Sins of 4e

[A Man In Black]

I would say that earlier editions were far, FAR more prohibitive towards certain race, class combos. Hell, even Halflings make decent Fighters now.

Make a halfling wizard who isn't 100% inferior to a gnome.

[Kaelik]

I would say that earlier editions were far, FAR more prohibitive towards certain race, class combos. Hell, even Halflings make decent Fighters now.

Make a halfling wizard who isn't 100% inferior to a gnome.

Or a halfling fighter not 100% inferior to a Str/Con or Str/Wis race.

Or an X not 100% inferior to a Y, where X is a race that doesn't have the perfect two racial mods, and a Y does.

[violence in the media]

When "the best" is necessary, "decent" isn't good enough to sit at the table.

[Username17]

Some of the newer classes haven't had the benefit of multiple splat books yet, but consider the rogue:

You can make an educated "Indiana Jones-esque" explorer Rogue.

An intimidating, brutish thug Rogue.

A charismatic dervish Rogue, focused on swashbuckling.

A super stealthy ninja Rogue.

And that's without multiclassing.

I'm working on a blogpost detailing all four concepts, which is why I mentioned those specifically.

You can also play a Rogue named John or a Rogue named Beowulf. You can make him tall, or you can make him not so tall. Surely, there is in fact a limitless number of different characters you can make with the Rogue class. You know, as long as absolutely every single one of them fights with a light blade and light armor, has Stealth and Thievery, and relies on Dexterity for their primary attribute.

The part of the game that your class actually impacts is impacted in such a manner as to provide very few real choices. You can have your character wear any hat you want, whether it be Indiana's fedora or a ninja's cowl. But you still have to wear light armor and wield a light blade and be a dexterity focused striker who depends upon getting Combat Advantage and is Stealthy and good at Lockpicking. That's a very narrow character concept, and pretending otherwise just because your character has the option of wielding a long light blade or a short one or wearing a hat that does or does not have a feather in it is a pretty thin argument.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

I would say that earlier editions were far, FAR more prohibitive towards certain race, class combos. Hell, even Halflings make decent Fighters now.

Make a halfling wizard who isn't 100% inferior to a gnome.

A 4e halfling Fighter is at least a more playable concept than a 3e halfling Fighter. I don't think that's really an issue, is it?

Ultimately this particular discussion is whether giving certain races an advantage in certain classes is a good idea or not, and it ties into how the classes are constructed. I personally don't think that saying, "eladrin get +1 as Wizards" and "[this race] has feats applicable to [this class]" is a bad design on general principles, though it starts to wear thin the more you pile the advantages on one race in favor of another. In 4e my general impression is that it falls apart because while "eladrin get +1 as Wizards" is IMO not a bad design unto itself, a far superior design is "every race/class combo get +1 to their schtick", so that a halfling fighter doing Acrobatic things is as effective as an orc fighter doing Mighty things. 4e lacks that sort of variety (lack of powers/Classplosion) and so you're left with a stark choice between a clearly optimal choice and a clearly non-optimal choice.

[Username17]

A 4e halfling Fighter is at least a more playable concept than a 3e halfling Fighter. I don't think that's really an issue, is it?

Well... no. A 3e fighter can be an archer or a wolf lancer, and halflings are super good at those things in 3e. A 4e Fighter is required by law to use nothing but Strength based super moves and they took small character versions of popular weapons out of the game.

A 3e halfling can much more easily fit into the umbrella covered by the Fighter class than a 4e halfling can. Of course, that's mostly to do with the narrowness of the 4e classes. A 3e Fighter "uses weapons," while a 4e fighter has a specific list of special melee combat maneuvers they can use with specific weapons if they have specific stat arrays.

