The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

[Psychic Robot]

I'm getting sick of there being a million threads about 4e being the suckiest suck that ever sucked and then having someone come in and derail it with stupid shit about how 4e is a good game. Since 4e has such a myriad of problems, I think it's fair to make a thread in which we contain all of the 4e bile.

To start us off, here's a list of how 4e fails:

1. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.

2. The Mongol dilemma--soldiers on horseback can defeat a number of the game's monsters by virtue of the monsters not having decent ranged attacks. (Related to World Fail.)

3. Giving a flying monster a bow breaks the game. (Related to World Fail.)

4. Blatantly obvious RNG-sodomizing powers that were somehow overlooked.

5. Various broken abilities that demonstrate a lack of playtesting and/or willful disregard for legitimate concerns (Orbizard, Demigod epic destiny, rangers soloing Orcus, and so on).

1. Complete lack of internal consistency: assuming a dynamic world in which NPCs are cognizant (and thus not static "mobiles" to kill for XP and loot) causes the game to break down.

2. The entire economic system is a clusterfuck of not-sense-making. (Related to #1.)

3. Vastly dissociated mechanics: how do I describe what's going on in a way that makes sense? Too many powers cripple the ability to narrate a cohesive scene outside of a completely metagame interpretation.

4. Daily powers for non-casters. "I can only swing for 6[W] + Strength damage once per day!"

5. Entire armies of high-level minions die in a sandstorm. (Related to Mechanics Fail.)

6. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.

1. A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes.

2. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)

3. Shoehorning the game into hackan 'n' slashan mode. (Related to Balance Fail and World Fail.)

4. Elimination of iconic spells, class features, and whole classes in the name of balance--try playing an enchanter, summoner, or necromancer in Core 4e. Try playing a druid in Core 4e. Try playing a ranger with an animal companion in 4e. Try playing a witch with a familiar in 4e. Try playing a bard in Core 4e.

1. Exception-based design wanking, plus shit like the four different "evil eye" variations. Includes ability interaction and "How the hell do I adjudicate this?"

2. Usage of page 42 to replace actual rules.

3. HP bloat resulting in grinding.

4. Skill challenges are completely broken.

5. Solo encounters suck--they're boring grindfests.

6. Ritual system is retarded.

7. Instead of eliminating the 15-minute workday, the devs put everyone on the 15-minute workday schedule.

8. Swathes of poorly-written and vaguely-worded mechanics.

9. Everyone playing the same class is generally superior to everyone playing a different class.

Now, let me introduce you to some general fallacies that you need to avoid when discussing the system. If you make these arguments, you are automatically wrong, so don't make them.

The system isn't broken because the DM can house rule it.

If avoiding broken aspects of the system involves the DM doing/not doing something specific (outside of being an asshole), then your argument is invalid.

Example: "Mongols aren't broken because the DM can just run his encounters in a closed space."

(Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that mongols break the game in the wilderness.)

B-b-but 3e did it, too!

I don't give a flying fuck about what 3e did. If your argument is that it's okay for 4e to suck because 3e sucked, then you fail at life.

Example: "3e had worse RNG problems than 4e!"

(Be that as it may, it doesn't excuse the failings of the developers.)

That's just your opinion!

Wrong. If we can prove with math that something is true, it is not an opinion--it is a fact. To claim otherwise is a blatant lie.

Example: "Skill challenges aren't broken! That's just your opinion."

(Be that as it--err, no, fuck you.)

If a rule doesn't exist, the DM can make it up.

Yeah, and if I wanted to play Magical Tea Party with a collection of my own house rules, I wouldn't be playing a published system.

Example: "The DM can just make up his own powers and rituals to play a necromancer in Core 4e."

(Be that as it may, I don't feel like doing that much work to make the system compatible with a basic fantasy trope.)

You're just a rollplayer!

Fuck you.

