Because I can't read the 4E books

[NineInchNall]

That's right. They're so fucking boring that I can't even get through a single paragon path description before putting the book down and playing some Fight Night. That right there is failure on a rather unprecedented scale. I mean fucking Christ, I read through the damn World Of Darkness books. The class descriptions are uninteresting. The power descriptions are uninteresting. Nothing does anything that's interesting - at least as far as I've been able to get myself to read.

However. I'm going to be playing in a 16th level 4E game, because that's what the guy who actually likes to DM is currently most familiar with.

Luckily, there are some experimental, "let's fuck around with the game to make it less boring" rules in effect. To summarize the important points:

1. All powers (except the at-wills, which remain at-will) are basically handled via the ToB Crusader mechanic, except that instead of having like 5 readied and 2 granted, it's more like 12 readied and 8 granted.
2. You can ready any powers from your class list (for which you're high enough level, obviously), but you can't have more than 3 of your highest level, more than 3 of your next highest level, and so on.

So with those two quirks in mind, what the fuck is potentially interesting in 4E? Is there anything that isn't just "+x to hit/damage" or "recover an expended encounter/daily power"? It would be nice to have some truly cool stuff to do, ya know. My personal preference is toward the 3.X caster archetype, but from what I've heard from you guys, that isn't really an option.

[Username17]

Be a Wizard or Cleric. Most of the expansion classes don't have enough powers for that kind of shuffling. A lot of the basic classes don't either once you factor in the fact that their power list is divided up between several different stat options, so whatever you are playing, most of the options are fake.

Wizards have a bunch of stuff that makes temporary terrain or stunlocks enemies. That should keep them interesting for a few hours at least. Clerics have a bunch of temporary curse/buff modifiers or healing that likewise should keep things vaguely interesting for a while.

As a Wizard, you will be a Gnome. As a Cleric, you will be a Kalashtar.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

The Gnome feat that gave them a feat bonus to attack got nerfed. So did Orb of Imposition, along with a bunch of other stuff. As far as I know Wizard is still a great class to play since they still have a very good collection of tricks that don't rely on Saving Throws (like Stinking Cloud, that 7th level Blizzard power, etc.) but I've had what little interest I've had in the game completely sapped by that update.

I haven't bothered to keep up with 4E min-maxxing since the 'let's nerf the cleric so that people will play our NEW STR-based divine leader class!' bullshit came out. So my information will be several months out of date. Not that I really care, anyway, I'm pretty much just waiting for 4E to die and all of the staff to get overturned before I drop any money on WotC products.

That's precisely why I've been so busy with the 'Lago's Kickass Marketing Strategy' thread; trying to come up with my dream edition of D&D that will make D&D the 300-pound gorilla in the gaming stores and get mainstream notice again. Like it did in the old days. Sigh.

[NineInchNall]

Well, errata aren't a big deal to us. In fact, most of the people in my group of friends loathe WotC designers so much that we turned the release of new material into a drinking game.

So Wizzies & Clerics are the ones with the broadest swaths of powers that actually, ya know, do shit?

Hm. So which Paragon Path is good, and what feats should I be snatching up?

[Thymos]

Your not the only one who can't read the books. I could only make it through about 2 classes, and even now when I see item pages and look at them they are all unbelievably boring and unimaginative.

I mean honestly, of 2 pages of items (just what I saw) only about 3 were anything other than straight bonuses, and even of those 3 they still didn't look interesting.

[Orca]

Blood mage PP looks like it ends fights faster, and this is an obvious concern in D&D 4e. If you can't RP something around the implied flavour you aren't trying.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Depending on which version of errata you use your 4E character will end up looking wildly different.

If you're using no errata whatsoever, probably the strongest damage dealers (and thus best classes) are melee hardcases who spam multiple attacks. Be a hybrid Ranger or Tempest Fighter/Warden that invests in STR/CON/WIS, dual-wields hammers, take Crippling Crush, make one Hammer Frost, another one Reckless, and grab some Bloodclaw Spiked Gauntlets. Also take Hide Armor Expertise. Take the Son of Mercy PP (it's in the character builder). You will be a tough-as-nails SOB that outdamages everyone except for the Maser Wizard build.


If you're using some errata (as in, not anything from 2009), it's probably lockdown controllers, wizard blasters, and healers. If you're using the current errata, I'm not sure who it will be. I haven't read up on it and I don't care to. It'll probably be ZOC-spammers like a Thunderglaive Swordmage or a Wizard.

[Josh_Kablack]

I'm too tired to comprehend what those houserules mean for min/max, but I'm pretty sure that in the general sense both cleric builds are still viable under the most current errata.

The Wis-cleric Astral Seal crazy-healer Messenger of Peace has healing that is not quite as crazy-go-nuts as it used to be and access to a decent number of enemies can't attack/don't deal damage/take massive penalties damage prevention powers. And at level 16, you have the first two powers that cause Vulnerable:All (but not yet the best one - the as yet unerrata'ed never miss Sever the Source) - which stack really well with teammates having multi-strike powers and or the Pervasive Light feat

The Str-Cleric Righteous Brand Fullblade Human (or Supercharging Shifter) no longer breaks the RNG right in half, but he has enough self-buffs (Weapon of Astral Flame, Divine Favor, Weapon of the Gods) and the unerrata'ed multi-strike Arc of the Righteous as an encounter that his damage dealing not that far behind strikers and he also gets to healing word and cure status ailments and stuff.

