Class labels as a mechanical straightjacket in D&D.

[Archmage]

Winnah, that's a cool story, but I can see validity in the obvious counter-argument:

Your story doesn't demonstrate that 3.5e is more interesting or tactically-deep mechanically, because you admit that the DM basically teapartied the whole thing when he realized that your character alone was so powerful that an entire gnoll settlement was a trivial obstacle and not an interesting challenge. The DM recognized, correctly, that success was inevitable based on your mechanical abilities and basically said "fuck it, you win." In 4e that would've been a whole adventure for a full party because there is no way to use your powers to dominate a whole army like that--you have to fight it out man-to-man like god-er, the DM--intended.

Whether that's good or bad is all opinion.

[Novembermike]

Are you comparing pseudoscience to a tool for looking at literature?

Since I question the very validity of the monomyth and find most of the correlations laughably forced, yes. I think it is not only pseudoscience, but that it is exactly the same kind of fake scholarship as Fomenko's Chronology.

Humans can associate any two things. They can draw parallels between anything. But that doesn't mean there are actually any meaningful patterns. If you stare at static long enough you can see patterns, but that's just your brain trying to make sense of random data, there's nothing real that you've found.

Telling people that you've found a universal pattern is very compelling, because our minds are set up to expect things to work that way. But quite often an vent really is just a one-off event.

-Username17

I wasn't questioning that the monomyth might be wrong (it has its issues, I'll admit it), I was questioning your retarded comparison. Here's your quote.

"Yes. It's an anecdote. Some dude decided to correlate a bunch of comparable stuff in different stories and then contorted stuff to make things fit where they really didn't, and he 'distilled' a bunch of stories into one story. "

And then you compare it to the Fomenko Timeline. Your other choices for a valid comparison include the Theory of Evolution and P=NP. The sum total of theories based on anecdotal evidence (almost all of them) contains both incredibly useful and incredibly useless ideas. It's not a set that lends itself towards a value argument.

Basically, the logical comparison you made is so stupid I'm not sure why I justified it with a response.

[Username17]

I'm not sure why you're such a mouth breather that you can't see the similarities between Campbell's repeating hero story and Fomenko's repeating historical events. It's the same methodology. Fomenko is bullshit pseudoscience, but so is Campbell. And more importantly, they are the same kind of pseudoscience.

Fomenko isn't waving a stick at the ground to find water or treasure. He isn't concentrating super hard to try to "see" things in other parts of the country. He's looking through a bunch of stories, finding superficial similarities and announcing that the two different stories are really the same. Does that sound familiar? Do I have to spoon feed you even more?

-Username17

[Winnah]

Well...My character did turn some Gnoll Shamans into Yellow Musk Zombies and awaken them. The Bard was later able to set up a pact with the resultant YMC's for protection of the keep in exchange for periodic tributes of livestock.

Of course, those are spells and skills. As for handwaving the later encounter encounter, invetiable outcomes can happen in any system. It was a matter of expediency more than anything else. It's not like I scored any loot or had a net gain in xp.

Lockdowns are possible in 4e. I have played enough controllers to know. Unfortunarely the majority of the workday is tedious as hell. Micromanagement is worse than 3.5. Keeping track of things that end at the start of your turn, the end of your next turn, multiple save effects, item properties and all the other tiny modifiers is mentally exhausting and quite time consuming. I'm lucky to finish an encounter in under 2 hours.

I feel sorry for the DM. I can literally see him aging when he tries to run an interesting encounter. Monster auras, resistances and host of fiddly details are a pain in the ass to keep track of. He makes a genuine effort to keep the game from being boring, but it is all for naught. Hit paragon last week and so far no casualties. Cleric has dropped to 0 hp in a couple of encounters, but was back within a surge of full, less than a round later.

There is no risk. No exitement. I get tired of using the same powers over and over again. I would rather be grinding on an MMORPG, because at least the payoff would come faster.

By the time I got my first 3e character to level 11, there were 27 PC kills in a group of 6. It was a fucking achievement.

2e?...Highest level character was a level 9 wizard. Who had lost an eye and had a maimed hand from critical hits.

Basic. Never got past level 2.

The reason I have soured on 4e is because I have come to think of it as a charactiture of some pre-schooler confidence boosting event. Everyone gets a reward for participation. Even if you make a bad character you can still limp to the finish line provided you have the patience. Like my groups Cleric with the Wisdom of 15, who insists on taking Wisdom powers.

