bits, more fiddly bits is a major problem.

Someone who isn't ignored by that whinging jackass want to tell him that, in point of fact, this isn't true at all, and many classes and monsters have auto-damage effects?

OR! Don't use minions in that encounter if you can't think of one of the nigh-infinite ways to fix that problem.

[name_here]

Okay, the point you are missing is that you can't have a fight against minions in a sandstorm that slowly damages everyone, which is totally a scenario that is fun, interesting, and used.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Okay, the point you are missing is that you can't have a fight against minions in a sandstorm that slowly damages everyone, which is totally a scenario that is fun, interesting, and used.

The point that no one made. Am I really supposed to do the entire work for the anti-4E people?

[Plebian]

Okay, the point you are missing is that you can't have a fight against minions in a sandstorm that slowly damages everyone, which is totally a scenario that is fun, interesting, and used.

there certainly are ways you could, just give them all DR1/sand and bam you're good to go and just explain it like they're wearing thick clothing/have tough carapaces/whatever.

but of course using options that are part of the system to create completely valid monsters must be cheating!

[name_here]

Okay, the point you are missing is that you can't have a fight against minions in a sandstorm that slowly damages everyone, which is totally a scenario that is fun, interesting, and used.

The point that no one made. Am I really supposed to do the entire work for the anti-4E people?

That is exactly the point K was making.

"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)."

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Sorry, you're right, I had missed it in the huge shitpile that are each of his posts.

how arguments actually work

You haven't made any points.

you are going on Ignore.

learning disability

And that's just from this page. It's hard to give my full attention to an argument made by someone so insufferable.

Sorry, I'm just a little irritated, I finally get some people who are willing to talk and K comes in says "that's not an argument, this is an argument" and then proceeds to spew a metric ton of shit all over and then walk away like he's King Shit of Feces Mountain in the country of Deuce.

[Plebian]

Okay, the point you are missing is that you can't have a fight against minions in a sandstorm that slowly damages everyone, which is totally a scenario that is fun, interesting, and used.

The point that no one made. Am I really supposed to do the entire work for the anti-4E people?

That is exactly the point K was making.

"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)."

if they're fighting in a volcano, say their base, why would they not have taken precautions? or would that be unfair?

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

They're arguing RAW only oberoni fallacy magic tea party.

[Plebian]

it's so silly, though, because the arguments are either "4e is not 3e! I only wanted 3e rereleased! 4e is bad!" or "oh, well, can you emulate this specific spell? 4e obviously sucks because it's a ritual!" or "the mechanics don't work! which mechanics? well, you know, THE mechanics. no I don't have examples, they just don't work!"

[Doom]

If that was the only consequence, then I'd agree.

The actual consequence is that you can't have auto-damage in the game of any kind, even if that would speed up play immensely. In a game with a lot of fiddly little bits, more fiddly bits is a major problem.

And this is the issue with minions that's an even bigger problem. There IS autodamage in 4e, lots of it once players get some levels, and minions become a complete non-threat by paragon. Instead of dying due to hearoic abilities, they're killed by bookkeeping entries.

Thus, an entire class of creatures, much like solos (and to some extent elites), doesn't really work right out of the box, if at all.

I do admit that "minions don't have 1 hp when not in combat" is an interesting point of view, but I am curious where in the DMG where I can find the HP of minions outside of combat; there are other ways to take damage besides combat, after all.

[Psychic Robot]

In previous editions of D&D, the ability to kill mooks in one hit was something that came from adventuring and time spent playing the game. In a sense, players earned the ability to one-hit the pithy soldiers. In 4e, that goes out the window in the name of making players feel good.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

The thing about the autodamage abilities is that they're still abilities that you have to choose over taking something else, and they still take actions to use. When you have a finite number of actions, your choices make a difference.

Outside of combat, nothing has HP as it's not relevant. When the PCs aren't doing the damage, there's no reason why an arrow can't kill a goblin king as easily as a goblin minion.

In previous editions of D&D, the ability to kill mooks in one hit was something that came from adventuring and time spent playing the game. In a sense, players earned the ability to one-hit the pithy soldiers. In 4e, that goes out the window in the name of making players feel good.

If by "making players feel good" you mean "using action tropes in a way that rewards even the lower damaging members of the party" then, yeah.

[Psychic Robot]

Outside of combat, nothing has HP as it's not relevant.

Environmental and trap damage exist for a reason.

When the PCs aren't doing the damage, there's no reason why an arrow can't kill a goblin king as easily as a goblin minion.

Yes, there is. What kind of pussy goblin king gets killed by a single arrow?

If by "making players feel good" you mean "using action tropes in a way that rewards even the lower damaging members of the party" then, yeah.

No. I mean "stroking the players' fragile egos with a cruddy system that is utterly undermined when players realize that winning was just a matter of connecting with an attack."

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Environmental and trap damage exist for a reason.

What edge case are we arguing now? Are we herding the monsters down a corridor to check for traps?

Yes, there is. What kind of pussy goblin king gets killed by a single arrow?

Any of them?

No. I mean "stroking the players' fragile egos with a cruddy system that is utterly undermined when players realize that winning was just a matter of connecting with an attack."

So the same as when you threw severely underpowered enemies at the players as some kind of reward for showing up to play a game, and an unconnected attack at the system for no discernible reason?

Edit: except with minions you might actually have to roll above 2 to connect with an attack.

[CCarter]

HP is and will never be direct representation of health because it's an idiotic assumption that a man becomes less susceptible to a sword in the gut as he gains experience. if it were a direct representation of health then a 8 on a sword would do the exact same physical damage to a level 1 and level 30 character. since it does not, HP is not physical health.

Well I don't want to play RuneQuest, thanks. That they're reducing the incoming damage by rolling with it or blocking the worst of it is fine. 3E would represent damage you couldn't roll with somehow as Con damage.

oh and the only real gimping that occurred was to spellcasters but don't let that stop you from claiming that it's to everything without any evidence. I mean, everyone knows that the 4e hate here is 99% because spells got nerfed, most of you are just too stupid to admit it, because the skill system (outside of skill challenges, of course) is nearly identical and the combat system is nearly identical except with a standardized template.

Well as far as options go, how many books do I need before I can make a multiclass gnome fighter who uses two weapons? A druid who can conjure fluffy things? A rogue who uses a battleaxe? [Insert other non-stereotype character here]