[Not 4e] What will we see from 5e?

[Roy]

2i. I apologize in advance if you aren't a 3e fan, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you still play it. 3rd Edition fights were incredibly boring a majority of the time. Fighters full attack every round (or single attack against enemies that spring attack them) while casters get to have all of the tactical fun with their reality-altering powers. Sorry, but I find a system where more than just the casters get to have their fun and make a significant impact to be much more fun than the former.

This is just a tangent, but was I the only person to play in a 3e game that almost explicitly became Ars Magica? I played in one campaign for a few months where the DM disallowed anything that wasn't a full caster. If we wanted fighters and rogues for something, we hired them out of the DMG tables.

Functionally, all 3.x games are like that. And if you aren't willing to let ToB and a few other select non casters in that's the next best way of doing it. So really all he did is make the practical reality the true reality. Even so, those few non casters while inferior can play the same game and meaningfully participate therein. Most importantly, actual options that matter, making them far superior to anything, and everything 4.Fail has to offer.

[Hotpants Joe]

Also, thank you for exposing the fact you aren't as new here as you claim to be. I haven't used the word 'smite' in this thread, or anywhere on these boards in a while. So who's hiding behind the alt mask? That you PR? Or maybe one of the 4.0s that got smited before by me or someone else.

Ugh. More hurk durk apologetics. And they broke the thread. Do I have to go a smiting again?

The verb that your participle is based on is "smite". You really got defensive there. Afraid of trolls out to get you? I'm guessing you've made a lot of enemies on this board.

Joe: Skill challenges post errata are 'you succeed'. Except you have to spam a bunch of dice instead of just one.

Wait, what? No. Skill challenges are based on the complexity level (usually even number of successes before half as many failures to succeed overall). And like I said, it's a good tool for a DM to use to break a scene into parts. Failure is still very much a possibility.

So aside from making more pointless rolls it hasn't done anything for the stuff you'd auto pass anyways... and for everything else the chance of failure is gone. Well, unless you use pre errata rules, then skill challenges are 'you fail'.

You're right about the pre-errata rules, but the first part is just plain wrong.

Building castles and whatever in 3.x meant Wall of Stone, Fabricate etc. It didn't require making up entire rule subsystems. Though they did release one eventually, it ended up terrible as it seems to think you'd willingly take a massive hit out of your shiny magic item fund to... build a house. Even if the way you're building it doesn't cost a damn thing. Apparently you need to melt down 75k gold for the foundation or something. I dunno.

I'm guessing the cost came from getting the stone necessary to build the fortress itself? Makes sense to me that building a castle would cost you loads of money and only be feasible for someone who has come into a lot of wealth. Which is what tends to happen to adventurers.

Saying 'I full attack' over and over is functionally no different than saying 'I Tide of Iron' over and over. Sure, there's a little novelty in spamming a different line, but you're still spamming the same moves, and what's more encounters are such grindfests you will say 'I Tide of Iron' as many or more times than you would say 'I full attack' anyways so even though you are occasionally using some other move it doesn't fucking matter because even by that standard you admit 4.Fail is more repetitive, and not less.

"Spamming a different line"? Who says you have to describe your tide of iron the exact same way every time? Or describe it every time at all? And using full attack every round isn't functionally equivalent to even an at-will like Tide of Iron, because Tide actually moves an enemy around instead of simply doing loads of damage like a full attack does. You also have a bigger selection of combat maneuvers to choose from in 4e that has, again, more tactical implications than "I smack it around".

Sorry, I'm not buying this argument.

As for the casters, they had real options in 3.x, and 2.0, and 1.0. They don't in 4.Fail. They're stuck doing the 'I attack.' spam as well. This is not an improvement, it is a downgrade. Full stop.

Sorry, what counts as "real options" for you? I don't buy this one either. There are cases where a caster has to spam at-wills because they're out of dailies/encounters but that doesn't mean tactical combat hasn't vastly improved over what 3rd Ed was.

So it's nice you think that, too bad that the closest D&D comes to it is 3.5 + ToB.

I still consider a system that overhauls its combat system for more tactical combat options to be an improvement.

[ubernoob]

Tide of Iron is just Full Attack on a character with the knockback feat. Toss in improved trip and the 3.X fighter seriously has more options than the 4E fighter when comparing at wills (for dailies and such, we'd probably be looking at the fighter's equipment as well for comparison, but the first round of a fight is arguably more interesting for the 4E fighter).

[violence in the media]

Saying 'I full attack' over and over is functionally no different than saying 'I Tide of Iron' over and over. Sure, there's a little novelty in spamming a different line, but you're still spamming the same moves, and what's more encounters are such grindfests you will say 'I Tide of Iron' as many or more times than you would say 'I full attack' anyways so even though you are occasionally using some other move it doesn't fucking matter because even by that standard you admit 4.Fail is more repetitive, and not less.

