recent d&d deathwatch data

[shadzar]

This is by far the dumbest argument I have ever seen against 4e.

100+ pages of errata! OMG!!!

Yes. If your errata is that long, and your game still isn't the standard of balance yet, your game is shit. It might be shit because it is broken from the beginning, or because the powercreep/nerf errata cycle is intentional, but it is shit either way.

You realize that there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of errata for magic cards.

Never noticed that in practice when still playing MtG (unless you count banlists as errata, and they are not really the same thing). If true, this just means that MtG is a worse game than I thought.

for a level 5 judge prior to 7th edition there was 600 pages of errata for cards...if the gatherer program still works on WotC site...just look at some of the cards and all the errata they have gone through..

http://gatherer.wizards.com/

[TheFlatline]

Except from what I've played of 4E, they basically have succeeded. My gaming group has a pretty diverse bunch of characters, but we're all able to contribute to a fight and have fun, and we don't have to learn vastly different mechanics when switching from one class to another.

I've not been trying to break the math in casual play, and so far the math hasn't broken.

Most RPGs stand up to casual play and play within the strict intent, if not the letter, of the game.

But as soon as you start pushing in different directions you start seeing growing pains. Even before you start pushing and exploring the system you come up on math issues and other screw ups. This forum is filled with pages of math issues.

If you have to houserule any math, which you're saying is trivial, you don't get to say the system as written (at any given moment as the errata continues to ooze out of WOTC) is solid. Period. Because, as you say, it's trivial to modify things so that they "just work". But that's something that WOTC can't apparently do.

[Doom]

This is by far the dumbest argument I have ever seen against 4e.

100+ pages of errata! OMG!!!

You realize that there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of errata for magic cards.

4E powers are build like magic cards.

The VAST majority of the errata is adjustment of particular powers.

This isn't a bad counter-argument, but to be fair:

1) Most Magic errata are clarifications about how a card works and/or interreacts, not actual changing of rules (eg, there's nothing like "Ernham Djinn is now a 4/4", but rather "Lands that make green mana do not automatically count as basic forests"). It might be also more fair to consider errata from more recent years (after all, 4e was suposed to be super-optimal with math that just worked, avoiding the traps of 3.5).

2) Most errata applies to cards that cannot even be played in tournament situations, or are not even available to the vast bulk of gamers.

3) The vast bulk of cards do exactly what they say on the card, even with the hundreds of pages of clarifications and some pages of actual errata, mostly for older cards.

By standard 2), you could say Essentials is a better game since it has very little errata, unlike 4e, which you can hardly play correctly out of the printed books still on sale in stores.

I'm not convinced 4e really stands up to casual play. My casual group trivially snapped the game in half over and over again, and I was making rules changes (like more damage and less hp for monsters) long before WoTC officially did so.

A party of half a dozen 'casual' level 15 adventurers can easily have half a dozen interrupt encounter/daily powers between them. Imagine playing a game of Magic with quite possibly six different people all playing counterspells of various forms, in various orders, in various combinations, every single turn, every single time anyone did anything, and every single time having to go around the table and give every single player a change to interrupt, then interrupt-interrupt, and so on...imagine if every game of Magic was like that.

*snap*

[Username17]

What you have there is actually two problems:

• The game is actually very low risk. Seriously, the base challenges are pretty much complete non-threats even at supposedly "hard" levels of XP budgeting.
• The "attention span" of PCs is very low. That is, a PC doesn't get many rounds in before they stop doing interesting things.

So either way, it's pretty boring. If you use the suggested encounters, or even cut their hit points in half as many people do - the game is so far into easy mode that you don't actually have to use any of your special abilities. But if you jack up the difficulty at all, players run out of specials long before they run out of enemies. Either way, I find it extremely boring.

When there's basically no challenge at all, I am bored. When I run out of specials and just use my most appropiate at-will every single round, I am bored. Player characters just don't have encounter endurance in terms of having access to options. And the encounter difficulty is dialed down below my give-a-shit threshold. And fixing either problem makes the other problem worse.

-Username17

[LR]

Except from what I've played of 4E, they basically have succeeded. My gaming group has a pretty diverse bunch of characters, but we're all able to contribute to a fight and have fun, and we don't have to learn vastly different mechanics when switching from one class to another.

I've not been trying to break the math in casual play, and so far the math hasn't broken.

