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

[Plebian]

tabletops are for fatbeards who want to live vicariously through their characters. DUDE I TOTALLY SLEW THAT GOBLIN IN ONE HIT I AM SO BADASS WANK WANK BLUBBERY TEARS OF JOY.

fixed that for you

[shadzar]

And lets not forget that while 1 chicken may not be much danger, a whole roost of them being controlled by someone with animal control abilities, would be frightening.

And would therefore be statted up as a "swarm" instead of a mundane chicken.

I can stat up a swarm in any system that has swarm rules, including 4E.

No need for that with 2nd edition. Look under Bird, Flightless. Viola CHICKENS WITH STATS!

Bird Flightless
#AP 2-20
AC 7
MV 18
HD 1-3
THAC0 1-2 HD: 19
# AT 1
Dmg/AT 1 HD: 1-4
Morale Average (8-10)
XP Value 1 HD: 15

And don't anyone say a chicken isn't a emu and isnt listed, cause you aren't getting much weaker than that for animals, and the point isnt for the animal to be a threat, but the ability exists for a chicken to have stats and NOT be a swarm

[Plebian]

a chicken isn't an emu and isn't listed

[MGuy]

I'm seriously unable to comprehend how or why someone, anyone can say a system is bad because you are able to stat out things you wouldn't regularly stat out. To claim that the existence of rules covering even edge cases (because there ARE guidelines on making new animals and there are similar bird's stats you can use even if there weren't) is a mark *against* a system is some pretty god damn hard trolling.

What's more the ONLY argument people have given to admonish it is that they don't WANT to have rules for that. Which is fine because if you don't want to stat it up NOTHING IN THE GAME IS FORCING YOU TO!

In 4E monster that ALREADY EXIST have tons of common things wrong with them (flight monsters can't use their flight if they wanna be fair, they don't have stats for interactions beyond a fight, and there is no continuity between their abilities and the world at large because they are assumed to just exist for the fight) and people are seriously telling me they can IGNORE that HEINOUS shit but the ABILITY to stat out minor creatures in a system pisses you off?! You people are insane.

[LR]

Yeah, I found those too earlier. Notice that doesn't include tiny or smaller or large or larger. Unless there's some sort of standard scaling rules about doubling things for each size category up. And even if it did, it'd be more immersion breaking to me than a complete lack of rules given how apparently running doesn't make me use air faster than walking, and the respiration rates don't work anything like one would expect (linear scaling with body length (large is twice as tall, wide, and thick as medium and so on, right?) is... not the right scaling).

Each additional size category is double/half the previous size category. A realistic system would be much more complicated, because oxygen requirements have as much to do with metabolism as they do size. Larger animals are typically less active than their smaller cousins.

Also, you're confusing completeness with realism. A rule system can be complete as long as it covers the entire play space. Unrealistic rules are desirable if it would take too much time or effort to match up the rules to the real world. It sucks that it's harder to plug in real world values, but it saves time for the rules that are going to be used more often.

Also, I prefer to make corner-case decisions (price of food or time to suffocation being the current examples in D&D) as necessary or not have to worry about a shitty underlying template. Having to edit crap is worse than having to write from scratch. But when there's already crap, people are going to expect me to use it. But YMMV.

Even assuming that you're making proper houserules instead of ad hoccing everything, allowing your system to remain incomplete and expecting people to fill in the blank spots increases the barrier of entry for games. If you have to learn new houserules every time to change groups, then pick-up games become harder to run and the insular group model is heavily incentivized.

Did someone find stats for a chicken in 3e yet?

The statistics presented here can describe most nonpredatory birds of similar size.

To get smaller birds, you have to go to the DMG and reverse-engineer the stats for the Thrush Familiar. That's not actually hard, as it mirrors the Raven in most respects. Changing it back to an Animal drops its Skill Points down to 1x4, and a Raven has a spread of 3 Spot and 1 Listen. We can assume that it keeps Alertness because it doesn't even have an attack form, so that changes its skill line to +7 Spot and +5 Listen. Its HD drops down to 1/8 d8 (1), and it loses all of its special qualities except Low-light Vision. They both have a Ref save of +4, so they have a better chance than the average Commoner of surviving a Fireball. If they're familiars.