"Spamming a different line"? Who says you have to describe your tide of iron the exact same way every time? Or describe it every time at all? And using full attack every round isn't functionally equivalent to even an at-will like Tide of Iron, because Tide actually moves an enemy around instead of simply doing loads of damage like a full attack does. You also have a bigger selection of combat maneuvers to choose from in 4e that has, again, more tactical implications than "I smack it around".

Sorry, I'm not buying this argument.

You seriously waste time describing every attack you make? If you're not describing it, then there is no difference between "I use Tide of Iron" and "I full attack." Also, you're forgetting iterative attacks. I can disarm, trip, and then wail on my opponent if I choose to. Not only that, but I can elect to do those things without needing to have them as specific Powahz! on my list.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

@Hotpants Joe

If you want an analysis of why Skill Challenges do not work well. Please read

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-ed ... ables.html

http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/gami ... roken.html

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49652&highlight=

I may address your other points later.

[sake]

This is just a tangent, but was I the only person to play in a 3e game that almost explicitly became Ars Magica? I played in one campaign for a few months where the DM disallowed anything that wasn't a full caster. If we wanted fighters and rogues for something, we hired them out of the DMG tables.

I tried running a game like that for while, I tried to explain to the players that it was an extremely high magic area where the only people who had more than three levels of Fighter were npc guard mooks and even the freaking Commoners had, at least, a godly UMD skill and that I was buffing the hell out of the Duskblade/Ranger/Pally/Bard/Psychic Warrior spellcasting to make them viable options. Of course, the first character someone wanted to make was a bloody Barbarian who hated magic (even after I explained there weren't any wild, tribal like people left within 500 miles of the city that the game would focus around).

It didn't last more than a couple of sessions.

[Roy]

Lols.

Also, thank you for exposing the fact you aren't as new here as you claim to be. I haven't used the word 'smite' in this thread, or anywhere on these boards in a while. So who's hiding behind the alt mask? That you PR? Or maybe one of the 4.0s that got smited before by me or someone else.

Ugh. More hurk durk apologetics. And they broke the thread. Do I have to go a smiting again?

The verb that your participle is based on is "smite". You really got defensive there. Afraid of trolls out to get you? I'm guessing you've made a lot of enemies on this board.

Ok, so I did use the word smite. Of course you're still acting like one of my pet stalker trolls, so rather than prove your own innocence by pointing out you had a plausible reason to say that you have only further cemented your guilt. You should have shut your damn mouth after that first sentence.

Wait, what? No. Skill challenges are based on the complexity level (usually even number of successes before half as many failures to succeed overall). And like I said, it's a good tool for a DM to use to break a scene into parts. Failure is still very much a possibility.

Learn how probability works, or check one of those threads that explains it with pictures, then get back to me.

Building castles and whatever in 3.x meant Wall of Stone, Fabricate etc. It didn't require making up entire rule subsystems. Though they did release one eventually, it ended up terrible as it seems to think you'd willingly take a massive hit out of your shiny magic item fund to... build a house. Even if the way you're building it doesn't cost a damn thing. Apparently you need to melt down 75k gold for the foundation or something. I dunno.

I'm guessing the cost came from getting the stone necessary to build the fortress itself? Makes sense to me that building a castle would cost you loads of money and only be feasible for someone who has come into a lot of wealth. Which is what tends to happen to adventurers.

Fail.

"Spamming a different line"? Who says you have to describe your tide of iron the exact same way every time? Or describe it every time at all? And using full attack every round isn't functionally equivalent to even an at-will like Tide of Iron, because Tide actually moves an enemy around instead of simply doing loads of damage like a full attack does. You also have a bigger selection of combat maneuvers to choose from in 4e that has, again, more tactical implications than "I smack it around".

Congrats, you've magnified the tedium by trying to pretend that spamming the same move to flail for piddly shit is somehow different, and remember this is the edition so specific that just having your piddly shit auto attacks tied to a different stat constitutes a new power/class/whatever. When in actuality it's all piddly shit damage or piddly shit damage + minor effect. Yawn.

If a 3.5 character wanted Knockback, they would take the feat by the same name, and do it 1-5 times a round or so. And if it did 'simply do loads of damage' at least you wouldn't have to spam it over and over and over because it would actually kill things in a reasonable time frame. So yes, the 3.5 Fighter would seriously be a fucking improvement.

Also, lol more maneuvers.

Sorry, I'm not buying this argument.

Then you're delusional. Full stop.

As for the casters, they had real options in 3.x, and 2.0, and 1.0. They don't in 4.Fail. They're stuck doing the 'I attack.' spam as well. This is not an improvement, it is a downgrade. Full stop.

Sorry, what counts as "real options" for you? I don't buy this one either. There are cases where a caster has to spam at-wills because they're out of dailies/encounters but that doesn't mean tactical combat hasn't vastly improved over what 3rd Ed was.

Pick a 3.5 caster, any level. Even a level 1 Druid can have actual fucking abilities that matter, like entangle. The few beatsticks that actually work like the ToB martial adepts, Duskblade, Psychic Warrior, Rogue... Yeah, they have real options too. Have you played 3.5? Because if you have you understand what actually being able to do stuff means already.