The limited options and the limited way in which you can use those options stunt any real thought. You may as well be running on autopilot after round 2 or 3. In 3.5, if a fight went any longer than 3 rounds there was a good chance you were in for an epic encounter (or a cataclysmic TPK).

So yeah, my example of my Druid killing some Gnolls may have been superficially similar to a 4e encounter, but there were some important differences:

The character was capable of functioning solo.

Mutiple summons at once.

Converting helpless enemies into minions.

Turning into a bird allowed flight.

Turning into a tiger allows you to track by scent.

Resolved in under 10 minutes.

[Novembermike]

I'm not sure why you're such a mouth breather that you can't see the similarities between Campbell's repeating hero story and Fomenko's repeating historical events. It's the same methodology. Fomenko is bullshit pseudoscience, but so is Campbell. And more importantly, they are the same kind of pseudoscience.

Fomenko isn't waving a stick at the ground to find water or treasure. He isn't concentrating super hard to try to "see" things in other parts of the country. He's looking through a bunch of stories, finding superficial similarities and announcing that the two different stories are really the same. Does that sound familiar? Do I have to spoon feed you even more?

-Username17

So you really don't get it? Fomenko isn't wrong because of the basic methodology, he's wrong because he's ignoring scientific evidence that is counter to his argument (namely scientific dating methods). The basic methodology (without the batshit insane theory and rejection of countervailing arguments) is the same as what was used for Newton's theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution and pretty much every other scientific idea. Newton didn't travel throughout the world testing his hypothesis to prove it true and Darwin didn't find all of the missing links between protobacteria and humans. They looked at individual data points, extrapolated and then compared the result to reality to see if there were any major issues.

You also have to keep in mind that Campbell's work is a literary hypothesis and not a scientific one. There really isn't as clear of a true/false paradigm for it. His work was accurate for the works he studied and holds true for many other works of fiction throughout the age and through different cultures.

EDIT: You're essentially claiming the Hitler fallacy, that Hitler was a vegetarian and Hitler is evil so vegetarians are evil. Similarly, this retarded russian time theory uses standard logical processes and so this other theory that uses standard logical processes is retarded. It's a false equivalence.

[Archmage]

I don't disagree that 3.5e is more interesting one bit (as long as you're playing a class with actual abilities). I'm just noting that some DMs--and hell, some play groups--would say your story is not a positive in 3.5e's favor because one player dominated a whole potential adventure. In 4e "go kill the gnolls" would be a series of encounters for the whole party. It's a boring adventure in either system, but in 3.5e you can leverage your high-level abilities to win it without a real fight.

[Winnah]

I don't disagree that 3.5e is more interesting one bit (as long as you're playing a class with actual abilities). I'm just noting that some DMs--and hell, some play groups--would say your story is not a positive in 3.5e's favor because one player dominated a whole potential adventure. In 4e "go kill the gnolls" would be a series of encounters for the whole party. It's a boring adventure in either system, but in 3.5e you can leverage your high-level abilities to win it without a real fight.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you in principle, but I would just like to clarify something.

The Gnoll encounter was not an adventure. It was a random encounter designed to keep half of the party engaged while the other half were taking downtime actions. Had it been an actual adventure, I doubt a single character would have fared as well, nor would it have been resolved as quickly.

[Swordslinger]

So yeah, my example of my Druid killing some Gnolls may have been superficially similar to a 4e encounter, but there were some important differences:

The character was capable of functioning solo.

That's rarely a good thing. All characters are capable of functioning solo, but in this context you mean "had the power of a full adventuring party."

That's just the mark of an unbalanced game and not a positive at all.

And as far as 3.5 goes, characters really aren't well suited to playing solo, given the fact that a single finger of death and a bad save can instantly kill you. At least in 4E, you can't die in one hit unless the enemy is way beyond you.

Mutiple summons at once.

Converting helpless enemies into minions.

Also bad. Imagine a party of 6 PCs all multi-summoning and having tons of minions. Every battle will take forever. Armies of minions is not something you ever want to deal with in a game that doesn't' handle mass combat well.

In general, it's a good idea to seriously discourage any one PC from controlling more than 2 figures on the board at a time, especially if those figures each get their own turn.

Resolved in under 10 minutes.

The shorter the resolution time, the higher the variance in the outcomes. Generally high variance games are bad for PCs, especially if you're going solo.

[Username17]

So you really don't get it? Fomenko isn't wrong because of the basic methodology,

He's wrong because in reality that's not how things work. His methodology is completely retarded and there is no reason based on that reasoning to believe his hypothesis. Flawed methodology doesn't necessarily give you wrong answers, but a majority of possible answers in the universe are in fact wrong. And statistically, if you use flawed methodology you are probably going to end up with a wrong answer. But stopped clocks and all that shit, flawed methodology all you want, if your hypothesis happens to be true you'd still be right.

