Exception-based design is tearing 4th Edition apart.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I never understood what peoples' problems were with the grappling system. Yes, the numbers were freakishly unbalanced and didn't do what it was advertised to do (like make a monk destroy anyone in a grapple rather than get destroyed) but the grapple system was pretty easy for me to understand.

The undead turning, though, I can understand. I still don't know why this just wasn't a spell that clerics could spontaneously cast.

[IGTN]

The undead turning, though, I can understand. I still don't know why this just wasn't a spell that clerics could spontaneously cast.

Legacy mechanic.

[Koumei]

In arguments with 4ries, they inevitably bring up "how complicated grappling is". I view it like the offside rule of soccer: yes, it's one of the more odd/complex/difficult to explain rules of the game, that a lot of people leave out in casual games, but it's not really that hard and if you can't wrap your mind around it, you're too dumb to be playing the game, fuck off and play Wushu or Risus".

[Username17]

Is it possible for anyone to actually think that is a good idea?

Absolutely. Leaving aside that there continue to be supply side economists, there is a genuine advantage to the system: Not Looking Shit Up. The idea is that every monster and every power should have as many of the rules pertinent to them written entirely within themselves so that people never have to flip between books or pages within books during play.

There is - obviously - a better way. One in which you use basic rules and you reiterate those rules when needed. So for example your M:tG flying monster says something like this:

Flying
(Cannot be blocked by creatures without Flying.)

And not, for example, have a completely new definition of Flying every god damn time.

Is there any proof that 4e is trying to have EBD?

Yes. First of all, they straight up said that's what they were doing. Secondly, they use the fact that Monsters are self contained as a selling point. Seriously, look at the various "Evil Eye" abilities on the cyclopses. That's a selling point.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

How nice, I don't have to look up stuff in books anymore - now I just have to read the entire description of every power of a monster everytime?

That's not exactly an advantage for people who can learn core rules.

[Elennsar]

I suppose it is an advantage that you only have to memorize the rules you actually use, instead of every rule in the system...though with something like (4e) D&D, the difference really isn't a beneficial one. If there even is one.

You have to learn the rules, and the exceptions, and the exceptions to the exceptions, and the times that errata applies, and then go back to the original rules for the three things that use them, all of which are either underpowered to the point of dying "upon entering combat, this creature/character dies." or overpowered to the point that "when ____ appears in play, destroy all other creatures."

Or something similarly assine.

[Username17]

How nice, I don't have to look up stuff in books anymore - now I just have to read the entire description of every power of a monster everytime?

That's not exactly an advantage for people who can learn core rules.

Evil Eye (immediate reaction, when a melee attack misses the
cyclops guard; at-will)
The cyclops guard makes a melee basic attack against the
attacker.

Evil Eye (minor; at-will)
Range sight; the cyclops impaler gains a +2 bonus to ranged
attacks made against the target. It can designate only one target
with its evil eye at a time.

Evil Eye (minor; at-will)
Ranged 20; the cyclops rambler can designate only one target
with its evil eye at a time. It can move 2 squares any time it shifts
from a square adjacent to the designated target

Evil Eye (minor; at-will)
Ranged 20; the cyclops hewer can designate only one target
with its evil eye at a time and gains the following ef ects:
✦ If the designated target misses one of the cyclops hewer’s allies
with a melee attack, the cyclops hewer can make a melee basic
attack against that enemy as an immediate reaction.
✦ If the designated target moves out of the cyclops hewer’s reach,
the cyclops hewer can shift 1 square toward the target as an
immediate reaction.

Evil Eye (minor; at-will)
Ranged 20; +20 vs. Fortitude; the target gains vulnerable 5 to
thunder damage and vulnerable 5 to lightning damage (save ends
both ef ects).

-Username17

[Thymos]

Oh wow. I never realized... wow.



That is possibly one of the most confusing design implementations... I'm speechless at that.

I didn't know about that before.






P.S. I also agree that universal special rules like flying are the way to go in avoiding to looking up rules, not EBD.

[Fuchs]

That's worse than I imagined. They made different powers with the same name for every "different" cyclops?

/shakeheadindisbelief

[Crissa]

Why is the text 'evil eye' there at all? It seems to add nothing.

Even one of the abilities is more than one ability.

-Crissa

[MartinHarper]

I think the worst is the "Evil Eye" ability that grants a melee basic attack. How does a magic eye help you make a melee basic attack? There's also the Hags who, for no apparent reason, each have slightly different Disguise Self abilities. Other monsters are better. Kobolds are all Shifty in the same way. Elves all have the same Wild Step.