So it's nice you think that, too bad that the closest D&D comes to it is 3.5 + ToB.

I still consider a system that overhauls its combat system for more tactical combat options to be an improvement.

Good for you. You still aren't talking about 4.Fail, so what point are you trying to make?

[FatR]

I do not see how 4E tactical combat is any improvement over 3.5. Options that totally suck (due to low chance of success or just not doing anything important) are not options and in 4E you generally have only one option that does not totally suck and can be used more than once per encounter. And you will need to spam it over and over again. Looking at the bigger picture, all of the top-tier characters are one-trick ponies in the worst traditions of 3.5 core martial classes, because, just like them, they must optimize stringently to make a single trick workable. And are there any other workable tricks other that killing everything with lots of attacks and juggling by penaltizing saves?

[Roy]

I do not see how 4E tactical combat is any improvement over 3.5. Options that totally suck (due to low chance of success or just not doing anything important) are not options and in 4E you generally have only one option that does not totally suck and can be used more than once per encounter. And you will need to spam it over and over again. Looking at the bigger picture, all of the top-tier characters are one-trick ponies in the worst traditions of 3.5 core martial classes, because, just like them, they must optimize stringently to make a single trick workable. And are there any other workable tricks other that killing everything with lots of attacks and juggling by penaltizing saves?

Yogi Hat Ranger.

But yeah. In 4.Fail, you overspecialize in one thing. Since they're all about the same anyways, all that matters is getting your numbers as high as possible. You could never get away with that in a game that actually had tactics on any level because your one trick will get shut down HARD.

3.5 isn't that tactically deep, but it demonstrates that point in spades regardless.

[Psychic Robot]

How about thinking about the game differently for a change? Should a skirmisher act like a skirmisher? Should artillery act like artillery? Good, because that's how that type of monster does tend to act. How would treating a ballista as an attacker that has a solid attack bonus but is slow at avoiding attacks inconsistent? If anything, it would be less realistic to treat it fully as a 24 Dex creature. But I suppose instead of running encounters with what's laid out for you, in an incredibly easy fashion, you could just complain about your immersion. What's more, you haven't even fucking played the game.

No, you fuckwit, a skirmisher should not act like a skirmisher because we're not playing a goddamn computer game. Character capabilities should not be defined by their role in combat, you turd. Do you know why fey aren't as good at stabbing as animals are? Because they're fucking fairies. Fairies do not go around stabbing people in the face unless they are specifically trained to do so (as in, take class levels).

And now you're going to say, "Why not just think of a combat role as a class?" and you're an idiot for saying that. Do you know why? Because not all fey take class levels. They have racial HD to represent the inherent strengths and flaws of their race. But, again, this is 4e, so that kind of shit doesn't fly because it expects the DM to do something with the class outside of STABBAN AND KILLAN.

At the point where you're pushing a tarrasque around at all, things get a bit ridiculous. What about all the other fight scenarios where a halfling pushing an enemy around (or feinting to push them off-balance if you're against the idea of a little person being strong) does make sense?

Fine, the fact that an ogre can push a halfling just as far as a halfling can push the ogre is retarded. And I'm not saying that the push-shove-lolminis crap is all bad, but I expect the halfling to have a more difficult time shoving the ogre than the ogre does shoving the halfling.

The powers do have "default" fluff attached to them and most are pretty straightforward. There are powers (fireball, smiting, magic missile) that read like you've described. But that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't flavor them (paladin's smite may look different depending on their deity, mage's magic missile might look different depending on who their mentor was, etc).

Except the fluff largely doesn't make sense. Do I have to fucking spam TELEKINETIC WARLORDS and COME AND GET IT to get it through your thick skull?

The rogue ability I used in my example that allows the forced movement of an enemy is called positioning strike. The fluff is, "A false stumble and a shove place the enemy exactly where you want him." You could flavor this maneuver in more than one way as well. The idea is still that you're re-positioning an enemy.

Except the problem is that the majority of powers don't even make sense. Feinting in combat --> make your enemy lose his Dex bonus = makes sense. Smiting evil --> do extra damage to evil creatures = makes sense. Sneak attacking --> do extra damage when a creature can't defend himself = make sense. ??? --> automatically pulling enemies toward you = DOES NOT COMPUTE.

I just don't see how you can make a fuss about your immersive environment being ruined, but then turn around and say you want your fluff completely handed to you.

I'm saying that fluff should match mechanics.

You're doing it wrong.

That's fine, but you are wrong.

And you're an idiot.

Commoners can be part of an immersive setting. What I mean is, why are the minute details of how they work in combat important? Hint: they aren't. You can simplify how they contribute to a combat scenario (which should be a minor contribution unless you're staging a massive 1000-commoner riot or something) without getting all worked up over how saving throws work.

The minute details matter because it's part of creating a comprehensive system, and it doesn't matter because the 4e save system is fucking stupid all around.

Too bad it's not a valid one.

Eat shit and die.