Ultimately this particular discussion is whether giving certain races an advantage in certain classes is a good idea or not, and it ties into how the classes are constructed. I personally don't think that saying, "eladrin get +1 as Wizards" and "[this race] has feats applicable to [this class]" is a bad design on general principles, though it starts to wear thin the more you pile the advantages on one race in favor of another. In 4e my general impression is that it falls apart because while "eladrin get +1 as Wizards" is IMO not a bad design unto itself, a far superior design is "every race/class combo get +1 to their schtick", so that a halfling fighter doing Acrobatic things is as effective as an orc fighter doing Mighty things. 4e lacks that sort of variety (lack of powers/Classplosion) and so you're left with a stark choice between a clearly optimal choice and a clearly non-optimal choice.

That's not a bad assessment. Eladrin really aren't good at anything, because there are races that are a better fit for every class. Both because of more optimal stat bonuses and because of more optimal racial feats and intrinsic abilities.

If they had actually pushed the classplosion envelope all the way, and had a hundred classes or more, and put in racial class feats alongside the classes in order to make 3 or 4 different races work well with every class, that would be fine. Possibly not the best, but certainly fine. What they did instead was publish race/class benefits pretty randomly and it usually ends up that there is only one or two right races for any class build, and there aren't even many classes. Many races simply end up as sub optimal choices across the board. There really isn't a reason to play an Eladrin or Tiefling.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

I would say that earlier editions were far, FAR more prohibitive towards certain race, class combos. Hell, even Halflings make decent Fighters now.

Make a halfling wizard who isn't 100% inferior to a gnome.

A 4e halfling Fighter is at least a more playable concept than a 3e halfling Fighter. I don't think that's really an issue, is it?

No, a Halfling Fighter is not more playable in 4e than in 3e. At least not relative to other fighters. Sure Fighter is badass in 4e and ass in 3e, but if I made a 3.5 class that had an arbitrary +100 to every stat at level 1, a halfling one of those would be better than an orc fighter.

A 3e halfling fighter can legitimately compete with other fightery options in 3e at pretty much every level that a fighter can compete at all. By being a halfling Fighter who abuses the small and in charge line of feats, using ranged weapons, or lancing.

A 4e halfling fighter is a just a pile of shit next to a goliath fighter.

[Funswoggle]

You know what I was just thinking "Man we need a 4e apologist, but not just any 4e apologist, also a grognard who likes 4e and is so completely gullible that he believes anything wotc says, like that essentials are not reprints, or that you can four different kinds of rogue viable."

Also, hilarious how you think that halflings couldn't be fighters before, even though halflings can't be decent fighters now, and they used to be one of the better ones.

EDIT: On further contemplation, "Racial feats make each class more inclusive of different races" counts as the funniest thing you have said.

No...I understand perfectly that the essentials line is mostly reprints. I was refuting the OP's claim that it was a whole new edition.

As for the rest of it, I'm afraid that your post contains a bunch of empty vitriol and nothing of actual substance.

[Funswoggle]

I would say that earlier editions were far, FAR more prohibitive towards certain race, class combos. Hell, even Halflings make decent Fighters now.

Make a halfling wizard who isn't 100% inferior to a gnome.

Sure. As soon as you make ME one using 1st edition rules.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Make a halfling wizard who isn't 100% inferior to a gnome.

Sure. As soon as you make ME one using 1st edition rules.

Fatal logic error: Halflings could not be wizards in 1st edition. Gnomes could not be wizards in 1st edition.

Inquiry: WTF does 1st edition have to do with anything?

[mean_liar]

He was referencing "earlier editions"...

[Funswoggle]

No, a Halfling Fighter is not more playable in 4e than in 3e. At least not relative to other fighters. Sure Fighter is badass in 4e and ass in 3e, but if I made a 3.5 class that had an arbitrary +100 to every stat at level 1, a halfling one of those would be better than an orc fighter.

A 3e halfling fighter can legitimately compete with other fightery options in 3e at pretty much every level that a fighter can compete at all. By being a halfling Fighter who abuses the small and in charge line of feats, using ranged weapons, or lancing.

A 4e halfling fighter is a just a pile of shit next to a goliath fighter.

Halflings don't get a bonus to STR or CON, this is true.