Do you have any idea what a typical game of 3E is? I'll fill you in. The players make a "balanced party" with some kind of Fighter, some kind of Rogue, a Cleric (or Druid), and a Wizard. The Fighter does well from around levels 1-7 and then gets an artifact longsword (the MC not understanding or not caring that the item is far above the magic item guidelines). The Rogue does her trapfinding and flanking bullshit and the mobs don't target her for some reason, the Cleric spends 3/4 of his spell slots on healing, and the Wizard lobs around fireballs. The party manages to to squeak by even with suboptimal play because of the inherent superiority of some of the classes or cheating on the part of the MC. There is, of course, a chance that somebody will happen onto one of the black holes in the system. The fighter could always be mauled by a wereboar, after all. However, they most likely will play from levels 3-12 without noticing any of the yawning chasms that happen to exist in 3e. If they do, then the MC will probably just lay a plank down over it and pretend it doesn't exist. At 12th level, the game is over, and the party is none the wiser.

If you want to say that 4E is balanced because most people manage to play it without noticing the flaws, then you have to grant that same courtesy to the editions you're trying to badmouth. The argument is still bankrupt even if you extend that courtesy, though, because Orbizards were the kings of 4E during its entire lifespan even if the average group didn't use them. Just like Wizards were the kings of 3e even if nobody in the average group noticed the Planar Binding spell. You are placing undue importance on your anecdote and its supposed power to deny the facts while ignoring that there are other anecdotes and that anecdotes can't be used like that anyway. Confirmation bias is making you dishonest without you even noticing.

Now, it probably seems like I just placed 3E and 4E in the same boat. However, that would be ignoring all of the things that 4E removed. All those crazy effects that made casters win 3E also gave them direct control over their slice of the story. Player agency is an important thing and it's something that 4E does not have. There may be people that are happy without agency, but that does not mean that removing the option of agency is a good idea. A game should not come with support for bad MCing.

[Ravengm]

This is by far the dumbest argument I have ever seen against 4e.

100+ pages of errata! OMG!!!

You realize that there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of errata for magic cards.

4E powers are build like magic cards.

The VAST majority of the errata is adjustment of particular powers.

This is wrong. Errata on Magic cards is for clarification, not changing the inherent abilities. Errata that change Magic Missile from a standard power to never-missing is completely different from changing words to fit new template. Most of the errata for Magic is along the lines of changing "CARDNAME is unaffected by summoning sickness" to "Haste". Which is exactly the same thing, but it needed to be changed for the purpose of things having the same language.

Claiming that something simply has errata means nothing. 4E has errata that specifically tries to "fix" the game and fails. Magic has errata mainly to update wording to fit templates.

Edit: I might also point out the clusterfuck of errata that came out to change wording recently when they introduced "exile" and "battlefield" as terms. Every single instance of "comes into play" was replaced with "enters the battlefield" in errata, which resulted in a billion lines of new text, but is still the same freaking thing.

[Zinegata]

"Have you ever played through a Deadlands combat?"

No, but I've played ASL. God was that a quagmire >_>.

But having run and played in 4E games, I have to agree that it's actually playable.

[quanta]

What you have there is actually two problems:

* The game is actually very low risk. Seriously, the base challenges are pretty much complete non-threats even at supposedly "hard" levels of XP budgeting.
* The "attention span" of PCs is very low. That is, a PC doesn't get many rounds in before they stop doing interesting things.



So either way, it's pretty boring. If you use the suggested encounters, or even cut their hit points in half as many people do - the game is so far into easy mode that you don't actually have to use any of your special abilities. But if you jack up the difficulty at all, players run out of specials long before they run out of enemies. Either way, I find it extremely boring.

It's pretty easy to fix the low-risk issues at low levels. At high levels though? 4 PC's can wipe out 3 lv. 35 solos in 3-4 rounds without even touching their dailies. And without using a healing surges. Want Lolth to actually well... fight the PCs? Make the whole fucking battlefield a mazelike deathtrap way beyond what the game specifies if you don't want the ranger buffed by the battle captain to instagib her first form on the first fucking round. Followed by the next striker stepping up and killing her second form on the next turn (or round if you're being generous).

The attention span thing? 4e basically requires that you design terrain so that all the sliding/pushing/etc. actually has a point, but before shit gets totally out of control due to RNG-breaking powers and interrupts it's pretty easy to make the combat work even with heavily optimized characters. God knows if the encounters that do that will even vaguely fit the guidelines in the DMG though. Combat on mountain steppes or a flat plain is pretty much guaranteed suck too.

[Krakatoa]

If you want to say that 4E is balanced because most people manage to play it without noticing the flaws, then you have to grant that same courtesy to the editions you're trying to badmouth. The argument is still bankrupt even if you extend that courtesy, though, because Orbizards were the kings of 4E during its entire lifespan even if the average group didn't use them. Just like Wizards were the kings of 3e even if nobody in the average group noticed the Planar Binding spell. You are placing undue importance on your anecdote and its supposed power to deny the facts while ignoring that there are other anecdotes and that anecdotes can't be used like that anyway. Confirmation bias is making you dishonest without you even noticing.