Yeah, you're right. It's totally ridiculous that a race with fiendish qualities would be made to look more devilish than in previous editions. No, seriously. One is a race of space paladins and the other are the descendants of a fallen corrupt empire. They're both designed based on devils/demons but at least tieflings have a legitimate reason to be. I don't recall any draenei lore involving fiendish ancestry. I'm surprised you didn't go for the more obvious callout: Hellboy. Let's compare them all.

Compare those pics to a draenei female. They're basically the same, except the draenei is blue. Tieflings have become what were half-fiends in 3e. That's retarded, and it is because Mearls and Co. saw all the little chilluns playing their WoW chars and wanted to draw in the teenybopper ADD shitface crowd. Also, eladrin are fucking blood elves.

Your original complaint was that you couldn't be an evil smiter as a paladin because the game's role system is too restrictive. I just pointed out you can. Now you're complaining that Paladins aren't "defender niche" enough for you. Try being consistent. You seem to place a lot of emphasis on its importance.

How can the paladin do decent damage to monsters? Core-only, by the way. No multiclassing.

Lol. Nice, you haven't even played the game and you're ranting about the most inconsequential "problems" with the system. Maybe you should try to play the game and have fun instead of crying about immersion or draenei or whatever.

Roy was right on Myth-Weavers when he ignored that question because it was trolling.

[Psychic Robot]

So anyone bothering to try is going to get frustrated quickly and basically do what PR is doing.

Bang my head against my desk? Also, to Bill: insults are not ad hominems.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

BB:II - Thanks for not being hostile.

1. Not all of his points are completely wrong, but a lot of them are inconsequential. I just don't buy that somebody would have their immersion ruined because a monster has 2 lower of a fortitude defense than it should based on its Str/Con, or something. The point about commoners being able to shake off poison as easily as a barbarian is kind of moot, too, because the barbarian has party members that can potentially help him shake off the save effect easier. And a commoner is probably going to be a minion that is taken out of the fight from the guaranteed ongoing poison damage they will take at the beginning of their turn. I won't expand much more on these points because I already covered them in previous posts.

I agree that immersion would not be ruined with Str/Con although there's really no reason for 4th edition to have 6 stats except to appease people.. I want the barbarian to resist poison well by himself not with the help of another party member that let's him reroll a save.

2a. Yes and no. What makes it interesting to me are the tactical implications of using certain abilities over others. Do you blow your combat wad and use an encounter power + an action point + a daily to take out someone early? Do you slide an enemy into a flank with your sticky defender to keep them pinned down? Etc etc.

The tactical implications are generally very shallow. For instance, if there's an undead, you might use a Radiant power instead of your regular power that's better. Spending a Standard action to use a Healing surge is almost always a waste.

Generally, you always want to blow your whole wad in every fight, the same way, every time.

Defenders are not sticky, Focused Fire applies equally to monsters as it does to PCs.

Sliding is almost always a waste of time. With the Exception of a party with a Blood Mage in it.

I know you can't do as many ground-breaking things as a caster like you could in 3rd. But let's face it. The caster versus martial class rift in previous editions was like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw.

2b. As for out of combat stuff: yes, there do appear to be fewer options than in 3rd, but there are rituals and there is alchemy.

I don't want to spend 360 gp just to speak with the dead. Putting ridiculous price tags on stuff effectively makes it useless.

2c. Can you elaborate a bit here? I've played mostly levels 1-11 so far and we've never hit a brick wall because we don't have stuns/paralyzes/focused fire kiting. Fights aren't always super straightforward to the point that you could focus fire kite anyway. I was just in a combat the other day where there were only two immediate threats to start out with. As the combat progressed, a collection of wizards disguised as commoners in the area revealed themselves and began sniping us.

I didn't say you couldn't play the game without focused fire/kiting/stunning. I simply said that it's the most effective tactic and you'd be foolish not to do it.

Wizards were sniping you? That's fine, the 2 effective tactics are still Focused Fire or Run.

2d. Warlords are the martial leader class, meant to synergize best with martial melee classes. Clerics can definitely help ranged classes, though, with things like blade barrier. Bards can help ranged classes slide around when an enemy misses them, which can help them regain distance.

Having a mixed ranged/melee party can be tricky, but it can also be incredibly useful, and it's certainly viable. If you're in a fight where melee is pinned down hard enough to make it impossible to reach that pesky enemy caster in the back, you've got your ranged to take them down. There's more synergy than you'd think.

Clerics are a Melee/Ranged Class depending on whether they go Wisdom or Strength. I don't have the Bard book so I cannot comment.

Or, the party could just be all ranged, and everyone could aim for the pesky enemy caster in the back.

2e. And again, I'm going to reiterate the same point I did in my earlier post. The slide effects get a little bit silly when you're fighting something as epic as Orcus, but what about the myriad of other combats where it could easily make sense?

And at the point where you're high enough of a level to take on Orcus (he's 33 so you'd have to have a party of 30s most likely to stand a chance), who knows what kind of epic-level mojo you can pull out?

