OSSR: 4th edition D&D.

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

jt
Knight
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:41 pm

Post by jt »

GâtFromKI wrote:So we can compute: every level, a character gains +1/2 +1.5/10 +1/5 +1/10 = +0.95 to hit (or AC or defense or whatever). This is not equal to +1. At level 20, you're 1 point behind. So:
You fall behind the monsters. I don't know how they can have missed this, this is really simple math.
I think when they designed their target bonuses, they set aside a certain amount of "yeah people will lightly optimize their characters and load up on about X worth of random misc bonuses" because that's how 3.5 worked. But then when they went to actually write those things they didn't include that sort of bonus because it was already supposed to be handled.

Also they targeted 50% hit rate (which is still a terrible idea) which made the margin for error worse.
tussock wrote:It's not obvious why you want a game with walls that are harder to climb because you're higher level, or why every monster's defences of every kind walk in lockstep with your attack progressions, but this is such a game, and you need the bonuses.

I firmly assert, at every opportunity, that PCs must feel like they get better as they get better. Your bonuses to do the same things should clearly improve faster than the target numbers do, at least within your chosen speciality.
The skills thing would've been completely fine if they had a table of increasingly impressive wall descriptions and climb DCs, with a column for at what level it's appropriate to start needing to climb a wall made of frozen souls or whatever. Which is exactly the same as "a level X wall has a DC of X+10" when it comes to how you run the game, but the change in explanation is critical. They also never make any nod to the idea that you should still be running into old easy challenges so you can see how far you've come. It takes like thirty seconds for the DM to throw the occasional sheer vertical cliff at Mr. Climbs Frozen Soul Walls, but those thirty seconds are critical to the experience.

For monsters it's more problematic because throwing a dozen orcs at the paragon tier party will still take an hour to resolve even though they're no threat (unless the DM makes something up, in which case your problem and solution are made up by the same person and it's meaningless). The meaningfully usable level range in 4E is only like +4 to -2, so you have very little room to dunk on monsters that were once a threat.
GâtFromKI
Knight-Baron
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:14 am

Post by GâtFromKI »

jt wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:So we can compute: every level, a character gains +1/2 +1.5/10 +1/5 +1/10 = +0.95 to hit (or AC or defense or whatever). This is not equal to +1. At level 20, you're 1 point behind. So:
You fall behind the monsters. I don't know how they can have missed this, this is really simple math.
I think when they designed their target bonuses, they set aside a certain amount of "yeah people will lightly optimize their characters and load up on about X worth of random misc bonuses" because that's how 3.5 worked. But then when they went to actually write those things they didn't include that sort of bonus because it was already supposed to be handled.
...

The sad thing is, I think you're right. What you wrote is incredibly stupid, but I think you're right.

They did the same with PF2 playtest : "the stats of monsters are too high because we though people would optimize more". What are we supposed to optimize if there isn't any moving part to optimize? Do they think "optimization" means "cheating"? why are all those game designers so stupid?
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

GâtFromKI wrote: So we can compute: every level, a character gains +1/2 +1.5/10 +1/5 +1/10 = +0.95 to hit (or AC or defense or whatever). This is not equal to +1. At level 20, you're 1 point behind. So:
  • You fall behind the monsters. I don't know how they can have missed this, this is really simple math.
  • You need the feat giving +1 to hit per tier, you need the feat giving +1 defenses per tier... Without those, you fall behind the monsters even faster. At that point, I don't even know why there are feat at all. "You can choose any feat as long as you choose the one giving +1 to hit" is the same as "you don't get feats, you get +1 to hit instead". It's the same with magic items: since they are required, there's not point in gaining them at all.
It's significantly worse than that. You don't get those bonuses at an even rate. You get your second bonus attribute at level 8, meaning that at levels 2-7 your to-hit bonus from stat increases is zero. A weapon or implement you might want doesn't come in at level 1 and 6, you find them during play. If you have an Orb of Something Something or a Sword of Whatever the Fuck, its item level is always higher than five times its bonus. So you exchange your +1 Orb for a +2 Orb at like ninth fucking level. So in the levels of 6 through 8, you only have +1 from your implement.

So in the first ten levels you're supposed to get +1 from stat increases, +2 from weapon boosts, +1 from your Feat bonus, and +5 from your level bonus - meaning that you've stayed on the treadmill against 10 level enemies who have gained 9 points of AC and 9 points of attack bonuses versus the Kobold Dragon Shields from 1st level. Exactly, in that the Kobold Dragonshield has an AC of 18 and the Chuul has an AC of 27. But along the way you're always at parity or below. At level 7 you have a +1 Orb, +0 from your stat bonuses, +1 from your feat, and +3 from level. You're up a total of +5 from baseline, but your enemies are up +6.

