The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

[Roy]

The MOBs are called MOBs, because Mobile Unit is the correct term to describe them.

Additionally, in real games, with real decisions like 3.5, enemies are flying because it's what they do, and PCs are flying because it's what they do too. I currently have a level 7 and a level 10 game. In the first, all but 1 or 2 people, out of 7, were flying. In the second, all but one were flying, out of four.

There's no "BAW, we can't fly, because we're gimps that fail at life, so no one else gets nice things either". Fuck that noise. Immersion. Verisimilitude. Depth. Learn them, you MOB fuckers, and then we can begin to have a meaningful discussion.

[Crawfish]

And before the stupid "3E was the same" gets brought up again: We all know 3E has a lot of faults. Not surpassing 3E in core areas doesn't make 4E a good game.

Strawman argument. Nobody is saying "3e is bad therefore 4e is good", that is a strawman. The point is "This did not bother you in 3e/whatever previous edition, so why does it bother you in 4e?"

[lighttigersoul]

I appreciate your clarification. I don't know that I necessarily agree with that point of view, but that has more to do from my view of the "story" being an emergent property from gameplay and less of a plotted narrative.

Sure, the proposed adventure might be about rescuing the princess from the evil duke, but the game isn't about playing that out so that it reads like a novel. We might run afoul of a hydra in the swamps and all get eaten, we might say "fuck it" in the middle and abandon the quest, maybe we switch sides, maybe we assassinate the duke in the loo, whatever. The point is, what actually happens becomes the story; and it doesn't necessarily need to follow dramatic structure.

In this POV, the dragon or the roc aren't there as plot devices or set pieces, they're there because there are dragons and rocs in this mountain range and we happened to come across one of them. Quite possibly as a literal, dice-generated, surprised-the-MC-too, random encounter.

I didn't say the adventure had to be plotted out, most of the situations mentioned can be done on the fly by a good GM in any game and handled by a novice in 4th edition thanks to the tools they designed. If the proposed adventure is a bad guy's tower with harpies defending it, the harpies don't have to be ACTUAL enemies. Use trap rules while ground based forces challenge the party. They end up having an interesting fight, the harpies aren't a boring encounter, and they still add flavor to the fight in the form of the randomly fallen rocks, or arrows, or however they're challenging the party.

[Crawfish]

The MOBs are called MOBs, because Mobile Unit is the correct term to describe them.

So why is it all caps if it isn't an acronym? Do you just get that excited over them? I mean you get all excited over the shitty mmo slang "fail", hamfistedly mashing it into unclever portmanteaus on the level of "BU$HITLER", so I don't know!

[Fuchs]

I wish there was some sort of ritual at level 10 that allowed the PCs to fly so anybody who took the ritual caster feat could take it, that seems like it would fix the problem, maybe it could be called "Eagle's flight" or something

Maybe it should be a ritual that doesn't have the riders dropped on the ground after a single on their mount. Maybe it should be something you can use in combat too, to say, react to a bunch of flying attackers.

[Fuchs]

And before the stupid "3E was the same" gets brought up again: We all know 3E has a lot of faults. Not surpassing 3E in core areas doesn't make 4E a good game.

Strawman argument. Nobody is saying "3e is bad therefore 4e is good", that is a strawman. The point is "This did not bother you in 3e/whatever previous edition, so why does it bother you in 4e?"

Nobody is saying "it does not bother us with 3E". Check the list of threads about how to fix 3E.

There's a reason all the "martial" characters in my campaign use builds from the book of 9 swords, and that we cobbled together a lot of house rules.

[violence in the media]

Sure, the proposed adventure might be about rescuing the princess from the evil duke, but the game isn't about playing that out so that it reads like a novel. We might run afoul of a hydra in the swamps and all get eaten, we might say "fuck it" in the middle and abandon the quest, maybe we switch sides, maybe we assassinate the duke in the loo, whatever. The point is, what actually happens becomes the story; and it doesn't necessarily need to follow dramatic structure.