As I said, it breaks immersion for me whether it's orcus or a human fighter, being able to slide them around at will by instulting them or getting them to attack each other by being tricksy. It's not magic, and in my opinion stupid.

2f. Owning a castle/fortress: that would be interesting and I don't see why a DM couldn't wing this if it's what the players want. Before anyone jumps at me with, "But a system lacking these rules is flawed!!" -- it may very well be released in later material. IIRC, those rules didn't exist for 3rd Ed for a while until some supplemental material was released. Not sure about 2nd or 1st, as I only played 2nd for about a year or two.

If they release rules and mechanics for characters getting fortresses and followers and demon pacts, etc. that's fine and good except that when I buy a game I want a fun playable system with those roleplaying aspects more or less out of the box, and 4th edition doesn't do that.

2g. I disagree with you here. There are rituals and alchemical formulas that are hardly useless.

Yes, there's a few worthwhile combos, one nets you infinite gold and Scry and Raise Dead can be useful at times. For the most part the rituals just don't do enough, take too much time to be effective, and just cost way way too much to be used.

2h. Some feats are gimmick feats, but a lot of them are solid choices. The reason they don't appear to have much significant impact is that +1 bonuses to hit are meant to be a big deal. Can you give examples though?

Armor of Bahaumut
Avandra's Rescue
Corellon's Grace
Harmony of Erathis
(Ioun's Pose is actually ok)
Kord's Favor
(Melora's Tide is debatable)
Moradin's Resolve
(Pelor's Radiance is actually ok)
Raven Queen's Blessing
Sehanine's Reversal

The above feats with a few exceptions are just crap and way to specific to be useful

Astral Fire
Burning Blizzard
Dark Fury
Raging Storm

All 4 of these feats could just be replaced by 1 feat which said "Gain +1 damage for X Energy type and +1 Damage for Y Energy Type. Notwithstanding the fact that +1 damage to 1 energy type is piddly

Improved Initiative
Quick Draw

These feats just should have been combined into one feat. Seriously, it's fine.

Blade Opportunist
Nimble Blade

These feats should have just been combined into 1. +3 to attack in a specific circumstance is fine.

Lethal Hunter
Precise Hunter

Precise Hunter sucks but it might as well have been combined into Lethal Hunter

Surprise Knockdown

Are you freaking kidding me? If you roll a 20, the target becomes prone just so that on its turn it can stand up again? Give me a break

Combat Reflexes
Defensive Mobility

These feats give piddly bonuses in very specific situations, and even if that specific situation happens, one only has a 5% chance of that bonus ending up making a difference while the other only has a 10% of that bonus making a difference.

Dodge Giants
Dragonborn Frenzy

Elven Precision
Ferocious Rebuke
Halfling Agility
Hellfire Blood
Lost in the Crowd

All, way way too situational as a result you're likely to forget that you have that feat even when it comes up, and even if you remember it's not likely to make that much of a difference.

Durable

When the party needs to sleep it needs to sleep. Having extra surges is not going to help.

Dragonborn Senses
Jack of All Trades
Linguist
Light Step
Long Jumper
Sure Climber

Piddly Bonuses to skills, what a waste of time.

Shield Push

Yay, almost always useless.

2i. I apologize in advance if you aren't a 3e fan, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you still play it. 3rd Edition fights were incredibly boring a majority of the time. Fighters full attack every round (or single attack against enemies that spring attack them) while casters get to have all of the tactical fun with their reality-altering powers. Sorry, but I find a system where more than just the casters get to have their fun and make a significant impact to be much more fun than the former.

Then give fighters reality altering powers or minions or whatever. Now fighters and casters are both boring.

I don't see minions as a bad thing. In 3rd ed you had minion-grade enemies that were killable in single shots from the fighter. If he had cleave/great cleave, then your fighter was effectively a minion clearer like wizards and other AoEers are in 4th.

Minions are more of an opinion thing. I posted earlier what I thought was a more elegant solution to achieve the same effect.

2k. If you really want to do stuff like that, a DM who wants to make a long term, good campaign will hopefully opt to work something out with you. It's okay to say yes even if the system says no.

This is correct. However, when game designers don't feel the need to acknowledge the problems in their design, it tells me a great deal about the quality of their game.

Oh, and as an aside: if you played Keep on the Shadowfell as your intro to 4e, then I feel bad for you. I did too, and I'm pretty sure the hype for 4e was all that kept me interested. Combat was fun at times but the adventure I felt was piss poorly done.

I played Keep on the Shadowfell briefly. I remember us making too much noise at one point and ended up fighting 2 encounters as one encounter. I was the only party member to survive. It was fun though (for me at least).


Anyway Hotpants Joe, if you're having trouble accepting my points about combats being repetitive, please feel free to start a thread with some sample fights. You make a Standard encounter of whatever level you desire, and I'll create different groups of party members to illustrate Stunlocking vs. Nonstunlocking and Melee/Ranged Mixed vs. Melee party vs. Ranged party.