It would be weird and bad if the treadmill was an average and you spent some of your time above and some of your time below the average. But it's not. The treadmill is a maximum, and you spend all of your time there or below that.

It's really strange. Someone made very very sure that they carefully removed any possibility of player characters being good at anything they ever did. I have no idea why anyone would think that was a thing that a game designer ought to do.

-Username17
CapnTthePirateG
Duke
Posts: 1545
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Post by CapnTthePirateG »

I am fairly certain this edition was designed to be purchased en masse by people on the WotC CharOp boards - lots of buying splatbooks to find the One True Feat that will make you not worthless.
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
Image
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

Those Expertise feats start in PHB2 a year later with Weapon Expertise, that initial version is worse than the later ones, but in principle it got you the +3 Feat bonus (at 25th level).

Core here is 15/30 level + 6/30 item + 4/30 stat, and I guess the MM writers expected a Power bonus to attacks that grew with either another stat, or just grew by +4 as levels went up, plus a growing group of situational feat bonuses at +1 to make 30.

Core characters have an extra +25 to hit always on by 30th level. +1 circumstantial feat bonus, maybe. The other +4 is a few class powers here and there that let you add a second stat mod to the attack roll, but unless you load up on pre-nerf Warlocks it's not even close to every fight, let alone every attack, and not really available for implement users at all.

Most of the second stat powers go on AC, spaces of movement, and damage, and damage isn't doing shit if you aren't hitting.

Feels a bit like the plan was to have everyone loaded up with two stats on attack for most attacks, at least when they were condition-free, and that just never happened outside of a couple specific party compositions. Just the base +3 or +4 to hit it gives you would've shifted characters toward 70% hit rate or more, and the stat growth keep it there throughout.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
jt
Knight
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:41 pm

Post by jt »

CapnTthePirateG wrote:I am fairly certain this edition was designed to be purchased en masse by people on the WotC CharOp boards - lots of buying splatbooks to find the One True Feat that will make you not worthless.
If that was their goal, they sure fucked it up. (Which, you know, probably means it was.)

They nuked the 3.5 CharOp boards when the edition launched, causing that community to go into diaspora.

4E character optimization sucks. The community found the infinite damage ranger on like day one, then frost cheese, then shifted focus to party-wide optimizations starting with radiant damage synergy, and in under a month they realized that loading your party up with strikers meant you could alpha strike everything that's even remotely in your alleged challenge range. And then the boards died because the game was over. The CharOp community was mostly about exploring what's possible in the system, and nothing's possible in 4E so there's nothing to explore.
GâtFromKI
Knight-Baron
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:14 am

Post by GâtFromKI »

FrankTrollman wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote: So we can compute: every level, a character gains +1/2 +1.5/10 +1/5 +1/10 = +0.95 to hit (or AC or defense or whatever). This is not equal to +1. At level 20, you're 1 point behind. So:
  • You fall behind the monsters. I don't know how they can have missed this, this is really simple math.
  • You need the feat giving +1 to hit per tier, you need the feat giving +1 defenses per tier... Without those, you fall behind the monsters even faster. At that point, I don't even know why there are feat at all. "You can choose any feat as long as you choose the one giving +1 to hit" is the same as "you don't get feats, you get +1 to hit instead". It's the same with magic items: since they are required, there's not point in gaining them at all.
It's significantly worse than that.
Of course.

D&D4 is one of those games that are fractally bad. When you look at the big scheme it's bad, and when you look at the details they are as bad.

So in the grand scheme of thing, the math doesn't work (PCs get +0.95 to hit while monsters get +1), and when you look at details it's even worse (you're behind at every level as a side effect of "every fraction is rounded down" and because magic items don't spawn in your pocket)...

tussock wrote:Those Expertise feats start in PHB2 a year later with Weapon Expertise, that initial version is worse than the later ones, but in principle it got you the +3 Feat bonus (at 25th level).
... :P

How can the game be so bad?

The calculation I've done is very simple. It's literally the very first calculation I've done when I played D&D4, to see what my character is expected to do. As Frank said, this calculation doesn't reflect the whole reality, but at least it give an idea if the maths of the game may work: if it answers "it may work", you have still many details to tune to make it actually work, but if it answers "it can't work" you can stop here and redesign the base chassis of your game. There's no point in trying to fine-tune something that can't work.