In this POV, the dragon or the roc aren't there as plot devices or set pieces, they're there because there are dragons and rocs in this mountain range and we happened to come across one of them. Quite possibly as a literal, dice-generated, surprised-the-MC-too, random encounter.

There are no hydras in the swamp until you put it in there. There are literally zero hydras in any swamps on Earth, so there isn't really a huge naturalism reason to put them there. If you put something in your world and it didn't work out, it was a bad idea on your part and you fucked up as a dm. This isn't saying that the players have to always win, but if the players systematically lose it's probably not the system or the players.

Oh holy shit, if you're going to nitpick about using hydras as the example, you can go ahead and replace them with water moccasins, or grizzly bears in the woods, or jaguars in the jungle.

The point was that there are places where you are more or less likely to encounter certain types of creatures. You can want with all your heart to find a penguin at the equator or a fire giant sailing the arctic seas, but those things probably won't happen. And, if you do come across such a thing, there is actually going to be a reason behind it because you don't normally find those things in those places. And the reason we have any idea of what creatures to generally expect in a given environment is because we pretend they exist even when the PCs aren't stabbing them.

I mean, for fuck's sake, MMOs have greater world consistency than 4e in this regard. The goddamn goblins in the Barrens don't cease to exist, or turn into Ogre elites, when and if I decide to go back there at 78th level. (Disclaimer: I have not played Cataclysm, they may very well be Ogre elites at this point.)

[tzor]

The MOBs are called MOBs, because Mobile Unit is the correct term to describe them.

So why is it all caps if it isn't an acronym?

Why are you complaining about it then? Are you upset because he constantly shouts mob? Here is the definition, "An AI controlled monster. 'Mob' originally comes from the MUD era, where it was short for 'mobile', to differentiate monsters that would patrol a set of rooms as opposed to monsters which would stay in one place until killed."

Now go away ... or better yet ... CLICK

(NB: CLICK is not an acronym for Cannot Love Insanely Cute Kittens)

[lighttigersoul]

And before the stupid "3E was the same" gets brought up again: We all know 3E has a lot of faults. Not surpassing 3E in core areas doesn't make 4E a good game.

Sure, you all stop defending the OGL as a better system (With or without Frank's houserules.) and we'll stop using your stock as our comparison point.

These kind of discussions need a point of reference, as anything we say is rebutted with comparisons to OGL material, that is obviously our point of reference.

Additionally, in real games, with real decisions like 3.5, enemies are flying because it's what they do, and PCs are flying because it's what they do too.

I don't know about anyone else, but the italicized is not what is defined as choice.

But I don't care that the dot is green, that fucker pissed me off. Fuck you video game invincibility.

Table top game is not an MMO no matter how many times you say it. If you want to kill the monster because you hate it, don't take it alive (The rules actually explicitly state that the person to reduce the monster to zero can determine if they're keeping it alive or killing it with the blow.).

Beyond that, if you attack an NPC, the GM will do one of two things (Assuming they're not Gygaxian ass pirates.):

Say 'You killed him, what do you guys do now?'

Say 'Roll initiative.'

Which he chooses will depend wholly on the context of the situation.

[Roy]

The MOBs are called MOBs, because Mobile Unit is the correct term to describe them.

So why is it all caps if it isn't an acronym? Do you just get that excited over them? I mean you get all excited over the shitty mmo slang "fail", hamfistedly mashing it into unclever portmanteaus on the level of "BU$HITLER", so I don't know!

MOB is the correct form.

Hi Welcome

GFY.

STFU.

LSHMMAICPHJTTTFO. (that's: Let's see how many more acronyms I can put here just to tick the fuckwit off)

[lighttigersoul]

Maybe it should be something you can use in combat too, to say, react to a bunch of flying attackers.

I think you're missing the point.