Peace,
Bill

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Bang my head against my desk? Also, to Bill: insults are not ad hominems.

Insults are Ad Hominem's when they're used to try to pursuade others.

Except the fluff largely doesn't make sense. Do I have to fucking spam TELEKINETIC WARLORDS and COME AND GET IT to get it through your thick skull?

That's not an argument. Telekinetic Warlords and Come and get it in caps is not an argument. It's useless jargon until it's explained. The only argument you're making in that statement is that he's an idiot which is ad hominem.

[Frantic]

Ok, so I did use the word smite. Of course you're still acting like one of my pet stalker trolls, so rather than prove your own innocence by pointing out you had a plausible reason to say that you have only further cemented your guilt. You should have shut your damn mouth after that first sentence.

Quoted for extreme levels of stupidity. You can't honestly have typed that. I mean, really? You get contradicted, look like an idiot, and tell someone to shut their mouth (which he isn't using) over the Internet?

You are fucking retarded.

Roy was right on Myth-Weavers when he ignored that question because it was trolling.

That is a very ironic statement.

Tieflings look like draenei in 4e. They didn't in 3e.

Only the females look anything alike, and only because both have horns. Their horns also look completely different. Am I looking at the wrong pictures for each or something?

Ugh. More hurk durk apologetics. And they broke the thread. Do I have to go a smiting again?

Quit whining, you fucking moron.

For Spellcaster Edition (non-Pathfinder, I refer to the Diablo clone) verisimilitude issues, I'll take 'telekinetic warlords' over people that move faster by grappling and psions who make literal Save Points with their crystals any day.

Not to mention 1st-level Paladins have a 50/50 shot of breaking the game. Lol.

Regardless, it's pretty easy to see that WOTC has terrible marketing strategies even if you like 4e or if you're a mindless 3.5 fanboy. The skill challenges were handled in a really retarded way and you need Dungeon magazine to even begin helping you out, on something that should have been included from the start. It's surprising just how much you'll be able to 'fix' in a 4e game when you use the magazines, but that never should have had to happen in the first place.

Oh, and as for Ad Hominems

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

You are engaging in ad hominem personam, Full Stop. I am too, but I'm at least being honest about it. Then again, that would imply that there's debate at all going on, which is laughable because the fanboys here never listen to reason, can't read, and because it'd imply that anything about this site is actually formal.

[Username17]

"Frantic" do you have anything to contribute to any topic?

Serious question. I personally put Roy on ignore because he was making unacceptable arguments. But seriously, you have 7 posts and they are all bullshit ad hominem attacks on people with no substance whatsoever. Why do you even bother to troll this site?

-Username17

[Crissa]

I dunno, surprise knockdown is kinda a fun fluff ability. If only most feats were 'something different happens 1/20th of the time'.

-Crissa

[Psychic Robot]

Insults are Ad Hominem's when they're used to try to pursuade others.

I'm not using insults to persuade anyone. Telling someone to eat shit is not a persuasive argument, nor is it meant to be.

That's not an argument. Telekinetic Warlords and Come and get it in caps is not an argument. It's useless jargon until it's explained. The only argument you're making in that statement is that he's an idiot which is ad hominem.

That's not an argument. Christ. I'm not saying "you're wrong because you're an idiot"; I'm saying "you're wrong and the fact that you're an idiot is tangentially related." Come and Get It is a power that automatically pulls targets to you, no attack vs. Will defense or anything. Telekinetic warlords refers to the warlord's ability to move enemies around the battleboard for no apparent reason. I can't recall the power's name off the top of my head, but it's stupid.

Frank:

Actually, according to Frantic, he's here to "Dispel Lies," so I think he might be a Roy sock-puppet that is being used to indirectly troll everyone.

[Draco_Argentum]

Quoted for extreme levels of stupidity. You can't honestly have typed that. I mean, really? You get contradicted, look like an idiot, and tell som

I'm actually going to give the tool who signed up just to troll a point here. Way to sound like a paranoid nutbag with that comment Roy.

[Roy]

So anyone bothering to try is going to get frustrated quickly and basically do what PR is doing.

Bang my head against my desk? Also, to Bill: insults are not ad hominems.

I was thinking more nerdrage. But that too.

Now to smite Frantic brand Fail.

Quoted for extreme levels of stupidity. You can't honestly have typed that. I mean, really? You get contradicted, look like an idiot, and tell someone to shut their mouth (which he isn't using) over the Internet?

You are fucking retarded.

1: Learn to read. I said he should have shut his mouth after the first line. I didn't tell him to do so.

2: Repeat point 1 because if you are going to try to insult someone's intelligence you should not make yourself look like the dumbfuck you are in the process.

3: Lol, what? Do I even want to know what drugs you're on?

Quit whining, you fucking moron.

Says the guy whose sole purpose in existing on these boards is to follow me around and whine incessantly about me. You love sucking irony cock don't you?

