Roy wrote:
Nope. There you actually not only have ranged attacks, but have mobility as well. So yes, it's very different. Even if an enemy did start a thousand feet away, that's just a Dimension Door away from fixing. And then they could totally Dimension Door themselves. Or something.
The rest of that is a massive straw man.
You're right about the spellcasters > all in 3e point. Anyway, the reason I asked whether or not we were assuming that every fight was an open field is that clearly, not every fight is going to be. You said the game breaks because of horse archers. You're basically throwing a bunch of hypothetical bullshit out here and assuming that there's a bad DM at the 4e table. A bad DM makes any game suck.
It is, however, a legit argument if you're saying that due to the nature of 4e, ranged classes
consistently break the game. I think Bill was going to fetch a link about this at some point, which I agreed to check out.
Roy wrote:
More straw men, and it doesn't take 'optimized archer rangers'. I'm talking about dumbfucks with bows on horses here. You only need any amount of specialization when facing the rare MOBs that can actually shoot back. Otherwise you kite them to death, just like an MMO.
A DM that repeatedly sets up fights where kiting enemies to death like in an MMO is a viable option is, again, a bad DM. This is a poor argument at best. You're essentially taking hypotheticals -- things that could be done on paper -- and using it to say that 4e sucks. That's weak. I could do the same thing with other systems that are generally regarded as playable.
I'm going to ask you how much 4e you have played. It's a common trend for those who haven't (or have extremely limited experience) that rag on it tend to do so via improbable, hypothetical what-ifs like the horse archer PCs on an open field versus melee scenario, or by pointing out the lack of inconsequential minutia like how much damage a commoner should be able to do with a kitchen fork. Right now you're fitting that bill, just like PR.
Roy wrote:
You said some vague handwaving bullshit that amounted to 'Giant Frog' for all the sense it made and all the correctness it had. If this were a room full of physics professors talking shop, you were the guy who just walked in and said gravity works because hallifuckingluyah. And then they call security to escort the druggie off the premises.
You wouldn't call it handwaving bullshit if you actually read what I posted. Feel free to correct me -- I referenced the tables in the EN World thread that Bill posted. If you don't allow aid stacking, skill challenges aren't that imbalanced, although they do tend to err on the side of somewhat easy. What you're doing here is dismissing my argument via handwaving.
Roy wrote:
3.0 has infinitely more options in all areas.
This seems to be true. If you were a spellcaster or had access to UMD at least. While there are some very useful,
low cost rituals/alchemy in 4e, they number less than their equivalents in 3e (I'm disappointed at the lack of cost-effective scrying).
But in the end you're still there to fight monsters and gain experience, and gain gold, and gain better items so you can continue to do more of the same stuff. Which is what I was trying to point out. Saying it had "infinitely more" options is an exaggeration. D&D has always, at its core, been a combat-centric game.
And there's still more material being released for 4e.
Roy wrote:
Also, way to move the goal posts all over the place, and continue with your religious fanatic like handwaving justifications to preserve your self delusions.
And seriously. If handwaving justifications and such are what you call good arguments, you have no business being here. Full stop.
If you're just going to keep chanting your mantra of "religious fanatic" every time you don't feel like refuting my points logically, then I'm going to ignore your posts. Full stop.
