5e D&D is Vaporware

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:49 pm

Stormgale wrote:Aye but scathing satire falls flat when you simply ignore the system you are attempting to satirize or critique.

This is again the paradox of Poe's Law; Frank's Bane Guard was at the time (and still is, to some extent) more compatible with the 4E D&D design process than actual published D&D material that people pay money for. Even though the Bane Guard looks (and is) incredibly dodgy, people have also totally published and asked money for the O-Assassin and the Binder and the Vampire. And Bruce Cordell published a Class Acts which is even more ridiculous, which that rat bastard Andy Collins actually had to apologize for! And this is the guy they put in charge of the 4E Forgotten Realms project and the most senior guy for the 4E Dark Sun project. And right now he's also third in command for 5E D&D.

Stormgale · Post by **Stormgale** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:52 pm

O-assassin as in the one that used shade? The vampire I would argue only fails the role dynamic as it does it's job faily well, just thats something that 4e admittedly dosent capture very well, the avenger can suffer from lesser) but similar issues (so does the beastmaster ranger to be fair) as the Survivability of a damage dealer is rarely seen as a boon

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:03 pm

Stormgale wrote:How are the current 4e classes useless, I mean sure power have changed but that happens in every edition (Ray of Enfeeblement getting changed to a Penalty is an example I used to forget).

1.) The power creep for 4E D&D was not consistent across the board. The Warlock for instance went from 'most useless class' to 'competes with wizards and rangers for DPR'. Druids and invokers went from 'close second place with wizards' to 'laughably distant second place with wizards'. This was happening even before the end of the first year with Martial Power and Adventurer's Vault, in which Rangers tripled their DPR and Warlords permanently tore the game open with force multiplication. Since this is not uniform, this created useless classes oftentimes out of classes that were not previously useless. Duh.

2.) Even if the power creep was uniform, the baseline power creep for 4E D&D is more immense than for any game I've seen unless your DM allows certain exploits with Street Magic (which s/he shouldn't). A 4E D&D Warlock at the end of the edition's lifespan with access to all of the official material does about 4 times as much At-Will damage as an out-of-the-box Warlock. Considering that the Bane Guard was written pretty early on, there's absolutely no way that even if he was writing a serious class seriously that it wouldn't come off as weak and ignorant.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:03 pm

You know what? Fuck this. I don't feel like arguing a 4rry invasion, at least in this thread.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:11 pm

I for one am disappointed in both the quantity and quality of 4rry trolls that SA has managed to send us this year. I guess they are just too sad that WotC has admitted that their game sucks and no one likes it to mount impassioned forum invasions over it any more.

-Username17

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:17 pm

Stormgale wrote:The bane guard is a sticking point because it appareed to be you critiquing the 4e system of design whilst wholy misrepresenting or misunderstanding it as far as I understand

It's certainly the case that having only a hazy understanding of a game's rules hasn't stopped Frank from asserting an opinion in the past.

Krakatoa · Post by **Krakatoa** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:20 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:So anyway, finally slogged all the way through the Something Awful rant about the supposed leak. Those clowns have the worst analysis of anything I have ever seen. It's full of complaints about how something or other never works because it has a -5 penalty or some shit but they admit that they haven't done the math! What the fuck? A -5 penalty apparently "feels" like it's too big. I have no idea whether it is actually too big or not, but I know damn well that I don't give a rat's ass how some stupid 4rry feels about prime numbers.

How long did you spend on the math for the Bane Guard, Frankie? Three minutes? Four? You only spent two hours on the class and some of that had to have been spent typing and formatting, so I doubt it was long.

Interestingly there remains one simple unforgivable thing in all the 5e writeups. The basic stat to skill to saving throw system with the auto-magical successes and crap. That is unworkable. The Something Awful clowns think this is "clever" and complain about the lack of healing surges and how numbers and ability don't feel right to them because they are more similar to more popular editions than their favorite one.

Yeah, finally having a use for the odd number ability scores aside from barring users from cool feats is kind of clever.

Something Awful shitheads are worth less than nothing as far as analysis goes. Things they think are cool are bad by objective standards. Things they think are bad are usually completely subjective (but highly popular). Things that you could pass judgement on for good or ill on mathematical grounds they can't be fucked to even attempt - because despite their mocking assurance that they could work out probabilities, they never actually do.

Bane Guard

Bane fucking Guard

You do not get to talk about good class design, you insufferable twit.

John Magnum · Post by **John Magnum** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:35 pm

Haha is this guy for real?