What confirmation bias? I'm not here to badmouth any edition. I'm just saying that people are making frankly ludicrous assertions about 4E dying with nothing but that pesky anecdotal evidence. I don't even fundamentally dislike 3E. There are some things I think 3rd did very well. It did flavor text much better than 4th, for example. But that doesn't change the complete worthlessness of certain classes at high levels, or the brokenness of the monster math. Sure, like in 4th, these things can be house ruled, but the number and complexity of the house rules is much greater.

Now, it probably seems like I just placed 3E and 4E in the same boat. However, that would be ignoring all of the things that 4E removed. All those crazy effects that made casters win 3E also gave them direct control over their slice of the story. Player agency is an important thing and it's something that 4E does not have. There may be people that are happy without agency, but that does not mean that removing the option of agency is a good idea. A game should not come with support for bad MCing.

I am going to have to disagree pretty much entirely here. Player agency depends largely on the style of the game and how the DM is running it. There's nothing from a roleplaying standpoint that you can do in 3e and not do in 4th. And now non-casters can viably contribute to the experience, especially combat, at any level, so agency is effectively spread to all players.

[Orca]

In older editions you have everything from long-term invisibility to walls of stone to planar binding. These can change the world, or at least the situation your players are in.

Magic with a max range of fifty to a hundred feet and a duration you would normally measure in seconds isn't the same thing IMO. Taking anything outside this away from the spellcasters may be good for fighters in some ways but - again IMO - it limits the game too much.

[mean_liar]

I will say that using a Ranger was an awful experience that I never, ever want to replicate. Twin Striking everything got fucking boring fucking quickly. My favorite class by far is the Warlord - I love playing chess and moving people around.

[Zinegata]

People, Krakatoa likes 4E.

He just likes it. He's not claiming it's the greatest thing ever, the most balanced thin ever, or anything else really. He's saying he likes it, and it works for him when they're doing casual play.

So, again:

Krakatoa likes 4E.

Stop trying to make him stop liking what he likes.

I'm sure Carthaz will supply us with the appropriate image shortly.

[Zinegata]

I will say that using a Ranger was an awful experience that I never, ever want to replicate. Twin Striking everything got fucking boring fucking quickly. My favorite class by far is the Warlord - I love playing chess and moving people around.

I've found damage-dealing classes in 4E get incredibly boring quickly.

The problem is the monster's stupid amount of HP. Even massive crits don't seem to do anything to them.

I had one guy deal 70 damage per round over two consecutive rounds (two critical hits), and that was STILL not enough to bloody the damn Dragon.

The exchange went like this:

<Player> Natural 20! 70 Damage! Wohoo!
<DM Zine> *checks HP* ... You slightly annoy the dragon, but she doesn't even acknowledge your presence.
<Player> ... What?! I'll show her!

- One round later -

<Same Player> Natural 20 again! 70 Damage! Wohoo!
<DM Zine> *checks HP* ... There are now the beginnings of a bruise on the dragon. But at least she notices you now.
<Same Player> ... What. The. Fuck?!

By the time we got the dragon down to 100 HP people were at the point of going "WHY WON'T IT DIE?!"

[Krakatoa]

Just going through PHB one, there are several invisibility options, and they can be sustained indefinitely as long as your target is in range. I don't even know that it's all that necessary to use RAW outside of combat.

Edit: it's kind of funny, since I think I'm the least enthusiastic about 4E in my group. I prefer more flexible systems than DnD, like Mutants and Masterminds.

But yeah, I don't really care if anyone personally dislikes 4E, I'm just sort of skeptical that it's really in the financial dire straights that many people who dislike it suggest.

[Orca]

I think it's fairly clear that D&D 4e's not doing well in gaming stores or at conventions. What's not clear is whether it has a lifeline elsewhere - sales via Amazon or other internet outlets. The signs aren't good for that but it's not as definite.

[Zinegata]

Our only real source for sales data is icv2 (which has a lot of issues).

And so far, ICV2's last report on RPGs painted an unrelentingly bleak picture for 4E D&D. Pathfinder had tied 4E in terms of sales in Q3 2010.

Whether or not Pathfinder can surpass 4E, we have yet to see. The report for Q4 2010 is out soon though.

[Judging__Eagle]

Fixing the "math" for Fighters is, has been, and was, completely doable.

It can be done. It was done. It has been done.

The problems of 4e are game designers trying to use pre existing material that they were using as their 3.X kludge/homebrew; and then trying to ram said homebrew into a new edition.

4e sucks because of Iron Heros' fail and suck.

If the designers had been actually trying to create a "new" edition, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be shackled by the hobgoblins of their tiny minds.

[Krakatoa]

Pathfinder had tied 4E in terms of sales in Q3 2010.