Without the expertise feats, PCs get +0.85/level. How could they think it's 1 in a game with 30 levels?

----

I played D&D 4 once. It was on a forum game, and I played a Warden. The warden is a primal defender, ie somehow a defender/defender (primal classes seems to be more resilient than other classes).

The warden has two things:
  • He's the most resilient class. Lots of HP, lots of surge, lots of defenses, and several abilities to ignore negative conditions. Basically, if a monster can kill/disable the warden, he can probably do a TPK.
  • He's very sticky. Several abilities to prevent enemies from moving, to make terrain difficult, etc.
So basically I was playing a 5x5 sticky wall. Which is what I wanted to play: not the guy who wins the fights, but the guy who prevent enemies from winning.

We were level 11. In the party, there was a melee rogue.

So the game start, some good RP, the MC sets up a cool atmosphere, and after some time the first fight arise. A solo monster (some kind of big wyrm).

I mark the monster, activate several powers, I do my stuff. The rogue does the same. The monster ignores my mark and attacks the rogue: OK, I'm fully activated, I do my big combo, the combo I can do once per day and only when the monster ignore my mark. I show I'm a defender, and you shouldn't ignore a defender marking you. Total: ~60 damages.

Rogue's turn. A few daily etc. Total: ~80 damages.

Wait; what?

Why should the monster attack me? Even when he ignores me, the rogue deals more damages. And he's easier to hit, and he has far less HP. Give me one single reason to attack me instead of the rogue. And he's a melee rogue: I'm sticky, but the monster can simply attack the rogue without moving at all.

Why isn't there a mention "you're useless if the party contains a melee striker" in the warden's description? Why should anyone care about what I'm doing? I think I've never felt more useless in any RPG than in D&D 4.

Role protection in D&D 4 is shit. It just doesn't work as advertised.

Anyway, we've never finished this fight. I think we dealt ~250 damages to the monster, and we had only at-will powers remaining, it took forever, and since it was on a forum it was very slow. Slow and boring. So the game died. After that, I've looked in the DMG and I saw a level 11 solo monster should have something like 600 HP. We didn't even remove half of its HP by spending all our daily and encounter resources. This game is a boring, ill-designed and unbalanced piece of shit and I've never played it again. It's bad to a point, I can't even understand how some people could have enjoyed it.
Last edited by GâtFromKI on Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

It is a bad onion, Gât, there are so many layers, and they are all bad. The mechanic they gave all Defenders is in particular, very, very bad. Marking doesn't work. Plus, they gave you limited healing surges, so getting hit is also a bad idea, sharing the damage around a bit is just better, so what is a Defender concept even doing in the game?

Mind, the game does have a few particular solutions, at various points depending on which errata you're on and if your group politely ignored the official suggestions that you stop winning fights. I'll see if I can cover most of them as I do a drive-by on the classes.

I think at full errata, it does nearly keep up with the math, but only in a pretty bloody boring grindfest, and the Solos are just a disaster really. At half hit points, you'd have almost put up with the game long enough to kill one monster. :rofl:

Onward, finish this bloody chapter and get into bagging on particulars again, tussock.

Gaining Levels
As noted, among the things you don't get here is enough attack bonus. The mystery of it not appearing perhaps sits in the rather higgledy-piggledy assignment of outcomes to activating the all-new class Powers (aka, Fighter spells).

They only had to design about 50 per class, with eight classes, that's just 400 new game functions, on top of probably triple that or more for the monsters and a few other classes that didn't make the cut here, and stuff they made but then deliberately left out for later (compared to the ~300 spells in the 3e PHB, that together had 24 years of many millions of people playtesting them, and mostly it was the ones they changed just a little which broke the game here and there, how hard could this be? :rofl: ).

Anyway, in yet another shockingly bad decision, characters started out 4e with
  • A basic attack, like D&D forever. This is only for bonus attacks.
  • Two small At-Will attack powers that are the basic attack plus a tiny thing you can use forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ...
  • One major-deal Daily attack power, which is roughly a free heavy crit 1/day, or something like a 1st level 3e spell effect like Bless, only it doesn't scale with level.
  • One moderate Encounter attack power, which is a small bonus 1/fight.
They're nice enough to define the rests you need to regain your limited powers, which is a rare place in 4e where things are associated with in-game facts, but I just want to stop and note, that is really a bit crap.