But that's the point. The methodology Fomenko uses will not ever get him to a righter or better answer, because it's all based on wishful thinking. The details that are considered identical or contorted to be similar enough to count are wholly arbitrary. You could simply decide that themes of domestic animals were important and themes of gift giving were irrelevant - it's totally arbitrary. Fomenko's bullshit can be dismissed out of hand, because his methodology could give him absolutely any answer he wanted. And Campbell's can and should be dismissed for the same reason.

You also have to keep in mind that Campbell's work is a literary hypothesis and not a scientific one.

Uh... no. Anthropology is still a science last I checked. They still need to justify their hypotheses better than "after throwing out all the data that didn't fit, I have a smooth line!"

You're essentially claiming the Hitler fallacy, that Hitler was a vegetarian and Hitler is evil so vegetarians are evil.

What? You're going to claim a Godwin mulligan on this conversation because I discount any theory that relies upon force fitting stories together based on arbitrary and unreproducible criteria? That doesn't even make sense.

Similarly, this retarded russian time theory uses standard logical processes and so this other theory that uses standard logical processes is retarded.

No. Cherry picking data and then claiming a universal law from it is not a standard logical process. It is a standard process of post hoc justification and wishful thinking. Nothing more. And it will never amount to anything more than that, and people who use it should have their theories openly mocked without even subjecting them to rigorous testing. To save time.

-Username17

[Winnah]

Also bad. Imagine a party of 6 PCs all multi-summoning and having tons of minions. Every battle will take forever. Armies of minions is not something you ever want to deal with in a game that doesn't' handle mass combat well.

In general, it's a good idea to seriously discourage any one PC from controlling more than 2 figures on the board at a time, especially if those figures each get their own turn.

I don't understand. I added 2 critters to the encounter, then the number of combatants remained relatively static. The only thing that changed was the number on each side of the conflict.

I can understand your point that summon spam is tedious, but chaff is fairly easy to clear unless you're a beatstick. A serious threat will simply ignore the chaff and go for the summoner. While there are many tactics to prevent this, there are also tactics to subvert your summoned army.

I may be missing something, though.

The shorter the resolution time, the higher the variance in the outcomes. Generally high variance games are bad for PCs, especially if you're going solo.

I don't agree, but whatever. I prefer fast moving combats to slow moving ones. As for going solo, I think soloing is bad for reasons other than high variance, namely RPG's being a group activity and all. It can have it's place in a story, but people prefer to be involved than simply spectate in my experience.

[Novembermike]

So you really don't get it? Fomenko isn't wrong because of the basic methodology,

He's wrong because in reality that's not how things work. His methodology is completely retarded and there is no reason based on that reasoning to believe his hypothesis. Flawed methodology doesn't necessarily give you wrong answers, but a majority of possible answers in the universe are in fact wrong. And statistically, if you use flawed methodology you are probably going to end up with a wrong answer. But stopped clocks and all that shit, flawed methodology all you want, if your hypothesis happens to be true you'd still be right.

But that's the point. The methodology Fomenko uses will not ever get him to a righter or better answer, because it's all based on wishful thinking. The details that are considered identical or contorted to be similar enough to count are wholly arbitrary. You could simply decide that themes of domestic animals were important and themes of gift giving were irrelevant - it's totally arbitrary. Fomenko's bullshit can be dismissed out of hand, because his methodology could give him absolutely any answer he wanted. And Campbell's can and should be dismissed for the same reason.

You also have to keep in mind that Campbell's work is a literary hypothesis and not a scientific one.

Uh... no. Anthropology is still a science last I checked. They still need to justify their hypotheses better than "after throwing out all the data that didn't fit, I have a smooth line!"

What? You're going to claim a Godwin mulligan on this conversation because I discount any theory that relies upon force fitting stories together based on arbitrary and unreproducible criteria? That doesn't even make sense.

The Hitler Fallacy is an Ad Hominem (specifically the Guilt by Association aspect), not an invocation of Godwin (Godwin's Corollary is also a joke, not a real law). I'm not trying to mulligan anything because it's kind of fun showing hte mental gymnastics you have to do to sound logical.

No. Cherry picking data and then claiming a universal law from it is not a standard logical process. It is a standard process of post hoc justification and wishful thinking. Nothing more. And it will never amount to anything more than that, and people who use it should have their theories openly mocked without even subjecting them to rigorous testing. To save time.