[Draco_Argentum]

Why is the text 'evil eye' there at all? It seems to add nothing.

It adds confusingness.

[Murtak]

So you can add a feat or item or prestige class that grant's bonuses against any monster with the evil eye ability? Keywords are great. Even if you end up never using them they take up next to no space and still function as flavor text. And should you ever need them they are there, 5 years later, when you finally design your Hunter of Darkness class.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Yea, we had a "Opposite day: Do everything the opposite". That card was banned at the end of that game.

However, "Bonus Round - Do everything double" was a huge win.

Jesus H Christ. That whole design thing makes you read the entire monster in order to be able to fight with it.

In 3e, you didn't have to know anything to fight with a brute monster, and you had to know the basics about spells in order to fight with an SLA monster.

[NineInchNall]

Well, you kind of saw the "read the entire entry" trend coming with the final 3.5 statblocks. They were intended to make play easier (somehow), but I never understood them.

[NineInchNall]

Oh, and Ziana's still a fucking retarded monkey.

The "obligation" is contingent on your intent and ability to use the action point.'

Fucking balls, man. No no no no no no no no no. Fourteen times no.

"You must eat the ice cream cone quickly[ if you want to eat it before it melts]." = "If you have eaten the ice cream cone before it melted, then you ate it quickly."

That's it.

[JonSetanta]

"You must eat the ice cream cone quickly[ if you want to eat it before it melts]." = "If you have eaten the ice cream cone before it melted, then you ate it quickly."

That's very zen.

[spasheridan]

I'm having a similar diatribe over there about Regeneration and Healers Lore and how the Q&A that came out about their interaction actually made the situation MORE confusing. (Q&A says that healers lore doesn't apply to say Divine Power. It doesn't comment on anything else - say a healers broach)

But the 4th ed fans have to bash me because I'm pointing out that WOTC rules writers aren't made of gold or something...

It's a totally foolish way to design rules. I could get behind an errata to change Regen, but adding a new rule that specifically bans another specific rule from working on a general rule... I mean, now I need to look in how many places?

If my group didn't love D&D I think I would give up.

[MartinHarper]

It's a totally foolish way to design rules. I could get behind an errata to change Regen, but adding a new rule that specifically bans another specific rule from working on a general rule... I mean, now I need to look in how many places?

I remember the old Warhammer rule: if two rules conflict, both sides roll a d6 and the highest roll wins. I found that completely inane.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Remember polymorph?

[RandomCasualty2]

Why is the text 'evil eye' there at all? It seems to add nothing.

Yeah, mainly the purpose of a named ability is so that it's easier to reference if you're talking about it. However, because they used the same name multiple times to talk about different abilities, that aspect is totally lost.

I could see the dev's making this mistake with separate creatures published in separate places, but the fact that it's all the cyclops in the MM, which are right next to each other. The mistake is really disgraceful. Though still for the WotC staff, not the worst mistake they've made.

[name_here]

It's a totally foolish way to design rules. I could get behind an errata to change Regen, but adding a new rule that specifically bans another specific rule from working on a general rule... I mean, now I need to look in how many places?

I remember the old Warhammer rule: if two rules conflict, both sides roll a d6 and the highest roll wins. I found that completely inane.

Eh, WH gets a stupid number of rules in a stupidly large number of places, so a rule for what happens when a rule in Craftworld Eldar contradicts, say, a rule in Codex:Space Wolves makes sense.

[JonSetanta]

Remember polymorph?

Ah yeah, those were the good ol' days.
Nothing like having players and DM argue over a 2-page spell errata to give me time for a food run.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

So you can add a feat or item or prestige class that grant's bonuses against any monster with the evil eye ability? Keywords are great. Even if you end up never using them they take up next to no space and still function as flavor text. And should you ever need them they are there, 5 years later, when you finally design your Hunter of Darkness class.

Except that "evil eye" isn't a keyword. It's just the name of the 8 million different abilities. My vote is that WotC designers aren't original enough to come up with slightly different names for similar things. Somebody get those people a dictionary and thesaurus.

[MartinHarper]

I could see the dev's making this mistake with separate creatures published in separate places, but the fact that it's all the cyclops in the MM, which are right next to each other. The mistake is really disgraceful. Though still for the WotC staff, not the worst mistake they've made.

It would be better if they had at least some commonality, even if it was just that they are all range 20 minor actions or whatever. M:tG has that type of effect a fair amount, and it seems to work.