It's partly because the Encounter power is just an automatic use, there's no delay, mostly no circumstance to set up, there's no cost to use it, so it's almost not even there, and then you're down to one thing you actually get a choice about, and possibly you've just sorted before the fight if it's your turn or not. One of your At-Will powers does more damage, so ... there's basically one pretty simple choice per day.

There's an Action Point, but just use it. Like the monsters do. And quite often that's just what you do with your Daily too. The first example fight of the H1 module is the only fight for the day, so ... it even tells you to just use it.

This never really gets much better. Your encounter powers sometimes benefit from setting them up right, but they can go really quick and then you just sort of mash short-punch forever. It's a long-ass time before you get your third daily power, and 3e Wizards and Clerics and everyone else started with 3+ daily spells because that's sort of the minimum to feel like you've got choices at all. The encounter powers, you spam them, and then if that hasn't worked yet, you At-Will for ever and ever and ever and ever and ....

So you're L9 in 4e before you have as many real choices as a 1st level 3rd edition spell caster, and pushing on for half a year of play. That's awful. That's why games start up at Paragon eventually. The rest of it's just Five Moves of Doom as they say around here. Which is, you know, technically better than a core only 3e Fighter just hacking away with normal attacks and his great cleave and his spring attack and his whirlwind attack and his ride by attack and ... not a lot else to take in core 3e, so all much the same, unless they're a chain tripper or sundertard or part-time rapid shooter or whatever, so quite a lot they could do still, and at least a few attacks to roll each round.

But L1 in 4e is well below the sort of minimum real choices everyone had in 3e. And yet you've still got Five different attacks registered from day one, which is a lot for only giving you one choice to make with them.

There's a 3e caster got this right, Shadowcaster? A few daily options early, so you have options. Then a few new daily powers and turn the old ones into per-encounter use. Then a third tier of powers and lo, you have daily, encounter, and at-will powers. That's a pretty good solution to the problem of giving options, upgrading them, yet leaving the lower stuff there and being relevant without overloading you with choices later. It just sort of works.

And I recall it got shit spells and a dodgy mechanic description and so no one liked it and so it's not here. There's room to improve on classic Vancian casting, which is OK up to sort of maybe mid levels, and then just gets to be a huge pain for most people for all the paperwork.

4e eventually gets there, but the lead-up period is awful. Neither one thing nor the other, no class is trivial to use, yet nothing's giving you interesting choices either. The first four levels are particularly bad, and the grindy fights on top of that are just ... it's all so bad.

They also gave you feats every even level and at 1st, 11th, and 21st, which is lots. 18 of them, and then because the math fixes over the next three years take up at least 4-5 feat slots very early on, and there's always a couple are compulsory for your class features, you mostly don't get to take any at all until about 12th level. But core only you got a few slots, we'll cover what was here as they turn up.

+8 to two stats and +2 to the rest, these kick in mostly on levels when you're not getting a new power. Good table filler and a link to the past.

You can retrain, one thing per level, and totally just grab a higher level Feat, but must keep the same level Power. Generally does very little once you fill up on math-fix feats, but in core here lets you upgrade, in theory, to all Epic feats, except there aren't enough fucking Epic feats by a long way. Because everything here is bad.

The Three Tiers
Are nonsense. There's more of this in the DMG, that the game changes, that you go from searching for your place in the world at heroic, through having established yourself in the world during your paragon phase, until you might ... take flight ... to solve world-spanning problems as your epic stanza.

But really, you do damage and slide people and, then you do damage and slide people, and then you do damage and slide people. If you scrub off the damage multiplier it's super hard to tell what level anything is. Some of those first level powers are brilliant!

I mean, that's a general 4e thing, they said themselves if you just read a power without the name, it's usually impossible to tell what class it belongs on, there's no real theme to what anyone's doing outside the fact your little first level class ability is helping you do it. Rogue sneak attack adds to everything they do, but otherwise their powers could be anyone's, and they do just let you swap them around with multiclass feats and it's almost never worth it.

And there's a description of the character sheet, which says "©2008 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Permission is granted to photocopy for personal use only." and as this isn't a photocopier, you're shit out of luck. :tongue:

Did those still exist in 2008? I feel like maybe they did? It implies they do in this book, but I cannot trust what this book tells me! :wink:

Races next, they are really extremely short things despite the double page each, and I may struggle for one post between them all. Mind you, so many lies in them, who knows.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

The roles are extremely puzzling. As you noted, the fact that Melee Strikers exist at all means that there are a lot of fail states for Defenders. Defender stickiness only works at all if the other characters are trying to stay out of range or the other characters are just as tough and sticky.