Lastly, there are specific threads that discuss specific aspects of the game in detail (in no particular order):

4e's errata sucks, by Break.
4e roles and role protection suck (long version), and 4e roles suck (Reader's Digest version), by Lago.
Skill Challenges fail on a fundamental level, by Frank.
4e Brokenation: Yogi Hat Ranger, by Lago.
Problematic monsters, by Lago.
4e quirks, by Shatner.
4e's fighters are imbalanced, by Lago.
4e supporters attempt to defend 4e and fail miserably, by crazysamaritan and Crimson Lancer.
Monster roles are a joke, by Lago.
Familiar rules are moronic, by Psychic Robot.
Anti-immersion in 4e, by angelfromanotherpin.
Rituals suck, by Lago.
An example of exception-based design demonstrates the flaws of 4e, by Lago.
WotC continues their retarded "feats are errata" campaign, by Psychic Robot.
Mearls admits that he fucked up, by Voss.
Rust monster milking, by Fuchs.

I think those are the best threads that contain examples of how and why 4e sucks, allowing new members to the Den to get a grasp on why 4e is trash.

Now, discuss.

[Orion]

Your list is too long and includes things which are either subjective or too much work to prove. I'd condense it like this:

1. Blandification and lack of diversity.
2. Lack of internal consistency. (Verisimiliwhat?)
3. Ritual system is retarded.
7. Mongols.
8. Flying monster with a bow breaks the game.
9. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)
10. Freakonomics.
12. Blatantly obvious RNG-raping powers that were somehow overlooked.
13. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.
15. Exception-based design wanking, plus shit like "evil eye" variations.
19. Usage of page 42 to replace actual rules.
20. Shoehorning the game into hackan 'n' slashan mode.
21. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.
22. Skill challenges.
23. Solo encounters.
24. HP bloat resulting in grinding.

And I'm not even positive about all of those. I've not encountered any padded sumo issues though I've only played at low levels and without elites. Still, my paragon tier characters look on paper like they can kill things pretty quickly. And epic level is broken as hell.

The lack of rules for anything outside combat will also be touted by many as an advantage, because many DMs will find it preferable to the massive amounts of power that 3.0 casters got.

And 1 and 2 should be rephrased so it's clearer what they mean. 12 seems redundant also when we've highlighted the RNG-destroying powers and mongols.

Also, on a personal level, I don't appreciate the use of "rape" as a slang term.

[Psychic Robot]

Modifications made.

[koz]

Quote tags: fix them.

[Orion]

Looking at the shorter list I'd actually group them for easier comprehension:

Main Problem: Balance Fail

--9. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.
--4. Mongols--soldiers on horseback can defeat a number of the game's monsters by virtue of the monsters not having decent ranged attacks. (Related to #2.)
--5. Giving a flying monster a bow breaks the game. (Related to #2.)
--8. Blatantly obvious RNG-raping powers that were somehow overlooked.

Main Problem: World Fail

--2. Complete lack of internal consistency: assuming a dynamic world in which NPCs are cognizant (and thus not static "mobiles" to kill for XP and loot) causes the game to break down.
--7. The entire economic system is a clusterfuck of not-sense-making. (Related to #2.)
--3. Ritual system is retarded.

Main Problem: Coolness Fail


--1. A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes.
--6. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)
--12. Shoehorning the game into hackan 'n' slashan mode.

Mian Problem: Mechanics Fail

--10. Exception-based design wanking, plus shit like "evil eye" variations.
--11. Usage of page 42 to replace actual rules.
--13. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing. (Related to #2.)
--14. Skill challenges are completely broken.
--15. Solo encounters suck.
--16. HP bloat resulting in grinding.

[Psychic Robot]

Are my tags broken? I checked the post but they seemed alright.

[Quantumboost]

Looks like Boolean's posts have an extraneous end-quote tag at the end of the lists.

[MartinHarper]

Balance Fail

I'd argue that mongols and flying monsters with bows are essentially the same problem: that range+mobility=win, for both PCs and Monsters. On the other hand, the problem where a monster picks up a bow and the DMG lacks clear rules for how to handle this is a separate mechanical problem.

I would include the failure to balance mixed ranged/melee parties with all-ranged and all-melee parties. Also, the failure to balance damage powers with stunlock powers.