An 'all melee party' means builds without the capability to deal with flying monsters. In the later levels, it is possible for almost any class to get daily powers that let them fly for one encounter, allowing them to effectively deal with enemies that don't want to face them on the ground. The difference is, when you throw it at a party with these capabilities, it lets them use their ability in a meaningful way and doesn't make it boring as hell (Again, thrown and ranged weapons work, but they make for damn boring combat unless you're a ranged build.)

[Roy]

Additionally, in real games, with real decisions like 3.5, enemies are flying because it's what they do, and PCs are flying because it's what they do too.

I don't know about anyone else, but the italicized is not what is defined as choice.

Hi Welcome

But I don't care that the dot is green, that fucker pissed me off. Fuck you video game invincibility.

Table top game is not an MMO no matter how many times you say it. If you want to kill the monster because you hate it, don't take it alive (The rules actually explicitly state that the person to reduce the monster to zero can determine if they're keeping it alive or killing it with the blow.).

Beyond that, if you attack an NPC, the GM will do one of two things (Assuming they're not Gygaxian ass pirates.):

Say 'You killed him, what do you guys do now?'

Say 'Roll initiative.'

Which he chooses will depend wholly on the context of the situation.

Except that you aren't supposed to fight NPCs. You said so yourself. So which is it? Invincible green dot that tells you you need the blue key for the blue door, or welcomes to to Corneria, or actual thinking being who exists for actual, in game reasons, and who you can actually interact with beyond mindless clicks? Choose one, 4rry. They are mutually exclusive.

[Fuchs]

And before the stupid "3E was the same" gets brought up again: We all know 3E has a lot of faults. Not surpassing 3E in core areas doesn't make 4E a good game.

Sure, you all stop defending the OGL as a better system (With or without Frank's houserules.) and we'll stop using your stock as our comparison point.

These kind of discussions need a point of reference, as anything we say is rebutted with comparisons to OGL material, that is obviously our point of reference.

We're not defending the 3E OGL. This is a thread about 4E's faults. If you're interested in tearing a hole into 3E, check the threads dealing with its faults.

The main point of reference we usually use here is "Did the developers manage to reach their stated design goals?"

[Crawfish]

The MOBs are called MOBs, because Mobile Unit is the correct term to describe them.

So why is it all caps if it isn't an acronym? Do you just get that excited over them? I mean you get all excited over the shitty mmo slang "fail", hamfistedly mashing it into unclever portmanteaus on the level of "BU$HITLER", so I don't know!

MOB is the correct form.

[citation needed]

[Fuchs]

An 'all melee party' means builds without the capability to deal with flying monsters. In the later levels, it is possible for almost any class to get daily powers that let them fly for one encounter, allowing them to effectively deal with enemies that don't want to face them on the ground. The difference is, when you throw it at a party with these capabilities, it lets them use their ability in a meaningful way and doesn't make it boring as hell (Again, thrown and ranged weapons work, but they make for damn boring combat unless you're a ranged build.)

Then bring those up. Show us how an average party deals with flying enemies. So far most 4E zealots said one shouldn't even use flying enemies.

[Novembermike]

The point was that there are places where you are more or less likely to encounter certain types of creatures. You can want with all your heart to find a penguin at the equator or a fire giant sailing the arctic seas, but those things probably won't happen. And, if you do come across such a thing, there is actually going to be a reason behind it because you don't normally find those things in those places. And the reason we have any idea of what creatures to generally expect in a given environment is because we pretend they exist even when the PCs aren't stabbing them.

I mean, for fuck's sake, MMOs have greater world consistency than 4e in this regard. The goddamn goblins in the Barrens don't cease to exist, or turn into Ogre elites, when and if I decide to go back there at 78th level. (Disclaimer: I have not played Cataclysm, they may very well be Ogre elites at this point.)

4e has no world consistency because there is no world. It's simply a set of rules. The problem seems to be that your worlds have no consistency. Good DM's I run with haven't had problems making a consistent world no matter what system it is (3e, 3.5, 4, Dresden Files, Burning Wheel, Gurps, whatever).