Stormgale · Post by **Stormgale** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:38 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:I for one am disappointed in both the quantity and quality of 4rry trolls that SA has managed to send us this year. I guess they are just too sad that WotC has admitted that their game sucks and no one likes it to mount impassioned forum invasions over it any more.

-Username17

Truly I am an invading force wrought from the war shrine of ares... no wait im just a dude who wants clarification on a point? You consider yourself an expert on game design and decry systems yet your only attempt to justify your own is that it's a "Parody" and nothing more, then decide to fire a salvo of impotent rage instead of continuing a good discussion.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:38 pm

Okay, look, why the fuck are SA trolls whining about the math of the Baneguard?

I've read the Bane Guard, and I've read 4e, where is the problem with the Baneguard's math for the people who haven't read 47 pages of SA whining that results in all of you instinctively knowing that the Baneguard is terrible for some unspecified reason.

How is the math of the Bane Guard a problem when compared to the Math of the Orbizard, or the Infinite attack Ranger, or the Yogi Hat Ranger, or the Hammerbros Fighter? In what way is the Bane Guard bad?

Also, saying Frank can't talk about class design because he once designed a class for 4e in a day that you don't like is pretty silly.

He's also designed like 50-100 classes for 3e that he had time to get right, so unless you are going to contend that all or most of them are terrible, the Bane Guard is worth less than a percent in the total calculations.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:54 pm

What the fuck is happening?

Did Krakatoa just come back after months just to shit on Frank?

Stormgale · Post by **Stormgale** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:04 pm

Alright ill bite, why am I a troll?

When you make claims about the mathmatical flaws in a given system after having created something with glaring mathmatical flaws it tends to lower the quality of your argument.

Bane guard's flaws:
Three primary ability scores: Dividing the ability of power selection between 3 subsets cripples the choice of a class especially when you dont let any powers use either stat ala the Ranger or Warlock, a playable bane guard would have an incredibly strange stat array and practically require +2's in 2 primary stats to work as written.

Mark as a save ends? why, what design purpose does it serve breaking from the marking convention of every other class (until EoNT or Lasting but with a numerical limitation). It also combines 2 of the powerful marking abilities under 1 set (the Shielding swordmage and Paladin damage) making it a cripplingly powerful attack. From a design perspective it seems to not do what a mark should, encourage an enemy to maintain contact with the fighter due to it's random longevity and also makes it far weaker against elite's/solo's due to bonuses on saving throws.

The multiple sets of at wills which ignore the whole mathmatical point of the AWED dynamic, that resource management can be important... even at level 29 an at will petrify boggles the mind, why use any other option. Encounter powers that dont even follow the attack dynamic and all the attack powers that arent at wills seem to be minor actions, why would a defender need more damage output?

Those are what jump out at me as I read it now, I could probably write more but eh

John Magnum · Post by **John Magnum** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:13 pm

Criticizing the Bane Guard for breaking the AEDU dynamic is funny, because the actual literal 4e team shat on it repeatedly by the end of the game. Ditto three-attribute classes, ditto weird "but their version of this mechanic works different from everyone else's version" exceptions in the design. It seems like the elements of 4e's design principles the Bane Guard violates are ALSO ones the actual 4e team violated all over the place as well.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:15 pm

I personally appreciate the opinion on what's wrong with the Bane Guard, at least for my own edification on common 4E design philosophy, as I pay so little attention to the nit-pick rules of 4E.

If I recall, back when he first made the Bane Guard, he explicitly stated it was intended as a parody/satire, akin to his Elothar Warrior of Bladereach. Just reading some of the powers, they look notably different from his usual work that I'm inclined to believe it as such. This honestly confuses me, declaring someone as unfit to judge RPG design (somehow meaning their own design ability must therefore be good?) because of a joke not being mechanically sound?

koz · Post by **koz** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:18 pm

Stormgale: You're not making SA look any better you know. You're whining about how the Bane Guard relies on three stats, when every. Single. Other. 4E. Class. does it in exactly the same way. Bane Guards are either Dex/Cha or Dex/Con - just like (in theory) every other class (at least in the PHB1) had the same.

So if you're gonna be all out there spouting criticism, at least make it valid before opening your mouth, because otherwise, you could probably fit both feet in it. As is the case currently, in fact. Have you considered working for a circus?

PS. Tautologies in your name are really not a good idea either, FYI.

John Magnum · Post by **John Magnum** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:21 pm

I mean, jeeze, it's one thing to say that the Bane Guard is a shitty parody of 4e, but it's another thing entirely to say that because Frank didn't spend hours cranking the numbers on the Bane Guard, that makes it audacious unforgivable bullshit whenever he asks people to do actual math.