World Fail

I don't see that the economics are particularly hideous. I know people get up in arms about the 20% sale price for magic items, but there are real economies that have those dynamics. Were you referring to something else?

Complaining about the lack of a bard et al in PHB 1 is silly. They're in later books. The choice of which classes make it into the first PHB is always going to be there, and whatever gets put in, other things won't. You're complaining about 4e not meeting a criterion that is impossible to meet.

Mechanics Fail

I'm fine with page 42 in general. You need to have guidelines for situations the rules don't cover. The question is: what actual rules should have been included that have been replaced with page 42?

Something you missed: minions suck.

I would say that the devs didn't go far enough in eliminating the 5-minute workday. It's still vastly improved over 3.5.

Poorly-written mechanics presumably includes things like being your own enemy and being adjacent to yourself?

[Roy]

They do have fewer classes though. 3.0 and 3.5 had 11. 2.0 had... I think 7. 1.0 was the same. 4.Fail has 8.

7 = 7 < 11 = 11 > 8.

[Just another user]

Another thing, lobotomized monsters, if you play monsters iwth the intelligence they are supposed to have the world break (see also 'flying monsters with bows' because an high intelligence monster would never think to use its ability to fly at its advantage, like, for example, picking up a ranged attack, doing so would be "thinking out of the box" and this should tell you how small is the 4e box)

and you should put somewhere 'really stupid names for, well, almost everything'.

[Roy]

Another thing, lobotomized monsters, if you play monsters iwth the intelligence they are supposed to have the world break (see also 'flying monsters with bows' because an high intelligence monster would never think to use its ability to fly at its advantage, like, for example, picking up a ranged attack, doing so would be "thinking out of the box" and this should tell you how small is the 4e box)

and you should put somewhere 'really stupid names for, well, almost everything'.

He did.

1. Complete lack of internal consistency: assuming a dynamic world in which NPCs are cognizant (and thus not static "mobiles" to kill for XP and loot) causes the game to break down.

Anything that doesn't involve NPCs as scripts qualifies as a game break. Because that's faster than breaking down all the different ways that is true.

[Psychic Robot]

What category should minions fall under? I'm thinking mechanics/world.

[Roy]

What category should minions fall under? I'm thinking mechanics/world.

Sounds about right.

Sandstorm solos world - minions die from a light breeze.

Should cross reference other stuff.

[hogarth]

I'd argue that mongols and flying monsters with bows are essentially the same problem: that range+mobility=win, for both PCs and Monsters.

I'd also argue that 90% of all games have the same problem which boils down to "It sucks to be on the wrong end of a sniper rifle" (for various values of "sniper rifle").

[Psychic Robot]

In other games, both the PCs and NPCs can have sniper rifles.

[Roy]

I'd argue that mongols and flying monsters with bows are essentially the same problem: that range+mobility=win, for both PCs and Monsters.

I'd also argue that 90% of all games have the same problem which boils down to "It sucks to be on the wrong end of a sniper rifle" (for various values of "sniper rifle").

Not true. If you can fight back, it really doesn't matter. Most stuff in 4.Fail can't. In say... 3.5 it's not even a big deal, shoot back or DD or whatever.

Also, snipers have a really hard time hitting targets that don't stay still. At those ranges, breathing or leaves can mess up your aim. The same is not true for ranged attacks in those and most if not all other games.

[hogarth]

In other games, both the PCs and NPCs can have sniper rifles.

And in 4E you could have a whole game made out of only ranger PCs fighting only NPCs who have long range attacks. But that doesn't diminish the point that it sucks to be the French army at Agincourt (or whatever long distance vs. short distance analogy you want to take).

I agree that it's stupid that there are no rules for something basic like a hobgoblin picking up a bow and using it, of course.

[MartinHarper]

What category should minions fall under? I'm thinking mechanics/world.

For me, mechanics: mechanically they suck at higher levels, and the designers admit this. Some people also find they break verisimillitude, because "omg a lich vestige would totally die from a papercut", but I don't..