[Roy]

Hey, while we're at it, perhaps the MOBs should form a nice line, allowing the PCs to farm them. And then the PCs can stand outside and be like LFG for Orcus farmz, and LF Controller for dragon grindign.

[Novembermike]

Then bring those up. Show us how an average party deals with flying enemies. So far most 4E zealots said one shouldn't even use flying enemies.

Nobody has said this.

[tzor]

Violence, the problem with their argument is even worse than you are suggesting. If monsters literally do not exist unless they are fighting the PCs then the whole notion of “Points of Light” collapses. There are no monsters in the woods, or anywhere else the PCs are not. Everything is love and happiness, except wherever the PCs are.

Let’s take a good example of this in another genre; the city of Gotham. In the comic world there is this monster called the Joker. He routinely goes to random places, robs people and kills them for the most insane or reasons, (he once killed government officials for not accepting his argument that fish poisoned by him to create joker like smiles should be patented and he should be getting all the royalties). Thus the Batman has to find him; prevent him from harming others; and capture him.

But in the 4E world, he doesn’t exist, except in the presence of the Batman. The Joker is not the problem to the people of Gotham, the Batman is! Why? Because when the Barman is not around, neither is the Joker. If you kill the Batman you eliminate the whole Joker problem.

Of course, by the same token, if the monsters don’t exist except in the presence of the PCs why should anyone else? In fact, why isn’t this some insane dream on the part of the PCs? Yes, 4E is Inception. Well, actually I might have misspelled that; 4E is insipid.

[Roy]

The point was that there are places where you are more or less likely to encounter certain types of creatures. You can want with all your heart to find a penguin at the equator or a fire giant sailing the arctic seas, but those things probably won't happen. And, if you do come across such a thing, there is actually going to be a reason behind it because you don't normally find those things in those places. And the reason we have any idea of what creatures to generally expect in a given environment is because we pretend they exist even when the PCs aren't stabbing them.

I mean, for fuck's sake, MMOs have greater world consistency than 4e in this regard. The goddamn goblins in the Barrens don't cease to exist, or turn into Ogre elites, when and if I decide to go back there at 78th level. (Disclaimer: I have not played Cataclysm, they may very well be Ogre elites at this point.)

4e has no world consistency because there is no world. It's simply a set of rules. The problem seems to be that your worlds have no consistency. Good DM's I run with haven't had problems making a consistent world no matter what system it is (3e, 3.5, 4, Dresden Files, Burning Wheel, Gurps, whatever).

Hi Welcome

Displacement (psychological).

Also, I'm glad the fuckwit army came. Smiting them is making me feel a whole lot better.

[Roy]

Violence, the problem with their argument is even worse than you are suggesting. If monsters literally do not exist unless they are fighting the PCs then the whole notion of “Points of Light” collapses. There are no monsters in the woods, or anywhere else the PCs are not. Everything is love and happiness, except wherever the PCs are.

Let’s take a good example of this in another genre; the city of Gotham. In the comic world there is this monster called the Joker. He routinely goes to random places, robs people and kills them for the most insane or reasons, (he once killed government officials for not accepting his argument that fish poisoned by him to create joker like smiles should be patented and he should be getting all the royalties). Thus the Batman has to find him; prevent him from harming others; and capture him.

But in the 4E world, he doesn’t exist, except in the presence of the Batman. The Joker is not the problem to the people of Gotham, the Batman is! Why? Because when the Barman is not around, neither is the Joker. If you kill the Batman you eliminate the whole Joker problem.

Of course, by the same token, if the monsters don’t exist except in the presence of the PCs why should anyone else? In fact, why isn’t this some insane dream on the part of the PCs? Yes, 4E is Inception. Well, actually I might have misspelled that; 4E is insipid.

Tzor, you don't often make useful posts, but this one is made of Win and Awesome.