When it came out, people were talking about two thought experiments: Knights of the Round and the Mongol Horde. The concept of the first was that your entire party was composed of Paladins with maybe a Cleric or Warlord in there for good measure. You'd just grind down opposition, not give a single fuck who got attacked because you shared healing surges, and just win in like 57 rounds or something. The Mongol Horde was just a group of Ranged Strikers and maybe some leaders or controllers who kited everything.

It was really clear from the very beginning that the optimal parties really looked nothing at all like the suggested parties. And that beyond that, the ways characters contributed were usually better at assisting characters of the same type than characters of different types. A frontline or two Paladins or two Rangers was better than a frontline of one of each - and obviously so.

By far the weirdest part of the whole experience wasn't that David Noonan kept demanding they go forward with the four modified MMO roles despite admitting that he couldn't think of a single functional example in table top or fictional source material - it was that having committed to that bizarre life choice they then managed to create a system where the roles didn't play nicely with each other at all.

-Username17
jt
Knight
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:41 pm

Post by jt »

I never noticed that the penalty damage for ignoring a mark isn't as much as a striker's damage. That's hilarious. That's awful.

I never really understood the difference between controller and defender. Like, yeah I get that one's melee and one's ranged, but is a ranged defender or melee controller really a different role? It's just various effects to prevent or redistribute damage.

And then the leader role is just healbot no matter how much they claim it's not. Like yeah the Warlord's action generation is actually cool, and thematically tied to whatever the fuck a leader is, but its actual mechanical effect is a convoluted way to deal damage and it could be on a striker, and not every leader class does something that cool. And healing is always suboptimal because if it's not the game becomes a huge slog (and somehow they didn't make that specific mistake).

If you reduce the roles to only striker and controller, you get party compositions that actually make some sense, where 1-2 people lock things down and the rest kill things. I was just reading the OSSR on Red Hand Of Doom and Frank's party fits that description.
User avatar
Yesterday's Hero
Apprentice
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:27 pm
Location: Argentina

Post by Yesterday's Hero »

jt wrote:I never noticed that the penalty damage for ignoring a mark isn't as much as a striker's damage. That's hilarious. That's awful.
The mark doesn't penalize damage, it is a -2 penalty on attack rolls. Still awful, though.
jt wrote:I never really understood the difference between controller and defender.
Just like you conclude, there is no difference. People usually compare 4e to MMOs, but I would compare it to MOBAs.

You've got you basic attacks, that's your "at-wills". Your "QWE" abilities, that's encounter powers. And ultimates, your dailies.

And, like MOBAs you've got 3 roles.

"Defenders" and "Controllers" are Battlefield control.
"Strikes" are DPS.
"Leaders" are Support.
Pedantic
Journeyman
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:42 pm

Post by Pedantic »

Yesterday's Hero wrote:
jt wrote:I never noticed that the penalty damage for ignoring a mark isn't as much as a striker's damage. That's hilarious. That's awful.
The mark doesn't penalize damage, it is a -2 penalty on attack rolls. Still awful, though.
That's the generic effect of being marked, but every defender class has a punishment mechanism when you ignore their marks, nearly all of which amount to "you eat an attack from the defender." Those attacks do significantly less damage than an attack from a striker, which is the point.
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

Yesterday's Hero wrote:
jt wrote:I never noticed that the penalty damage for ignoring a mark isn't as much as a striker's damage. That's hilarious. That's awful.
The mark doesn't penalize damage, it is a -2 penalty on attack rolls. Still awful, though.
jt wrote:I never really understood the difference between controller and defender.
Just like you conclude, there is no difference. People usually compare 4e to MMOs, but I would compare it to MOBAs.

You've got you basic attacks, that's your "at-wills". Your "QWE" abilities, that's encounter powers. And ultimates, your dailies.

And, like MOBAs you've got 3 roles.

"Defenders" and "Controllers" are Battlefield control.
"Strikes" are DPS.
"Leaders" are Support.
In MOBAs there's a well defined "Tank" role as the dude that goes in and does something to make the enemy team's life miserable. These dudes usually have some kind of damage mitigation mechanic, or just lots of AC and HP. Almost all tanks have a "gap closer" movement skill that lets them jump to where they need to be.