[Doom]

You haven't mentioned the whole "Yeah, this game really is the same Dungeons and Dragons it always has been" fraud. Most of the criticisms put up are in terms of "but 3.5 (i.e., D&D) did it better", which wouldn't be quite as relevant if the game were called "Magic Sword" or something.

[Omen of Peace]

Nice list - I can't think of anything else to add right now.
edit: wait, I do. Narrow choice of in-game actions (at high levels: 2 at-will, 4 encounter, 1 or 2 dailies, a bunch of utility powers... not enough !).


I think it would be interesting at a later date to make a parallel list for D&D 3.5 - which has many of the same problems but often for different reasons.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Like what? A parallel list of 3.5E to 3.0E, or 3.5E to 2E?

If we're comparing 3.5E, the problems run deeper than rules issues.

The biggest flaw in 3.5E wasn't so much a design philosophy as much of a way of doing business. 3.5E started pumping out a lot more books than in 3E, which caused the quality of individual books to plummet and oversaturated the market. Which I think is a great lesson in general for RPG marketing, not so much design.

Or the Eberron thing. They made a huge mistake by introducing that campaign late in the edition's lifespan. By then, people's campaigns had settled into Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms/their own custom world and people just sort of stared. Again, great marketing lesson, not so much a comment on design.

If we're just talking about a design philosophy or rules issues, you'd probably get into things like 'the small characters had the screws put to them' or 'polymorph became completely unusuable, both because you couldn't give it to the classes who needed it the most but because of monster book inflation and weird rules'. Which to me just seems way to specific--it's not like pointing to 4E minions and going 'they're basically encounter padding, because they go down too quick to really make a difference'.

[Gralamin]

I found a link to here over from the GiantITP forums, and I find some things your citing as problems don't actually exist as a problem.
I'm going to frame my answers in the context of 3.5 precisely because that is the system that seems most familiar to the forum over all.

1. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game. - This was true in 3.5, now while it is still to a degree true, its much less so. In 3.5, if you wanted a balanced game, you literally had to play either classes of Tier 3 or below, or played like WoTC, IE: Tank Fighter, Healing Cleric, Skill Monkey Rogue, Evoker Wizard / Sorcerer. So, 4e is a step of progress to eliminating this, its still there, orbizards and a few other builds still have the problem, but overall if your going to fault a system for this, at least note that 3.5 the game it succeeded had it much worse.

2. The Mongol dilemma--soldiers on horseback can defeat a number of the game's monsters by virtue of the monsters not having decent ranged attacks. (Related to World Fail.) - Mobility + Range = Win. This is true in not just 4e, but a variety of systems. But this strategy only works on an open plain, where you have lots of room. Constraining movement area will automatically have a huge effect on this strategy.

3. Giving a flying monster a bow breaks the game. (Related to World Fail.) - Exactly as much as it breaks the game in 3.5 to give a flying monster under CR 5 a ranged weapon (Under CR 3 if you allow Alter Self to give fly speeds). Consider a Winged Elf Whatever 1 (Where whatever is a class that tends to use bows). CR 2, Perfect Maneuverability 50 ft Fly speed, and can shoot from a very long distance. PCs have various ways of fighting back, but few things can extend to the maximum distance he can attack from (Around a 1000 feet if he's willing to take some penalties).
The difference is, in 4e is that A) They can't snipe from as far away, B) Many players simply don't think of bringing a ranged weapon because their powers aren't ranged. Honestly, I'm just surprised their isn't a "Ranged Training" Feat that does the same thing as melee training for ranged basic attacks.
The same tactics to force them to move closer still works (IE: Moving under tree cover and such), but either way, if your attacked on a featureless plain, your probably dead.

4. Blatantly obvious RNG-sodomizing powers that were somehow overlooked. - Huh? Do you mean reroll powers, which tend to just make PCs a bit more accurate, or do you mean things like Orbizard which is basically broken and unfortuantely not fixed yet?

5. Various broken abilities that demonstrate a lack of playtesting and/or willful disregard for legitimate concerns (Orbizard, Demigod epic destiny, rangers soloing Orcus, and so on). - Orbizard is a problem, as I've noted. Demigod is only really a problem at level 30, which isn't so bad as your supposed to stop playing pretty soon after reaching it. This is much much more common in 3.5 though, where, you know, Casters win.