-Username17

Define how he cherry picked and how he claimed it's a universal law. That would actually be a decent argument instead of just pulling out Ad Hominem's but I don't think it actually holds up. He never claimed it was valid for all stories, so all of the stories he discarded are ones that he didn't think fit the structure and I don't think he ever claimed it was a 100% universal all stories are told this way thing.

Also, have you ever done research?

[Swordslinger]

I don't understand. I added 2 critters to the encounter, then the number of combatants remained relatively static. The only thing that changed was the number on each side of the conflict.

Which is exactly what causes the slowdown. More actions to declare, more dice to roll. It's also likely much less effective than a PC is, meaning that it will now require more turns to win the encounter (even though the number of rounds required may be less). So you have more actions to declare and more dice to roll.

It's the same reason mass combat just doesn't work in D&D. While the system technically permits it, the amount of die rolling just becomes tedious.

Now you can avoid that by going with the 4E method of action sharing for summons, but most people just don't find that method very satisfying, as your wolf animal companion is going to be sitting around doing nothing most of the time.

[Plebian]

also I'm really loving the "4e tracks too many things" followed by "yeah and then I turn into various different animals all with separate abilities and innates I have to track." and if you're not being challenged in 4e that's really not the system's fault; that's why a DM exists in every edition.

also the "same abilities" card but uh... how many abilities do 3e characters use? even casters have a standard set of memorized spells that they only deviate from when mechanics demand it. there are less options for casters in 4e, this is pretty true, but only because the options for casters previously could be listed as "everything" and it wouldn't be a lie. martials, however, get to do a metric shitton of new things to make the game more fun for them, though Fighters do usually get to be the odd ones out in noncombat situations. this should've changed, it didn't, I'm not thrilled about it.

oh and if your average 3e combats took under 3 rounds then it is pretty damn hilarious that you rag on 4e for not being challenging.

[Psychic Robot]

also the "same abilities" card but uh... how many abilities do 3e characters use?

Breaking news: criticisms of 4e are invalid because 3e.

[Novembermike]

also the "same abilities" card but uh... how many abilities do 3e characters use?

Breaking news: criticisms of 4e are invalid because 3e.

Well, I'm not actually a huge fan of 4E (or any DnD) but isn't the argument usually whether or not 4e is a positive change?

[Winnah]

Which is exactly what causes the slowdown. More actions to declare, more dice to roll. It's also likely much less effective than a PC is, meaning that it will now require more turns to win the encounter (even though the number of rounds required may be less). So you have more actions to declare and more dice to roll.

Uh yeah. I have more dice to roll. The DM has less. Same for charmed or dominated enemies. How does this increase encounter time?

It's the same reason mass combat just doesn't work in D&D. While the system technically permits it, the amount of die rolling just becomes tedious.

Agreed. I don't think a few summons counts as an army though. Bringing along your followers from Leadership would be.

Now you can avoid that by going with the 4E method of action sharing for summons, but most people just don't find that method very satisfying, as your wolf animal companion is going to be sitting around doing nothing most of the time.

Uh no. Other critters eating up your characters actions is stupid. A rangers warbeast should not require direction in order to act. Nor should a supposedly intelligent, free willed summons.

also I'm really loving the "4e tracks too many things" followed by "yeah and then I turn into various different animals all with separate abilities and innates I have to track." and if you're not being challenged in 4e that's really not the system's fault; that's why a DM exists in every edition.

Hold person.

3e. Make a save.

4e. Make an attack. The make a saving throw every round.

Doesn't sound so bad right? Now drop multiple multi-target save ends powers in an encounter and watch the shit the DM needs to keep track of escalate. Then watch your other party members do the same as well as Marks, Interrupts and a host of other fiddly shit. Of course a mechanical issue with a system like 4e must be the DM's fault, because Plebian has a mancrush on Mike. Basic combats resolve faster as you increase in level; This is true for 3e and 2e. The opposite is true for 4e.

also the "same abilities" card but uh... how many abilities do 3e characters use? even casters have a standard set of memorized spells that they only deviate from when mechanics demand it. there are less options for casters in 4e, this is pretty true, but only because the options for casters previously could be listed as "everything" and it wouldn't be a lie. martials, however, get to do a metric shitton of new things to make the game more fun for them, though Fighters do usually get to be the odd ones out in noncombat situations. this should've changed, it didn't, I'm not thrilled about it.