However, they do get a racial bonus to DEX, which is also an important fighter secondary.

In fact, not only does this make them excellent tempest fighters (dual weapon build that can dish out near striker levels of damage AND mark several different combatants with a single attack.)

Furthermore, the bonus to DEX opens up feats like heavy blade opportunity (req. DEX 15 minimum) allowing them to use at-will powers in place of basic attacks for OA's (kind of the fighters schtick, if you'll recall)

The blade opportunist feat (req. DEX 13) grants a +2 untyped bonus to OA's with heavy and light blades.

Feats like Nimble Blade and Light Blade Precision grant untyped bonuses to attack and damage (precision vs. large or larger foes...which includes most of the higher level beasties)

Surprising charge is a feat that grants + 1[W] damage when making charge attacks with a light blade.

Lost in the crowd (Halfling racial feat) grants a +2 bonus to AC when adjacent to 2 larger foes.

Goblin Totem weapons grant extra damage vs. foes larger than the wielder.

The agile superiority feat allows them to use DEX in place of WIS for opportunity attacks granted by the combat superiority class feature, making them more than competitive in this area.

So yeah, I would say that a well built Halfling Fighter is pretty competitive with a Goliath Fighter. They're certainly going to be hitting more often, even WITH a piddly starting STR of 16.

[Username17]

Please stop attempting to compare apples to oranges. It's insulting.

Yes, you can make a Dexterity Fighter, and no a Goliath will not be one. But there are Strength/Dexterity races to be if you wanted to make a Dexterity Fighter. Just as there are powerful Strength/Constitution builds to have if you wanted to be a Goliath.

Having a Halfling and a Goliath both go the Strength/Dexterity path is an obvious piece of sleight of hand. So obvious that it actually makes onlookers respect you less as a person. All you're really showing is that taking a race that only provides one of the stats for your build is a bad deal whether it's the primary or secondary stat, but we knew that already.

-Username17

[Funswoggle]

Please stop attempting to compare apples to oranges. It's insulting.

Yes, you can make a Dexterity Fighter, and no a Goliath will not be one. But there are Strength/Dexterity races to be if you wanted to make a Dexterity Fighter. Just as there are powerful Strength/Constitution builds to have if you wanted to be a Goliath.

Having a Halfling and a Goliath both go the Strength/Dexterity path is an obvious piece of sleight of hand. So obvious that it actually makes onlookers respect you less as a person. All you're really showing is that taking a race that only provides one of the stats for your build is a bad deal whether it's the primary or secondary stat, but we knew that already.

-Username17

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply misunderstood my argument, rather than purposefully misrepresenting it.

This is my fault of course, as my intent would have been more clear had I included a counter example of a STR/CON based Goliath Fighter, which is what I was actually comparing a Halfling Fighter to.

My intent was, of course, to illustrate that a Halfling Fighter was not a completely untenable concept compared to a STR/CON Goliath, as someone had named earlier.

So to clarify:

Goliath Fighters, particularly Battle Rage Fighters, are nearly unstoppable with the amount of temp HP they receive each round, as well as an encounter based racial ability granting damage resistance that scales with level. Furthermore, they make excellent use of CON based weapons such as axes and hammers. They are also good at dishing out big damage dice and status effects such as dazed, stunned, etc.

Halfling Fighters make excellent tempest fighters. They do not have the racial STR bump (giving them a 16 at 1st level compared to the Goliath's 18) which equates to a +1 difference to hit. This is mitigated by the Halfling's tendency to use more accurate weapons such as light and heavy blades. I've already illustrated how their attack bonus can be further bolstered. On the whole, even with the Goliath's higher STR score, the Halfling fighter will be hitting more often.

I would further point out, that the Goliath's defenses are all stacked in one place, Fortitude. Halflings are more well rounded defensively. A Goliath doesn't care about taking damage, but halflings are better at avoiding debilitating status effects. Especially with their bonus to save agaisnt fear effects AND their racial Second Chance ability.