1. Complete lack of internal consistency: assuming a dynamic world in which NPCs are cognizant (and thus not static "mobiles" to kill for XP and loot) causes the game to break down. - Could you give an example? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

2. The entire economic system is a clusterfuck of not-sense-making. (Related to #1.) - Something that they noted in a preview article that they didn't carry over to the core game, is that usually the prices of items should be inflated 15%, This makes is make a bit more sense. Having it be nonsensical isn't that big of an issue though: the game is Dungeons and Dragons, not Investing and Trading.

3. Vastly dissociated mechanics: how do I describe what's going on in a way that makes sense? Too many powers cripple the ability to narrate a cohesive scene outside of a completely metagame interpretation. - I've been DMing 4e for over a year, with some 3.5 and BESM DMing on a side. I've never had a problem with this.

4. Daily powers for non-casters. "I can only swing for 6[W] + Strength damage once per day!" - You don't get a situation where an opportunity to do so appears more then once per day. Having the player make the situation happen isn't a bad thing, really. Of course, this is attempting to explain it towards reality, in truth, we have no idea how their swinging their sword, and we just try to describe it. Its like in 3.5 how we don't know how Warblades accomplish what they do.

5. Entire armies of high-level minions die in a sandstorm. (Related to Mechanics Fail.) - Minions are supposed to take one good hit to die. If you decide a sandstorm qualifies as one good hit, then sure, it can kill them all. But if that isn't what you'd call a good hit, then perhaps not. Besides, you could say the same thing of marching CR 1 and 2 Soldiers through a sandstorm in 3.5.

6. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing. - Healing surges represent a reserve of strength and endurance. Healing is no more cartoon-character then 3.5 healing.

1. A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes. - This sounds like it comes from someone who hasn't played the game, but just read the mechanics. In practice, in my experience at least, each and every class plays differently except for Rangers, Rogues, and Tempest Fighters. The lack of diversity I don't really see, so you'll have to try explaining that to me.

2. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.) - Take a concept and build mechanics around it is what they tried to do, notably basing classes off certain types of characters. The Divine power Podcast, for instance, states that the Invoker (Great class) is based around Gandalf.

3. Shoehorning the game into hackan 'n' slashan mode. (Related to Balance Fail and World Fail.) - Abuh? This really really makes no sense to me, as 4e tried (And arguably failed) to introduce multiple non-combat encounters (Riddles, Traps, Skill Challenges). And as bad as skill challenges may be if a DM doesn't change them, they are much better then 3.5 diplomacy.

4. Elimination of iconic spells, class features, and whole classes in the name of balance--try playing an enchanter, summoner, or necromancer in Core 4e. Try playing a druid in Core 4e. Try playing a ranger with an animal companion in 4e. Try playing a witch with a familiar in 4e. Try playing a bard in Core 4e. - Why should Iconic things carry over from edition to edition, especially in core? Also, everything on this list becomes possible with more books (IE: Balance wasn't the problem Space was), just like Gishes, commanders, and other builds become possible with more books in 3.5. The only thing on that list that 4e doesn't currently do is a full Necromancer.

1. Exception-based design wanking, plus shit like the four different "evil eye" variations. Includes ability interaction and "How the hell do I adjudicate this?" - Example? Because this really hasn't been a problem that I've seen or heard of before.

2. Usage of page 42 to replace actual rules. - You think EVERYTHING should have rules? I think that stifles a game, and means that putting in certain types of opportunities (Such as the classic Chandelier example) become not worth doing after a certain level. Page 42 isn't perfect, but its a good start.

3. HP bloat resulting in grinding. - Padded Sumo is a problem, and WoTC is trying to reduce it with differing solo mechanics (You can see the math is different in MM2 for instance, so expect a replacement in DMG2).