There is a difference between not doing the math when banging out a joke class and refusing to consider math when trying to come up with actual, serious analytical reactions to a new edition of D&D. It does not fucking make you a hypocrite for doing the former and criticizing people for doing the latter.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:24 pm

Yeah, three primary attributes! No one has ever done that! Ever!

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:27 pm

Mister_Sinister wrote:PS. Tautologies in your name are really not a good idea either, FYI.

I don't consider the current state of the thread to be all that relevant, so I don't mind getting nit-picky here. Wouldn't a rhetorical tautology would be more like a Galewind, or maybe Stormweather, rather than Stormgale (which seem more clarification-based).

koz · Post by **koz** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:29 pm

John Magnum wrote:I mean, jeeze, it's one thing to say that the Bane Guard is a shitty parody of 4e, but it's another thing entirely to say that because Frank didn't spend hours cranking the numbers on the Bane Guard, that makes it audacious unforgivable bullshit whenever he asks people to do actual math.

There is a difference between not doing the math when banging out a joke class and refusing to consider math when trying to come up with actual, serious analytical reactions to a new edition of D&D. It does not fucking make you a hypocrite for doing the former and criticizing people for doing the latter.

I can add that, firstly, 4E has changed its standards on acceptable numbers so many times, it would be extremely hard to prove that any class that wasn't very recent 'followed the numbers'.

Secondly, Frank did consider the numbers. While I can't find a citation for this, I recall Frank mentioning that one of the powers in the Bane Guard class compared to a Ranger power of the same level and type was absolutely fine - so numbers were considered, and given that this guy has already shown an allergy to reading, I would be surprised if more could be expected from him in terms of, well, reading.

As for the 'paradigm breaking is bad, boo hoo' argument, this is retarded. Tell me, Stormtautology, does that mean that democracy is bad, because the 'paradigm' for much of history has been undemocratic governments as the norm? Is the Industrial Revolution bad, because for much of history, a lack of industrialization was the norm? Is modern medicine bad, because for much of history, any old person claiming they could heal people without any proof or consistent methodology was the norm? Fuck that, and fuck you too. Your argument reeks of 'the sun shines out the asses of the paid WotC designers' (Hint: it doesn't), and 'if they designers said it, it must be right' (Hint: it's not). At least you seem capable of basic fucking logic, since you can extend the second proposition into, well, your argument in a nutshell, but just because an argument is sound doesn't also make it valid.

So in short: find some better arguments that can't be refuted by me on a Tuesday morning in my fucking pyjamas.

virgil wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:PS. Tautologies in your name are really not a good idea either, FYI.
I don't consider the current state of the thread to be all that relevant, so I don't mind getting nit-picky here. Wouldn't a rhetorical tautology would be more like a Galewind, or maybe Stormweather, rather than Stormgale (which seem more clarification-based).

Maybe it's not a total tautology, sure. But still, it's not that much of a clarification thing. I mean, a 'gale' is a weather phenomenon that consists of strong wind, and a 'storm' is a weather phenomenon that includes... strong wind. So frankly, as far as I'm concerned, that's enough of a tautology for government work.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:32 pm

IIRC, the Bane Guard can actually be made Dex/Cha or Dex/Con or Cha/Con. I think I wrote enough powers that you could actually play any of those three builds and have at least (admittedly, also often at most) one power to choose from whenever you got one. You know, to make fun of the Warlock and the Paladin, who didn't even get that.

But you know, it's been years and it's entirely possible that I missed a level for one build or another. Which would be a hilarious thing for 4rries to criticize. Because, you know, Paladins.

-Username17

John Magnum · Post by **John Magnum** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:39 pm

One thing about those attributes that's actually NICER for Bane Guards than a bunch of other classes is that all three possible pairs contribute to two different defenses. Str/Con Defenders are sad in the pants.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:40 pm

Stormgale, the things you criticize Frank for doing are in fact, now in 4e. Every class is set up to be dual-stat dependent, it's just certain classes (Rogue, dual wielder Ranger, Wizard) can safely ignore it. The class packages split riders based on multiple stats, the class descriptions say that a class has at least three important stats, which break into dual stat pairs.

The multiple At-Wills/breaking of the proper AEDU schedule has not only happened, but is the selling point of all Psionic classes (multiple At-Wills of varying power) and most every Essentials class save the Mage (messing with the AEDU schedule). People love those classes for those reasons.