I would also point out that halfling tempest fighters have access to a number of powers that allow them to make multiple attacks against a single foe, which means a lot of static bonus stacking making for some devastating single round novas. A Goliath's damage output is more consistent than the Halfling's, but damage is of secondary concern to fighters. The tempest fighter gets to mark more foes per round, which is the fighters main schtick.

This and my previous post were aimed at the individual who had dared me to show him a halfling fighter that wasn't inferior in every way to a STR/CON Goliath Fighter.

Brawn and HP aren't the only metrics by which to judge fighters.

[LR]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply misunderstood my argument, rather than purposefully misrepresenting it.

Frank isn't the one misrepresenting anything. Trying to compare a STR/CON build to a STR/DEX build is such a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty that even a diehard 4e fanboy would be forced to call you out on it. You are relying on it, intentionally or unintentionally, because if you compared the Halfling to any +STR/+DEX race, you would immediately notice that being short sucks. Your rant on how tempest fighters are so great means nothing because Halflings don't synergize with any of the Fighter builds when compared to the entire pool of racial choices. Other races make better tempest fighters and in fact have better weapon selections than Halflings will ever get.

Until you start arguing racial choices between builds that have the same racial requirements for success, this argument can't ever go anywhere. I suppose that you'll try to complain that Kaelik was the one that brought it up, but you're the one who tried to hang onto it as some sort of argumentative life preserver. You're ultimately at fault, and you need to own up to that.

[koz]

Welcome to the Den, LR. I can see you'll fit right in.

[mean_liar]

Wait, can't a Tempest Fighter use Rapiers as an optimal Superior Weapon? Especially one specializing in Light Weapons?

I'm still not seeing the glaring shortcoming of a 4e halfing fighter. I mean, compared to a 3e dog-riding supercharger yeah, but I figured that a 4e STR/DEX Tempest Fighter is still a viable Fighter archetype. It's not "the best", but what's so heinously terrible about it?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Wait, can't a Tempest Fighter use Rapiers as an optimal Superior Weapon? Especially one specializing in Light Weapons?

You want to use a double-sword, as it gives a better AC and damage bonus throughout heroic tier and doesn't require an additional feat (Two-Blade Warrior). Not to mention the cost savings. And if you want to be a halfling fighter for some dumbass reason it's pretty much the only weapon you can use, aside from dual-katars/shortswords.

But halflings have a junk stat for fighters and give no benefits in return aside from the racial power, which is sadly not exactly a face-rockingly awesome racial power. It's average. This wouldn't be so bad, but then they lose out a +1 to attack and damage for no reason.

I mean, really, if you're going to argue that losing out on your primary attack stat isn't that bad then we may as well argue that being a half-orc wasn't crippling for a 3E wizard. After all, they 'just' lost a couple of bonus spells and a -1 to save DC.

[violence in the media]

Let me try putting it this way:

If you have two characters that are of the same profession (same class, same feat choices, same power choices) but one of them is numerically superior to the other in all the places that matter to that profession (even if only a +1 or +2) then you have to ask, "why is character B inferior, what do I get in return for this lessened effectiveness?"

If the inferior character is given bonuses in other areas that are not typically, or even practically, beneficial to the original profession you have to ask, "are these side benefits useful enough to compensate for lesser proficiency in the thing I'm supposed to be doing?"

If the game system further expects that all characters of this profession will function at the level of the superior character, then the secondary benefits would need to be so large, or so generally applicable, that it makes more sense to simply select another profession.

[hogarth]

But halflings have a junk stat for fighters and give no benefits in return aside from the racial power, which is sadly not exactly a face-rockingly awesome racial power. It's average. This wouldn't be so bad, but then they lose out a +1 to attack and damage for no reason.

I mean, really, if you're going to argue that losing out on your primary attack stat isn't that bad then we may as well argue that being a half-orc wasn't crippling for a 3E wizard. After all, they 'just' lost a couple of bonus spells and a -1 to save DC.