[CCarter]

I used chickens as an example because they were an area of design space that 3.x had also not covered.

The hilarious bits about chickens as minions being left alive because some people really don't understand minions are just a bonus. I'll give you a bit of insight as to how I've seen minions misunderstood: no sandstorm not created by a player as an attack would ever kill a minion in one round.

I'm assuming this is because monsters don't have stats when they're not in conflict with the PCs.

Compare this statement:

actually a tarrasque has DR 15/epic so feel free to surround it with as many kicking idiots as you want, they won't do a damned thing to it

If it doesn't have stats that you should be trying to construct game reality...this leaves us where, exactly?

My retarded adventure for 4E: Timmy the peasant boy (1 HP minion when the PCs finally fight him) kills Pelor (I'm assuming he'd rate as approximately a Lvl 35 monster). The PCs must catch him before he kills again!
Your impossible mission, if you choose to accept it, is to explain why this is stupid without any reference to either having statistics that represent their abilities or any implication either party has stats that exist out of combat mode.

[Novembermike]

Minions are for fatbeards who want to live vicariously through their characters. DUDE I TOTALLY SLEW THAT GOBLIN IN ONE HIT I AM SO BADASS WANK WANK BLUBBERY TEARS OF JOY.

Throwing rocks in glass houses and all that.

[Plebian]

My retarded adventure for 4E: Timmy the peasant boy (1 HP minion when the PCs finally fight him) kills Pelor (I'm assuming he'd rate as approximately a Lvl 35 monster). The PCs must catch him before he kills again!
Your impossible mission, if you choose to accept it, is to explain why this is stupid without any reference to either having statistics that represent their abilities or any implication either party has stats that exist out of combat mode.

because Timmy is a mortal and Pelor is a god, wow that was easy.

[Swordslinger]

In cases of chicken stats and similar cases, I resort to a handy principle.

I call it: Who gives a fuck, lets just play the fucking game.

This is a game of heroes who kill monsters, I don't give a fuck if a noncombat creature has 1 or 2 hit points or if it's AC is 11 or 12. If the PCs wanna kill a chicken, then just say it dies and move on. You dudes realize you don't have to roll for everything right?

[Novembermike]

My retarded adventure for 4E: Timmy the peasant boy (1 HP minion when the PCs finally fight him) kills Pelor (I'm assuming he'd rate as approximately a Lvl 35 monster). The PCs must catch him before he kills again!
Your impossible mission, if you choose to accept it, is to explain why this is stupid without any reference to either having statistics that represent their abilities or any implication either party has stats that exist out of combat mode.

I'm actually not sure why this is stupid. I doubt a peasant boy could kill a martial god in a fight, but I'm sure there are things that could do it like Timmy praying to Pelor while performing ritual X, bringing him into the world in a mortal and vulnerable form before stabbing him in the heart with a dagger while he is recovering.

It's all a little contrived because "peasant boy" isn't going to make me think that he has access to the kinds of contacts, knowledge and training you'd need to actually pull something like that off, and killing gods is generally something that should be important to the story and not just a random side fact, but I don't have a problem with it as long as there's a decent background explaining why he is able to do it (maybe his father used to be the high priest of shadow and has books on this sort of thing).

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

In cases of chicken stats and similar cases, I resort to a handy principle.

I call it: Who gives a fuck, lets just play the fucking game.

This is a game of heroes who kill monsters, I don't give a fuck if a noncombat creature has 1 or 2 hit points or if it's AC is 11 or 12. If the PCs wanna kill a chicken, then just say it dies and move on. You dudes realize you don't have to roll for everything right?

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER

[Plebian]

it's incredibly funny that requiring detailed rules for any action the party may take is basically demanding to play a videogame where if it's coded, you can do it, and if it's not coded, you're shit out of luck. which makes the 4e = vidjagaaame argument even more hilarious

[CCarter]

I'm actually not sure why this is stupid.