This proves you can have a "defender" role, even when the opposition doesn't use idiot ball tactics. But you have to actually write some fucking abilities that let them do the job.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
infected slut princess
Knight-Baron
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:44 am
Location: 3rd Avenue

Post by infected slut princess »

nockermensch wrote: In MOBAs there's a well defined "Tank" role as the dude that goes in and does something to make the enemy team's life miserable. These dudes usually have some kind of damage mitigation mechanic, or just lots of AC and HP. Almost all tanks have a "gap closer" movement skill that lets them jump to where they need to be.

This proves you can have a "defender" role, even when the opposition doesn't use idiot ball tactics. But you have to actually write some fucking abilities that let them do the job.
Tanks are kind of like controllers because they have "crowd control" abilities which usually involve slowing people down or stunning them or moving them around somehow. However they usually have better Defense/HP and therefore deal less damage than a real "controller" sort of guy.
Oh, then you are an idiot. Because infected slut princess has never posted anything worth reading at any time.
Mask_De_H
Duke
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

Post by Mask_De_H »

People lost their minds over the Swordmage because it actually had decent damage mitigation for its punish and could Voltron together a sticky ZoC off an at-will. There was also a version with a gap closer which people loved, even though it sucked.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
Orca
Knight-Baron
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:31 am

Post by Orca »

GâtFromKI wrote:
jt wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:So we can compute: every level, a character gains +1/2 +1.5/10 +1/5 +1/10 = +0.95 to hit (or AC or defense or whatever). This is not equal to +1. At level 20, you're 1 point behind. So:
You fall behind the monsters. I don't know how they can have missed this, this is really simple math.
I think when they designed their target bonuses, they set aside a certain amount of "yeah people will lightly optimize their characters and load up on about X worth of random misc bonuses" because that's how 3.5 worked. But then when they went to actually write those things they didn't include that sort of bonus because it was already supposed to be handled.
...

The sad thing is, I think you're right. What you wrote is incredibly stupid, but I think you're right.

They did the same with PF2 playtest : "the stats of monsters are too high because we though people would optimize more". What are we supposed to optimize if there isn't any moving part to optimize? Do they think "optimization" means "cheating"? why are all those game designers so stupid?
Funny thing, when Paizo made the Starfinder space combat minigame they made the same mistake initially. They did fix the DCs after a while there, but there's obviously not a lot of learning going on.
jt
Knight
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:41 pm

Post by jt »

Orca wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:
jt wrote:I think when they designed their target bonuses, they set aside a certain amount of "yeah people will lightly optimize their characters and load up on about X worth of random misc bonuses" because that's how 3.5 worked. But then when they went to actually write those things they didn't include that sort of bonus because it was already supposed to be handled.
...

The sad thing is, I think you're right. What you wrote is incredibly stupid, but I think you're right.

They did the same with PF2 playtest : "the stats of monsters are too high because we though people would optimize more". What are we supposed to optimize if there isn't any moving part to optimize? Do they think "optimization" means "cheating"? why are all those game designers so stupid?
Funny thing, when Paizo made the Starfinder space combat minigame they made the same mistake initially. They did fix the DCs after a while there, but there's obviously not a lot of learning going on.
I've made this mistake too, that's why I recognized it. It sounds really dumb when you have it all laid out in advance, but it's a natural error to make when adding structure to these chaotic designless systems.

Should be caught in playtesting though. Not playtesting properly is a more egregious mistake, but I know from teaching design that it's human nature to come up with reasons not to test your shit. There's a reason the scientific method exists, if it came naturally we wouldn't have bothered naming it.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

Things like Swordmage sort of show they understood some of the core problems themselves, quite quickly too. But the core books, it's not here. :sad:

Whatever passed for playtesting didn't get into the core books at all as far as I can tell, other than perhaps some tweaks on the number of healing surges per class, or getting a power to fit the formatting properly.

Character Races
So they don't really fit to the stats the classes need, at least not as well as the monster manual races for most, but here they are in all one and half pages plus art each, and the MM races don't get racial feats.

Dragonborn appeared in 3.5 Races of the Dragon, because those books all had three races described in them. It was fluffed as a replacement race where Bahamut transformed Elves and Dwarfs and such into this +Con/-Dex guy who had scales and was very angry about evil dragons (which is who Bahamat "gifts" this to).

Here they're an ancient lost empire (from before the current lost empire, turtles etc.) and are and all Paladins or Warlords. +Str, +Cha, and a feat for more damage. It implies the designers replaced the Str/Dex Half-Orc with this specifically to have a Paladin race, thereby displacing Dwarves and Humans from the role. Which, ... hmm. The lack of flexibility on the races is quite a problem all around.