Honestly, don't you think it's faintly ridiculous to have complaints about the lameness of 4E feats (giving piddly stuff like a +1 to damage) in the same thread with claims that a character who does one point less damage "isn't good enough to sit at the table" (to use violence in the media's words)?

[Starmaker]

Honestly, don't you think it's faintly ridiculous to have complaints about the lameness of 4E feats (giving piddly stuff like a +1 to damage) in the same thread with claims that a character who does one point less damage "isn't good enough to sit at the table" (to use violence in the media's words)?

No. It shows the problem in its entirety. A flat +1 to attack is tactically uninteresting and therefore bad for the game. In D&D3e it's just a trap you ignore and noobs fall into, in 4e it's necessary.

[violence in the media]

To be fair hogarth, the only reason I said that is because 4e really seems geared to the idea that players are going to make the most optimal choice all the time. The designers assume that you will build the best possible Cleric or Fighter and tune to that. And, since we've shown long ago with Elennsar that a 5% difference will rapidly spiral out of control and lead to things you don't want, then a -1 to hit or damage is enough of a difference to warrant a mention.

Maybe the worst that happens is that every combat you engage in takes 1 or 2 extra rounds, but that's still contributing to something many people consider a negative outcome. On the other hand, maybe you wind up finding 4e really difficult, like an acquaintance of mine, because your parties of sub-optimal characters keep getting mulched. Seriously, the last time I talked to this guy, he was telling me about how they've had multiple TPKs since they've started playing 4e a couple of months ago. Or maybe the DM just winds up tossing most of the rules, coddling the players, and invalidating choice, in which case I wonder why you paid for the "rules" and are "playing" this "game" in the first place.

[Lago PARANOIA]

4E is actually fairly difficult at low-levels, especially if you're using the 'wrong' monsters. Stay away from ghouls, goblin hexers, needlefang drakes, and monsters that blind/stun/daze.


As much shit as I give it, as long as players don't mind the racial compartmentalization (or you just compensate for it like I usually do; I make racial feats non-race based and change the stats to 'any two'), you do something about monster hp inflation, and like doing magic tea party for the skill system levels 5-16 is a pretty good 'sweet spot'.

Players do universally like the trope of their 4-6 badasses going against 15 monsters, even if half of them are minions. I mean, I have yet to find a group that doesn't get off on that. And I've found more than a few players who like the idea of the Skill Challenge system, especially my half-assed fixes. And even though I think that the 4E character sheet is too long, more than 3/4ths of my players in any given game love putting their characters into the character builder and churning out a .pdf or printing their powers out on card stock and pretending that they're in Kindergarten.

I put the game in the same category as Mutants and Masterminds. As long as you want to play the narrow game they described, it's decent, even good. I'm not going to put it on the same level as Shadowrun or Mouse Guard (which I've played only once, with very new people), because that game is awesome if you play within the narrow limits.

[ggroy]

[hogarth]

Maybe the worst that happens is that every combat you engage in takes 1 or 2 extra rounds, but that's still contributing to something many people consider a negative outcome. On the other hand, maybe you wind up finding 4e really difficult, like an acquaintance of mine, because your parties of sub-optimal characters keep getting mulched. Seriously, the last time I talked to this guy, he was telling me about how they've had multiple TPKs since they've started playing 4e a couple of months ago.

If you're having multiple TPKs (which is plausible, as LP pointed out), a single point of damage per attack for a single PC is not going to make a difference. I can pretty much guarantee that. Now of course there's a bit of salami slicing going on here -- if you have half a dozen PCs who each make multiple sub-optimal decisions each costing a point of damage, then it starts to add up to something.

In the (low-level) game I'm playing in, the PCs can usually get in three or four successful attacks each per fight. So for a single PC missing a +1 damage bonus, we're talking about three or four points of damage against a group of creatures that has hundreds of hit points in total. That's just a bit of random noise, at best. (I freely admit that my experience might not be representative of the typical game. I think my DM doesn't like using minions, for instance.)