Even if this is true, it's not the same thing as 4E failing. Pathfinder is a new brand with a lot of hype, the illusion of the Dungeons and Dragons pedigree, and a lot of good word of mouth from grognards bitter about the changes of 4E. As I previously stated, I don't consider it a good system, but it does not surprise me in the slightest that it's doing well.

[Zinegata]

It's not just that though.

On top of the falling sales, 4E has essentially (pun intended) released D&D 4.5, without actually calling it D&D 4.5.

They're calling it "D&D Essentials", using packaging like the old-school Red Box despite bearing very little resemblance to how the old school games were played.

And on top of all that WoTC admits that D&D players have fallen to just 1 million, when it was around 6 million at 3.X's peak.

While 4E isn't dead yet, the data that we have points to an unrelentingly bleak picture of an edition in deep trouble that already has a half-hearted attempt to reboot it.

Moreover, it's worth noting that there's currently a surge in demand for both CCGs and boardgames - which is probably eating away a lot of demand for RPGs.

[LR]

What confirmation bias? I'm not here to badmouth any edition. I'm just saying that people are making frankly ludicrous assertions about 4E dying with nothing but that pesky anecdotal evidence. I don't even fundamentally dislike 3E. There are some things I think 3rd did very well. It did flavor text much better than 4th, for example. But that doesn't change the complete worthlessness of certain classes at high levels, or the brokenness of the monster math. Sure, like in 4th, these things can be house ruled, but the number and complexity of the house rules is much greater.

You are blindly ignoring that there are important elements of an epic fantasy roleplaying game that are entirely absent from 4e. That's pretty strong evidence of confirmation bias. I'm not sure what you're basing your idea that 4e is doing well on, but the belief that its doing poorly is based on its competition with the corpse of 3e propped up Bernie-style and attempts to reverse-engineer WotC's current strategy of killing 4e and replacing it with a dressed up clone.

There's nothing from a roleplaying standpoint that you can do in 3e and not do in 4th.

Bullshit.

[Zinegata]

Publishing the spell lists which made roleplaying unnecessary in 3.X in lieue of simply having magic solve every problem in the world isn't a great argument.

[Shazbot79]

I like 4E.

I like it a whole sight better than I did 3rd edition.

I'm okay with losing a bit of player agency...I don't particularly think that magic-users having an auto-win button for every situation really adds anything of real value to the game.

I thought that the initial design goals of 4E were spot on, and I'm disappointed that the game has fallen short of a lot of them. But despite this, I still have a good time playing with the right group of people.

I have yet to find my perfect fantasy game, but if the design goals of 4E HAD been met, then it would probably hew pretty close to my ideal. Ah well, maybe 5th edition will get it right.

I don't come here to defend the game because generally the criticisms come from people who have played the game extensively and know what they are talking about, hence they tend to be sound, and I'm more interested in reading about the denner's design ideas than I am in getting into endless flame wars.

But I like 4E, all told. I wish it was better, but I still find it enjoyable.

I am a 4rrie.

[For Valor]

Publishing the spell lists which made roleplaying unnecessary in 3.X in lieue of simply having magic solve every problem in the world isn't a great argument.

I don't think you understand roleplaying. It's where you play a role. Like, the roll of the guy who CAN FLY TO THE MOON WITH HIS OWN MAGIC OR DESTROY A CITY WITH ONE OF HIS SPELLS.

Now check 4e. Find someone who can fly to the moon with his own magic or destroy a city with one of his spells.

You'll quickly learn that 4e doesn't do that. Hence, those roles are unavailable. And I could really go on and on about the awesome roles that 4e doesn't allow...

[Krakatoa]

Okay, I think I'm going to shut up after this because it's getting a bit tedious and I think I've already said this part:

The market is different than it was at 3.X's height. The global economy has collapsed since then. Indie and Rules Lite RPGs have increased in popularity. There's a direct juggernaut of a competitor in Pathfinder. Piracy is rampant. Comparing absolute numbers to absolute numbers is not a fair comparison because there are so many more options for play, and, I doubt, a huge increase in the number of total RPG players.

Is Wizards of the Coast hurting compared to where they were at 3.x's height? I'm certain they are. Is some of this due to dislike of 4E? Absolutely. Is Essentials an attempt to change their declining fortunes? Definitely.

But saying without qualification that 4E is dying nobody likes it! is just gloating. Especially since nobody can say where the brand would be if we were in year 8 of 3.5 instead. (Pathfinder's sales aren't a measure of this because Pathfinder was sold on a combination of promised rules refinements and specifically as a backlash against 4E. Without 4E, there would be no Pathfinder.)

[For Valor]

it's not that nobody likes it. It's that less people like it. I do believe that Gaming Conventions prove that. If there were people who were interested enough in 4e to leave 3.X behind, you wouldn't see 4e as the minority game at conventions. Done.