[Fuchs]

Then bring those up. Show us how an average party deals with flying enemies. So far most 4E zealots said one shouldn't even use flying enemies.

Nobody has said this.

Sorry, I should have been more precises "No one should use flying enemies in 4E if they have a predominatly melee party since that makes for a boring fight" was the general drift.

[Fuchs]

Hey, while we're at it, perhaps the MOBs should form a nice line, allowing the PCs to farm them. And then the PCs can stand outside and be like LFG for Orcus farmz, and LF Controller for dragon grindign.

Don't forget "/Shout Camp Check!"" when you enter a dungeon.

[lighttigersoul]

Except that you aren't supposed to fight NPCs. You said so yourself. So which is it? Invincible green dot that tells you you need the blue key for the blue door, or welcomes to to Corneria, or actual thinking being who exists for actual, in game reasons, and who you can actually interact with beyond mindless clicks? Choose one, 4rry. They are mutually exclusive.

No, they're not.

NPCs are characters without rules because they exist to be interacted with in ways other than combat. The rules aren't there because it's up to the DM to decide their purpose and how they'll interact with the PCs.

If you are incapable of running the NPCs as anything but invincible green dots, that's YOUR failing, not the system's.

I run my NPCs like non-player characters. They have their own goals, and try to achieve them. I just don't waste my precious planning time on them unless they directly interact with the PCs, since the PCs are the protagonists of the game. If the PCs throw a curve ball and decide to attack on of the NPCs, I will either just kill it, and adjudicate the consequences, or I will very quickly stat that NPC as a monster and start the encounter.

Monster is a mechanics term, it means that the thing is intended for fighting. We could call them Mobs, or we could call them killables, or we could call them wallflowers, it really is just a lexicon term meant to make it simple to discuss combat encounters.

We're not defending the 3E OGL. This is a thread about 4E's faults. If you're interested in tearing a hole into 3E, check the threads dealing with its faults.

The main point of reference we usually use here is "Did the developers manage to reach their stated design goals?"

In many cases, yes, they did. The system is easy to learn, teach, and run. It is fun unless the GM is functionally retarded. The monster/NPC deviation is a very good fix and one I'd been using for years anyway (So not statting an NPC is more second nature anyway.). It's difficult to make an unusable character as long as you're following the book.

Some things don't work well as designed. Skill challenges are terrible, and the dependence on ability scores is unfortunate.

If you want to bring up specific design goals to discuss or counter with, please, feel free. The problem is, everyone bashing 4th edition is doing it with 'But I don't like it!' not 'But that's counter to the design goal!'

[lighttigersoul]

An 'all melee party' means builds without the capability to deal with flying monsters. In the later levels, it is possible for almost any class to get daily powers that let them fly for one encounter, allowing them to effectively deal with enemies that don't want to face them on the ground. The difference is, when you throw it at a party with these capabilities, it lets them use their ability in a meaningful way and doesn't make it boring as hell (Again, thrown and ranged weapons work, but they make for damn boring combat unless you're a ranged build.)

Then bring those up. Show us how an average party deals with flying enemies. So far most 4E zealots said one shouldn't even use flying enemies.

An average party is meaningless.

An average party is a Controller, a Defender, a Leader, and two Strikers (This is by the book.). The problem is each of those roles has so many options that this only helps you understand damage output and defense capabilities.

If you use a Laser Cleric, a Wizard, a Greatbow Ranger, a crossbow rogue, and heavy thrown fighter, you're going to have a very different set of capabilities than a group that is a Greatweapon Fighter, Lazylord, Two Weapon Ranger, scoundrel rogue, and a druid.

One would have a very interesting fight against flying enemies in the right situation (Again, there's a good chance of flying enemies just being boring since they don't have cover in the air and range penalties are minimal in most situations.). The other has only one character capable of doing anything useful or fun against the exact same encounter non-withstanding some of the powers that each could take to fly.

The biggest problem is that flight, in any RPG, is only interesting when it's a gimmick.