They get a 1d6+Con damage breath weapon, which, they don't have Con, so ..., it's a Minion clearer. Note that a lot of people like Dragonborn, for the fluff you see, which, well, they are after all effective at a couple of useful character builds, which does help the fluff go down well.

Dwarf ... yes, they tell you to be Clerics, Fighters, and Paladins. Sort of a passible melee Cleric, but you shouldn't really be a melee Cleric anyway. They get a bunch of little tanky bonuses, but in core tanking is disfunctional.

There's the stupidest upgrade for Str(Con) fighters in the first splat, basically makes them immune to damage, which, uh, got nerfed quick enough, but if you're playing without nerf errata you end up with ... Binwin sort of working.

In core if you hit Binwin he totally just dies. Dwarfs suck in this, worst race. Like, there's a damage and AC feats for them, but they can't hit anything.

Eladrin used to be a type of Celestial of course, here's it's just elves from the future or something.
Image
They are +Dex, +Int, and a damage feat. Best wand Wizard, but eh. They can Fey Step as an Encounter power, which people fussed over early on, but it's mostly an anti-grab thing, or for if something immobilises you in lava. Because if there's a lava square, that's coming, and you just save it for that. 4e, things are predictable.

Elf are sort of a wood elf here, which I find to be a strange design choice when the Eladrin are supposed to be the Fey ones, but like, whatever. I mean, make the Eladrin the wood elf and the Elf the high/grey elf, surely. But no.

These have +Dex, +Wis, an encounter attack Reroll, which is quite good really, because you can reroll your best Daily or Encounter power that misses, and there's a feat to make it work better, and move to let you move faster and still shoot.

So you're an Archer-Ranger, or you're not bothering. Which is a useful thing to be.

Half-Elf are +Con, +Cha, which is pretty useless outside the worst Warlock build, and you get some other class's At-Will as an extra encounter power, which, there's not really anything in core to cheese that out. There's stuff to give tiny bonus to allies, like +1 Perception and a +1 Initiative feat. Meh.

Basically, you're getting Con instead of Str on any Charisma build, and there's almost nothing wants that. I mean, it's better than Dwarfs because you're failing at using better classes.

Halfling get a fucking interrupt as an encounter power, forcing a reroll after an attack hits you, but before you see the damage. That's such bad game design. They also get +Dex, +Cha, and are thus your party Rogue (who are forced to use small weapons anyway). Being a Rogue is good, so being a Halfing is good.

Their feats make the interrupt work better, and give them an AC bonus, and let them move through large creatures without taking AoO. Which is all useful for Rogues. Like, this seems like what they meant to do with races, it's just that most don't do it.

They're 4' tall and just as fast as a human, which is because 3e made Halflings skinny instead of fat, which made them too light, so 4e made them taller so they could be as heavy as the AD&D ones. :cry:

Human only get +2 to a single ability score of their choice. This is fine in core because lots of class builds lack a useful pair of stats even considering the monster manual, things like lazer Clerics and orb Wizards and Warlords that want to hit things. They get feats to buff their action point action, and a save feat that everyone gets a better version of later.

Three years on every stat pair is supported by 2-3 races, and Humans are a bit shit.

Tiefling seem to be a late development Gnome replacement, having the same +Int, +Cha pair, that doesn't bear any relationship to their former stat bonuses. Again, at some point, they bought a specific race in to be a better flavour match for a couple of their classes, the shouty Warlord and tricky Warlock, but, ... it's just sort of, why is any of that stuff here at all?

Warlord isn't greatly different to a Bard even in concept, sword things and boost allies. Warlock could be a Beguiler doing the exact same things, and then both work conceptually with the Gnome. The changes are basically pointless a lot of the time, it didn't change the outcome, it was just different, even with Gnome Tieflings.

Mechanically the Tiefling get +1/+Cha as an encounter power, and +1 to hit bloodied foes always, which is useful, hitting things more is good. The feats are more of that, hit and damage, though partly over-written by the math fixes later.

Again, some of them work. The Halfling, the Tiefling, they line up the stats and their powers and feats help do what the usual class is doing. I imagine that was one developer, and stuff like the Half-Elf and Dwarf were a different developer. Someone got it, and someone didn't.

So the useful core races are Dragonborn Warlord, Eladrin Warlord, Elf Ranger, Halfling Rogue, Tiefling Warlord, and maybe drop a Human on anything else if you're avoiding the Monster Manual, which, you might use a Cleric, Dragonborn Paladins happened, or ....