For Spellcaster Edition (non-Pathfinder, I refer to the Diablo clone) verisimilitude issues, I'll take 'telekinetic warlords' over people that move faster by grappling and psions who make literal Save Points with their crystals any day.

Not to mention 1st-level Paladins have a 50/50 shot of breaking the game. Lol.

And then we move to 4.0, and some dumbfuck archer with a horse is raping the game. Yup, real improvement there!

PR: I have no alts on these boards. Funny how the guy who makes use of alts far more commonly and in far more places is the first to accuse me of that eh? Don't take my word for it - the mods and admins can check that.

I'm actually going to give the tool who signed up just to troll a point here. Way to sound like a paranoid nutbag with that comment Roy.

Cute kid, real cute. I'd counter with 'it's not paranoia if they actually are out to get you', but since 'get you' just means whine and flail all over the place and therefore they couldn't get anyone the term really doesn't apply.

He's the latest in a long chain of dumbfucks that got all BAW BAW BUTTHURT because he lost an argument somewhere along the line and then followed me around to make an alt and whine and flail over it with said alt because he's taking impersonal shit personally. Most likely he's Iron Mongrel, as he's trolling in the same manner and showed up around the time IM got banned for the same BS. Though I wouldn't put a PR alt past anyone.

[MartinHarper]

A part of the problem with 4th is that we repeat ourselves a lot. We should just have a wiki that lists point by point, the problems with 4th edition.

Heck, we could quote the designers for many of the problems.

Are you freaking kidding me? If you roll a 20, the target becomes prone just so that on its turn it can stand up again? Give me a break

The trick with such things is to knock them prone and then shift one square away. Now when they stand up (move action) they can't attack you and they can't charge you. Still weak, though.

Come and Get It is a power that automatically pulls targets to you, no attack vs. Will defense or anything.

The fighter doesn't need to roll dice to pull people with Come and Get It because he's that good and his trick is that powerful, in much the same way that you don't get a saving throw against 3e Irresistable Dance. It only seems odd because we're used to the 3e approach where only magic can be reliable and fighters can't have nice things.

[Psychic Robot]

Funny how the guy who makes use of alts far more commonly and in far more places is the first to accuse me of that eh?

Give me a break. You accused me of trolling with an alt.

[Roy]

Irrelevant Post is Irrelevant.

[Hotpants Joe]

Roy: I don't know what your deal is, but you can think whatever you want. You came off as a paranoid type who is concerned about people signing up with alt names just to troll you, so I called it like I saw it. You also come off as really obnoxious and immature, so I'm not surprised you think this is a conspiracy and that "it's on" somehow.

I didn't realize how hostile this place was. I probably should've lurked more. Now if you don't mind, I'll move on to arguments of substance, like these ones from PR where I get called names repeatedly.

No, you fuckwit, a skirmisher should not act like a skirmisher because we're not playing a goddamn computer game. Character capabilities should not be defined by their role in combat, you turd. Do you know why fey aren't as good at stabbing as animals are? Because they're fucking fairies. Fairies do not go around stabbing people in the face unless they are specifically trained to do so (as in, take class levels).

And now you're going to say, "Why not just think of a combat role as a class?" and you're an idiot for saying that. Do you know why? Because not all fey take class levels. They have racial HD to represent the inherent strengths and flaws of their race. But, again, this is 4e, so that kind of shit doesn't fly because it expects the DM to do something with the class outside of STABBAN AND KILLAN.

I'm a turd now? Good one, man.

Actually I'm going to say that I've played a good amount of 4e, and I've never been in a fight that felt wrong or didn't make sense to me. 4e combat has failed to break my immersion so far. But you'll probably just call me a halfwit simpleton who doesn't know true gaming, so why don't I move on to something that isn't anecdotal?

So it bothers you that a hypothetical faerie face-stabber isn't realistic without having taken class levels like they would have had to in 3rd Edition. But this means you're looking at it from the scope of 3rd Edition when you should not. The faerie face-stabber creature may very well have had the class training. Usually the name of the unit implies this (don't have a book in front of me, can't give examples off the top of my head and I'm making this quick). Think of the faerie creature + fighter/rogue template as being rolled into a single package for simplicity's sake.

I get what you're saying about having a fully comprehensive system that takes base attributes and then adds onto them. I can see the argument for it. But there also comes a point where less concise rules can be a good thing. There is an indie survival horror game out there called Dread. Its mechanic? A Jenga tower. No dice, no charts and tables, no templates, no hit dice, none of that. It's all narrative control + Jenga tower. And you know what? Some of the best games I've ever played in my life (and I have gamed for ~a decade) have been from that system. Just food for thought. I know we're not discussing the finer points of less rules vs more rules, but I'm trying to challenge your outlook a little bit here.

Fine, the fact that an ogre can push a halfling just as far as a halfling can push the ogre is retarded. And I'm not saying that the push-shove-lolminis crap is all bad, but I expect the halfling to have a more difficult time shoving the ogre than the ogre does shoving the halfling.

It's easier to come to terms with this if you don't think of every slide effect as a "shove". Otherwise you're right, it's a bit hard to imagine.