A defender without a strong mark isn't a defender and until very recently, the Pally's mark wasn't worth a damn. An aspect of defense is having a good offense (which Fighters, modern Paladins, and Battleminds get), the Battlemind's only defense is offense. Off-action attacks are an important part of damage production in this game, so to have a good offense, you want those powers. They gave the Paladin two off action attacks as their defender ability. Assault Swordmages get to swing on mark violators out of turn. Combat Superiority is an off-action attack. It'd probably be easier to name defenders who don't get an off-action mark punish.

I don't think you understand how 4th Edition works when you get into the crunchy bits.

koz · Post by **koz** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:41 pm

Mask_De_H wrote:I don't think you understand how 4th Edition works when you get into the crunchy bits.

Summary of this page so far, methinks.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:57 pm

IMO the BaneGuard shoulda been called the War-warrior....then maybe it would have been more obvious as a parody.

When something has so little you can take seriously, apparently you need to put extra effort into anything you say about it that you intend to be a joke.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:26 pm

Stormgale wrote:When you make claims about the mathmatical flaws in a given system after having created something with glaring mathmatical flaws it tends to lower the quality of your argument.

But you didn't establish that he created something with glaring mathematical flaws.

Stormgale wrote:Three primary ability scores: Dividing the ability of power selection between 3 subsets cripples the choice of a class especially when you dont let any powers use either stat ala the Ranger or Warlock, a playable bane guard would have an incredibly strange stat array and practically require +2's in 2 primary stats to work as written.

That... doesn't do that at all. First of all, they already had classes like that. When the PHB came out, classes weren't able to choose single themed powers of each type, like Paladin and Cleric, where you actually couldn't be a Str based Cleric without having to pick up Wis vs X encounters.

And once you accept that a specific character has to have two attack attributes, the Baneguard is fine, because you can be either a Dex and Con Banegaurd, or a Dex and Cha Baneguard, and in either case you can choose powers at every level and never even use the third stat. Hell, you could play just a Dex banegaurd, and have only dex powers at all if you wanted, and be using fewer stats than a PHB Str Cleric.

Stormgale wrote:Mark as a save ends? why, what design purpose does it serve breaking from the marking convention of every other class (until EoNT or Lasting but with a numerical limitation). It also combines 2 of the powerful marking abilities under 1 set (the Shielding swordmage and Paladin damage) making it a cripplingly powerful attack. From a design perspective it seems to not do what a mark should, encourage an enemy to maintain contact with the fighter due to it's random longevity and also makes it far weaker against elite's/solo's due to bonuses on saving throws.

What purpose does it serve keeping the same convention as other abilities that are called "Mark"? Why don't you ask the 4e designers about maintaining the conventions of abilities called "Evil Eye"?

He choose to have a different way to end the mark, because maybe he thought that was a better method for this particular mark to end. And so what if it's a better Mark than the other marks? No one is required to make all the Marks just as good. Maybe the Baneguard has better marks and worse other things? That would certainly be a valuable design goal for a class. Maybe it is designed to be generally better, but end sooner, thus being on the whole the same? That answers both your questions at once.

And yes, it means it doesn't work on Solos as well. Who cares?

Stormgale wrote:The multiple sets of at wills which ignore the whole mathmatical point of the AWED dynamic, that resource management can be important... even at level 29 an at will petrify boggles the mind, why use any other option. Encounter powers that dont even follow the attack dynamic and all the attack powers that arent at wills seem to be minor actions, why would a defender need more damage output?

There is no mathematical point of the AWED dynamic. The Twin Strike Fighter and Ranger, the Astral Seal Cleric Team, and several other builds are specifically designed to use only their at wills as standard actions, and take as many minor action abilities as possible. There is no mathematic point to haveing fewer choices each round and being less interesting.

The Baneguard gets to do worthwhile attacks with it's at wills, and then use minor action powers. Yes, the Baneguard, though not necessarily more powerful, is certainly more fun and more interesting than any other 4e class, how is that problem?

And frankly, if your mind is boggled by a level 29 at will taking away an action, you have problems with your mind. Yes, at level Twenty Motherfucking Nine, you can prevent things from acting, why is that a bad thing? Other classes can do that even sooner, yes, even on at wills. And you might use other things if you are facing lots of enemies, such that spending one of your actions to negate 1.5 of their actions is not worth it when you could be killing them with your other at wills.

So in conclusion, of your three mathematical problems, it basically results in you whining about a bunch of things that other 4e classes already do, and complaining that the Baneguard is more interesting than other 4e classes because it gets more choices.

Cry me a river of 4rry tears, I don't give a shit. If you have any actual mathematical problems with the Baneguard, get back to me with them.