4. Skill challenges are completely broken. - Not Completely, but almost. I've house ruled them to work, but thats neither here or there. Skill challenges seems to be the thing that people get stuck on. At least they aren't as bad as making a diplomacy check you can make around level 3 as a standard action to make something hostile to you Indifferent. (Binder 2 (For Naberius)//Marshal 1, Assume 18 Charisma, Grab ranks in Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, and Knowledge (Nobles. Get this from Marshal). You have a +6 Synergy, +4 Charisma, +4 Charisma again from a Marshal aura, +6 Ranks, +10 (Take 10) = 30. First round their indifferent to you, next their friendly.

5. Solo encounters suck--they're boring grindfests. - Moving towards fixing in MM2. I've mostly fixed this problem in my own game through house rules.

6. Ritual system is retarded. - A lot of rituals aren't worth it, but those that are (Remove Condition, Raise dead, Fantastic Recuperation, Imprisionment, Transfer Enchantment, Create Item, etc.), well almost everyone wants them.

7. Instead of eliminating the 15-minute workday, the devs put everyone on the 15-minute workday schedule. - If you nova dailies then perhaps. Most groups I've had keep going until the defenders have around 2 HS. A group with an Artificer could keep going until everyone had around 2 HS. If a group decides to nova through encounters and rest, and recreate the work day when they are perfectly capable of taking longer, then yes, this will happen.

8. Swathes of poorly-written and vaguely-worded mechanics. - Like what? Very few mechanics are poorly worded that I've seen, and sure, Death may or may not still do anything, but at least we don't have Drowning or such anymore.

I'll eventually remember to come back and check on this post...

[Kaelik]

1. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game. - This was true in 3.5, now while it is still to a degree true, its much less so. In 3.5, if you wanted a balanced game, you literally had to play either classes of Tier 3 or below, or played like WoTC, IE: Tank Fighter, Healing Cleric, Skill Monkey Rogue, Evoker Wizard / Sorcerer. So, 4e is a step of progress to eliminating this, its still there, orbizards and a few other builds still have the problem, but overall if your going to fault a system for this, at least note that 3.5 the game it succeeded had it much worse.

I find it dreary and painful to read much of your 4e apologetics post, but I'll start with this one.

You are barking up the wrong tree. This forum is filled with people who play high power games of D&D that work and work well. Some concepts weren't really available until Tome material, IE Fighter who does anything but charge, Monk at all, but in general nothing stopped us from playing Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Flask Rogue against CR appropriate challenges played intelligently instead of like morons.

CR is generally a lot harder then people think when you start playing the way they should be. It starts with Dragons, and then everyone whines that Dragons are OPed, then you use Outsiders, and everyone complains that OUtsiders are OPed, then you use Aboleths and Intelligent NPCs exploiting the same tricks as the PCs, and it's just because there are some strong creatures and it's the tricks themselves that are the problem.

Then you end up with Monks and a third of the monster Manual, and suddenly everything is easy and every Wizard/Druid/Cleric is broken.

If you actually play with the good parts of the monster manual, which is generally most of it, then you need high powered characters, and playing like the designers intended without similarly crippling monsters gets people TPKed.

[NineInchNall]

1. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game. - This was true in 3.5, now while it is still to a degree true, its much less so. In 3.5, if you wanted a balanced game, you literally had to play either classes of Tier 3 or below, or played like WoTC, IE: Tank Fighter, Healing Cleric, Skill Monkey Rogue, Evoker Wizard / Sorcerer. So, 4e is a step of progress to eliminating this, its still there, orbizards and a few other builds still have the problem, but overall if your going to fault a system for this, at least note that 3.5 the game it succeeded had it much worse.

The "play like the devs" bit refers to having parties with mixed roles and tactics. By simply picking a single build and having every player copy it, the 4e encounter system is broken in twain. It doesn't even matter which build you replicate.

That's failure in the utmost, because it is a failure to meet their stated design criterion of rewarding and encouraging party diversity.

[RandomCasualty2]

This forum is filled with people who play high power games of D&D that work and work well.

Not really.

By "work". you mean having a piles of house rules to make the game not completely implode, and another pile of house rules to allow classes other than primary spellcasters to not totally suck.

A RAW high level 3.5 game is a complete disaster.