Except the fluff largely doesn't make sense. Do I have to fucking spam TELEKINETIC WARLORDS and COME AND GET IT to get it through your thick skull?

A majority of the fluff does make sense, though. There are a few "fill in the blanks" instances, like with TELEKINETIC WARLORDS. When repositioning allies, you're giving commands while creating openings in melee. I played with a resourceful build warlord who described his "Commander's Strike" ability, the one that grants a nearby ally a free attack, as providing a distraction (flipping a coin above a gnoll's head when while moving up a flight of stairs). I know what you're saying about fluff -> mechanics, but dude, use your imagination every now and then. It doesn't hurt.

Come and Get It? What about the fluff don't you understand? The fighter taunts a group of enemies, and they "come and get it". The scene plays out pretty well in my head. Haven't you seen movies where this happens?

I'm saying that fluff should match mechanics.

And yet they do 95% of the time. I'm only saying 95% because I don't have every ability's fluff memorized, but nothing so far as stuck out as ridiculous to me. I just explained "telekinetic warlords" and "come and get it" to you. Got any others?

The minute details matter because it's part of creating a comprehensive system, and it doesn't matter because the 4e save system is fucking stupid all around.

Read what I put in my response to Bill about the whole barbarian can save as well vs poison as a commoner can. Going back to the "less is more" concept when it comes to rules, think of it this way: what would you rather have a DM spend time on?

A. Figuring out the hit dice, physical attributes, mental attributes, skills and proficiencies depending on the craft of the commoner(s) in question.

or

B. Simply using commoners in a scene that is believable while winging the items in A.

Being concise down to the most minute detail does not an immersive setting make. Not on its own merits, at least. A DM telling a good story makes for an immersive game/setting.

Compare those pics to a draenei female. They're basically the same, except the draenei is blue. Tieflings have become what were half-fiends in 3e. That's retarded, and it is because Mearls and Co. saw all the little chilluns playing their WoW chars and wanted to draw in the teenybopper ADD shitface crowd. Also, eladrin are fucking blood elves.

Alright, if you want to assume that. I'm just pointing out that Tieflings have always been fiendish in nature, so changing their appearance to be more devilish makes sense. They also made gnomes look more fae and nature-like in 4th, and they've been described that way in previous editions.

How can the paladin do decent damage to monsters? Core-only, by the way. No multiclassing.

High Strength, high wisdom, go avenging build and pick high [W] attacks. One of your at-wills lets you add wisdom damage on top of everything else to marked targets. Paladins hurt like hell when ignored. So you can be an ass-kicking smiter of evil and still be an effective defender.

Roy was right on Myth-Weavers when he ignored that question because it was trolling.

But it's true. All of these things you keep complaining about are for the most part non-issues when you actually sit down and play the game. Unless of course your group is bad, which can sour any game.


Bill: I have responses for all of your stuff but probably won't get to it later.

[Roy]

Lols. Sounds like he's being welcomed to the Den for real. Also, 4.Fail Paladins do piddly shit damage, even by 4.Fail standards.

[Lich-Loved]

Some unsolicited advice:

I didn't realize how hostile this place was. I probably should've lurked more.

and

Bill: I have responses for all of your stuff but probably won't get to it later.

Not sure to what hostility you are referring to exactly (I use Ignore), but you shouldn't judge this place based on one or two posters. On the other hand, keep the following in mind:

1. Discussion here can escalate and become adversarial. It just happens. You either can take it or not. I feel the information and quality of the analysis here to be worth the pain I feel from time to time when reading posts. Deal with it or leave as people here will not change. I am just saying.

2. If you are going to make a claim about a game rule, bring your math and bring your logic. People here are trained in mathematics (engineers, physicists), argument and critical thinking (lawyers), philosophy and formal logic. Some here are published game designers. There is a low tolerance for people that have not performed the statistical analysis and then make a claim. Something like saying ' 4e Skill Challenges work fine' is akin to walking into a room full of rabid physics majors and saying F != ma and then carrying on from there. Abuse and scorn will fall upon you and no one will bother to show where you are in error execpt to provide a link to the resources you must review. A number of 4e subsystems have been decomposed mathematically here. That work is done and accepted. If you want to argue the point, start by asking where you can read the analysis then show where it is flawed - people will listen if you approach it from this angle and either you will become better educated or they will and either way its a win for everyone. If you aren't going to go to this trouble, then expect abuse.

3. If you are going to make a statement about your opinion ( eg. '4e simplifies things') then expect to get a lot of opinions back that say, in effect, 'bullshit'. When you are *not* discussing things that are objectively verifiable through logic or mathematics it simply doesn't matter except in a college bullshit-session sort of way. People are going to respond to your opinion however they are going to respond and you invited to do the same, but you are never going to sway someone over to your viewpoint where there is just opinion upon which the discussion is based. It really isn't worth you trying. Express your opinion, others will express theirs and then move the fuck along if you don't like the direction things are going.

Good luck.