Pelor appeared to chastise Timmy's father, a fallen priest. He threw a rock at Pelor and got lucky.
Neither have stats (e.g. hit points), since the PCs are currently still getting drunk in a tavern on the other side of town.

[LR]

it's incredibly funny that requiring detailed rules for any action the party may take is basically demanding to play a videogame where if it's coded, you can do it, and if it's not coded, you're shit out of luck. which makes the 4e = vidjagaaame argument even more hilarious

Tabletop rules can be open-ended. Video game rules can't. But you're just going to accuse us of being grognards for not liking 4e anyway.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

I'm actually not sure why this is stupid.

Pelor appeared to chastise Timmy's father, a fallen priest. He threw a rock at Pelor and got lucky.
Neither have stats (e.g. hit points), since the PCs are currently still getting drunk in a tavern on the other side of town.

There aren't any rules for drunkenness, so no, they aren't. Also there aren't rules for chastisement, why would Pelor do it?

Tabletop rules can be open-ended. Video game rules can't. But you're just going to accuse us of being grognards for not liking 4e anyway.

He's saying that if you're playing Resident Evil, and you want to open a door, you need the key, which is what you say happens in 4E, but is only the case if you're convinced that something not covered by the rules absolutely cannot be done.

You can break down doors in 4e, there are even rules for it, it was just an example.

[CCarter]

There aren't any rules for drunkenness, so no, they aren't. Also there aren't rules for chastisement, why would Pelor do it?

In our games we run alcohol as a Wis/Dex damaging poison. And I asked why it wouldn't make sense in your rules-free system, not mine where I already know its ridiculous.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

It wouldn't make sense because it's fucking retarded.

[Plebian]

Tabletop rules can be open-ended. Video game rules can't. But you're just going to accuse us of being grognards for not liking 4e anyway.

oh, no, not liking 4e is perfectly okay; it's certainly not the best system ever but I enjoy it more than the other editions I've played

it's when you start saying really stupid things like it lacks player agency and it stops RP and nothing happens outside of combat that I feel the need to point out that you're being stupid

[Psychic Robot]

Throwing rocks in glass houses and all that.

I'm not fat, I lack a beard, and I don't play tabletops because I have a small penis.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

I'm not fat, I lack a beard, and I don't play tabletops because I have a small penis.

You can still play tabletop games even with a small penis, I presume. I can't imagine how it would enter into it.

[Plebian]

Throwing rocks in glass houses and all that.

I'm not fat, I lack a beard, and I don't play tabletops because I have a small penis.

yeah, I'm sure you play tabletops for other reasons than your small penis

HEYO

[Psychic Robot]

Throwing rocks in glass houses and all that.

I'm not fat, I lack a beard, and I don't play tabletops because I have a small penis.

yeah, I'm sure you play tabletops for other reasons than your small penis

HEYO

See, if you were less of a 4rry, this sort of post would make me like you.

[MGuy]

There aren't any rules for drunkenness, so no, they aren't. Also there aren't rules for chastisement, why would Pelor do it?

In our games we run alcohol as a Wis/Dex damaging poison. And I asked why it wouldn't make sense in your rules-free system, not mine where I already know its ridiculous.

Alcohol is a poison. They list the effects in the Arms/Equipment guide. So 3E has rules for THAT too.

[MGuy]

In cases of chicken stats and similar cases, I resort to a handy principle.

I call it: Who gives a fuck, lets just play the fucking game.

This is a game of heroes who kill monsters, I don't give a fuck if a noncombat creature has 1 or 2 hit points or if it's AC is 11 or 12. If the PCs wanna kill a chicken, then just say it dies and move on. You dudes realize you don't have to roll for everything right?

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER

DING DING DING who said you had to? I mentioned several times that it isn't an issue if you don't give a fuck. What I asked is WHY does it bother you that you CAN stat out chickens? How is a system WORSE for having this feature?

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Figure out who said it was a problem before asking me that.