I used to rotate my tactics frequently. Because I fucking could. You can't do this in 4e without extensive retraining. What? One new power a level? Take a trap option and your stuck with it. Don't worry though, because if you have the patience to sit through hours of monotonous combat you'll earn enough xp to change it.

oh and if your average 3e combats took under 3 rounds then it is pretty damn hilarious that you rag on 4e for not being challenging.

Because the mark of an experienced adventurer is to draw out conflicts longer, rather than make them shorter...Riiight. Just because 4e combat take a long time and is incredibly tedious does not make it challenging. Unless you're referring to the challenge of keeping my eyes open. I had no such problems with previous editions.

[Plebian]

what's really funny is PR's trying to pull the card that says "you cannot excuse a system's flaws because prior editions did it to" but if he'd bothered to read the thread he'd know how it didn't apply

but, nope, his nerdrage just triggered on the characters 4 and e

[Doom]

Breaking news: criticisms of 4e are invalid because 3e.

C'mon now, now matter how many times Darwinism is told this, we know it will never get through.

[Plebian]

oooh and now Doom rears up and comments! also not reading the thread!

I am well and truly shocked, no really, it's definitely not like them to just key off on 4e and spout idiocy

ohhh waaaaaaiiiit

[icyshadowlord]

I think the only one not reading the thread is you, Plebian. Because the only words I see here are these: "Plebian is a stupid 4e fanboy who probably knows nobody will listen to him, but he decides to waste his time here anyway, proving that he's either a retard or a very desperate troll. Of course, he just might be both of these."

[Plebian]

but it's really funny; by saying I like 4e better than 3e I'm automatically labelled as a 4e fanboy.

do you call people chocolate fanboys if they like chocolate over vanilla? do you make shit up about chocolate to try and justify to yourself that vanilla is, obviously, the superior flavor?


I mean, seriously, there was an argument on what 3e could do vs. what 4e could do, and PR comes in and spouts the same stupid, tired line about "well just because 3e did something worse doesn't mean 4e is better for doing it better"

only the argument was about comparing the two edition's capabilities, not justifying how 4e could make a mistake and because that mistake was in 3e it was all okay.

seriously do I have to spell these things out? it's like a debate with middle schoolers.

edit: calling it in advance, PR or Doom will make the classic, and ever witty "NO U" retort by saying something idiotic along the lines of "ha ha yes you are the middle schooler see what I did there man I am so awesome" because, you know, neither has anything original to say and can only regurgitate the same attacks on 4e and, when presented with a request of clarification on how they arrived at their viewpoints (they were spoonfed them by bitter nerds) they'll just start screaming about how it's the other side that is wrong because 4e 4rres 4vengers and other idiotic pejoratives that do nothing but reinforce that they're not interested in supporting their opinions, they're only interested in having other people with the exact same opinions tell them how awesomely right they are.

[icyshadowlord]

People would give you less aggressive responses (and responses that would make sense, if they do make sense to you somehow) if you weren't constantly trying to sound like a dick. "It's like a debate with middle schoolers." is something a troll would say, and since you come off as a trolling fanboy, you most likely will be treated as one. And like I have said before, I try NOT to take sides in an Edition War. But people like you make me want to jump in and defend the ones I actually prefer. Still, as unbelievable as this sounds, I have HAD FUN PLAYING 4e A FEW TIMES. Do you still have to go and try to prove one is better over the other, WHEN THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR GOODS AND BADS?!

Actually, I wonder why I even bothered responding again. Either way, I hope you actually read this and don't jump to bullshit like you did last time.

[Gods_Trick]

Why did this become an edition war thread? Is it some knee-jerk instinct, D&D triggers edition war, Whitewolf triggers dogfucking?

*sighs* Webtrolls multiply in flames.

[Plebian]

People would give you less aggressive responses (and responses that would make sense, if they do make sense to you somehow) if you weren't constantly trying to sound like a dick. "It's like a debate with middle schoolers." is something a troll would say, and since you come off as a trolling fanboy, you most likely will be treated as one. And like I have said before, I try NOT to take sides in an Edition War. But people like you make me want to jump in and defend the ones I actually prefer. Still, as unbelievable as this sounds, I have HAD FUN PLAYING 4e A FEW TIMES. Do you still have to go and try to prove one is better over the other, WHEN THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR GOODS AND BADS?!

Actually, I wonder why I even bothered responding again. Either way, I hope you actually read this and don't jump to bullshit like you did last time.

unless you're PR or Doom I really don't get why you're taking this so personally

[Fuchs]

I don't know why people still talk to the trolls.