Classes start next, a lot of them aren't good here. There's a lot of 3e Monk in this, start bad and get worse, and there's also stuff just combines extremely well, sometimes while looking quite innocent. It did take people at least a little while to understand how it all worked under the atrocious power formatting.

I think I'll cover the classes by roles, because obviously some of them stand out as much better at the role than the other, and you can just do a whole party of one role, which they never even tested. I also have a huge rant about defenders wanting to come out. :rofl:
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
CapnTthePirateG
Duke
Posts: 1545
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Post by CapnTthePirateG »

Tieflings get bonus credit for being good as Cha locks but fluffed as Conlocks.

Meanwhile the fey eladrin are shit warlocks despite warlock being nominally tied to fey.

It's really amazing how hard they had to try to fuck this up.
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
Image
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

I think you've left out the WoW connection. The Eladrin/Elf divide is very much the Blood/Night elf divide. Tieflings got a very specific morphological makeover to look like Draenei. Even the Dwarves abandoned what traditional aesthetics D&D had established for them in favor of the WoW dwarf look.
Ignimortis
Journeyman
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:50 am

Post by Ignimortis »

angelfromanotherpin wrote:I think you've left out the WoW connection. The Eladrin/Elf divide is very much the Blood/Night elf divide. Tieflings got a very specific morphological makeover to look like Draenei. Even the Dwarves abandoned what traditional aesthetics D&D had established for them in favor of the WoW dwarf look.
Now that I think about it...you're right. And it's infuriating somehow, too.
User avatar
maglag
Duke
Posts: 1912
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:17 am

Post by maglag »

It's no wonder tauren minotaur were one of the playable races out of the bat.

Also don't forget 4e dragonborn got "upgraded" with tits over their 3.5 version, and the scalies rejoiced.
FrankTrollman wrote: Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.
CapnTthePirateG
Duke
Posts: 1545
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Post by CapnTthePirateG »

Honestly I feel wow-looking races would have been fine if the game was good. It's just kind of a criticism tacked onto the failures of mechanics.
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
Image
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Honestly I feel wow-looking races would have been fine if the game was good. It's just kind of a criticism tacked onto the failures of mechanics.
Using WoW characterization of races instead of using Dungeons & Dragons characterization is something that opens you up to accusations of not actually understanding the game or setting you're writing for. The problem isn't so much that they brought in Blood Elves and Dranei, it's that they cut Gnomes and Half-Orcs to bring in Blood Elves and Dranei.

After 4th edition was introduced and cratered, the authors acknowledged the "Gnome Problem." That is the simple mathematical reality that because Dungeons & Dragons is played by groups of six people, that a race or class favored by only 5% of the players will be favored by someone in the group of more than one group in four. That cutting relatively unpopular content still creates red lines for a large amount of the fanbase because you have to convince everyone in the group to switch editions or they won't do it.

It's a real problem and it makes even positive changes a difficult sell for new editions. Shadowrun 4 had a substantial contingent of people who refused to adopt because Variable Target Numbers got removed, and 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons had a substantial contingent of people who refused to adopt because THAC0 went away. Because gaming groups operate by consensus, they are inherently resistant to change. And that makes a lot of change for change's sake that happened in 4th edition a terrible idea from a marketing standpoint.

4th edition took a giant dump on a lot of D&D traditions for no obvious gain. For every time they cleaned up the Dryder backstory so they aren't being "penalized" with awesomeness and leadership authority, there's at least five instances of them just dropping a brand identity facet of a monster or organization with no visible goal.

The fact that so many of the choices in design, art, and characterization seemed to be explainable with the rubric "The designers have spent a lot of time playing video games and haven't really read a Dungeons & Dragons book in a while" was simply infuriating. I don't really mind taking inspiration from videogames, they are valid pieces of source material. But when time and time again it looked like the various writers, developers, and artists simply hadn't paid any attention to any of Dungeons & Dragons' 34 year history and had just been playing videogames all the time - it didn't create confidence in the product.

It felt like the people in charge had contempt for the material they were nominally writing about and that they didn't know or care what anything meant to anyone in the fanbase. And their overtly hostile attitude to "grognards" and Gnome players and anyone who wasn't an early adopter 4rry did nothing but confirm that negative assessment.

-Username17
User avatar
maglag
Duke
Posts: 1912
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:17 am

Post by maglag »

Hey, they did outright say you shoul get rid of your pre-4e books just before launch because the new edition would make them all completely obsolete.
FrankTrollman wrote: Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.
Post Reply