[hogarth]

Your not the only one who can't read the books. I could only make it through about 2 classes, and even now when I see item pages and look at them they are all unbelievably boring and unimaginative.

Page after page of stereo instructions is what comes to mind when I open the books.

[mean_liar]

Eh. I just read the mechanics. The fluff is all bullshit anyway.

[TheFlatline]

I still haven't cracked open a 4th edition DMG yet, even though I have it sitting on the shelf.

Come to think of it, I have trouble getting through the PHB. I've read bits and pieces of it, but it's all a tepid, bland mess.

[NineInchNall]

Why are the effects so boring?

Apologies to everyone who's already been dealing with this for *checks watch* three years now, but why are the 4e powers limited to such boring, repetitive, samey effects? Almost everything is either a "move the target x spaces" or "give the target +-Y to attack/defense."

How is this possibly supposed to be fun?

Even worse, the powers that diverge from this mold, e.g., things like disguise self or whatnot, are limited to 1/day use and require an action to maintain. It's like the designers said to themselves, "Ya know what? The problem with 3E is that characters have too many differentiated things to do. If we make it so that everything is basically the same except for flavor, then everything is definitionally balanced. 'Cause it's what people like Frank Trollman have been saying for years: You can reflavor anything however you want."

Seriously?

I mean ... really?

I'm trying to make a character that's good for something besides a stunlock/pinball/damage machine, but ... but ... that's all characters in this fucking edition can do! Even things like "wall of stone" or summons are just limited duration buff/debuff/damage effects. How. Is. This. D&D. Bitches?

Again, apologies to all the people who have been dealing with the emotional trauma caused by the 4e materials (I couldn't, due to extreme boredomery), but DAMN! I just have to vent. It really does seem like they heard people say things like, "a game can only be perfectly balanced if all the characters have the same options and numerics," and thought that was a good idea.

Lame. So lame. Want to punch babies. In the face. With a brick. On fire. While singing the Barney song. And crying.

[Username17]

It's actually only 2 years. But yeah, basically 4e Combat is extremely boring. Also very repetitive. Grabbing some stunlock or area denial powers and you can have a fairly decent time - for about an hour.

Longer combats end up with you grinding away with the same power over and over again. Repeated combats end up with you using the same powers in the same orders over and over again. They's really distilled the game to the essence of being a 1st level wizard who prepared a Lesser Acid Orb and after firing it off was forced to go back to plinking away with a light crossbow. That's basically every character now. At every level.

Play an encounter during a lunchbreak and next session bring in a different character. Or ignore the combats entirely and just do old school role playing. Ignore the skill challenges too, because those don't actually work either.

-Username17

[Crissa]

I asked that to a 4e fanatic, and they got pissed and went on about how they played tea party fantastically. Eventually they decided I was so mean to them that an innocuous comment got me banned from their forum.

-Crissa

[Username17]

I asked that to a 4e fanatic, and they got pissed and went on about how they played tea party fantastically. Eventually they decided I was so mean to them that an innocuous comment got me banned from their forum.

-Crissa

While you can see an occasional anti-4e player nerd rage into red faced unreasonability, one thing I have definitely noticed is that 4e proponents engage in a continuous siege mentality and are incredibly rude. If you try to have a discussion about which of the ideas in 4e are good and bad ideas, their face darkens the moment you mention that there could be bad ideas in 4e and they lambaste you for being a hater with nothing constructive to add.

4rries in short, are incredibly frustrating to talk to even on vaguely related subjects to 4e. If you don't bow down and felate every aspect and design decision of 4e D&D you are part of the problem and they launch into tirades about how you are part of the problem with role playing gamers as a whole and it's a good thing that modern companies are ignoring you as a market. It's like they've all turned into Malcolm Sheppard.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

What are the good aspects of 4E anyway, Frank?

[Josh_Kablack]

Not like the anti-4e forces ever engage in siege mentality or avoid serious debate....


Putting everyone on the same power schedule was a good idea.

Limiting healing by target rather than caster was a good idea. (implementation was poor)

Increasing the death threshold was a good idea.

Paying attention to the RNG was a good idea (implementation lacking in skills and NADS among other areas)

There are more, but it's way late and I gotta actually both work and you know game tomorrow..

[Username17]

Putting everyone on the same power schedule was a good idea.

Limiting healing by target rather than caster was a good idea. (implementation was poor)

Increasing the death threshold was a good idea.

Paying attention to the RNG was a good idea (implementation lacking in skills and NADS among other areas)

Definitely.

Doing away with Skill Ranks in favor of Skill Tags was a good idea.

Standardizing damage codes and multipliers was a good idea.

Creating monster classes based on combat role rather than morphology was a good idea.

Switching to a chance based duration system rather than tracking large numbers of individual rounds was a good idea.

Redefining the standard encounter to be against enemies instead of curbstomping one dude was a good idea.

Replacing Prestige Classes with mandatory prestige class check points at tier hops was a good idea.

---

Now don't get me wrong: I don't think the implementation of any of those was perfect. In many cases the designers embraced shitty ideas that ultimately undid much or all of the benefits - such as how the really clunky Save system ends up making the Duration system suck - even though the basic change is one I totally support. Or how the embracement of the "forever class" ends up making Paragon Classes and Epic Destinies feel shitty. But I think those ideas are solid. And if you had had designers who weren't as incredibly lazy as Slavicsek, Noonan, Collins, and Merles, I think you could have really moved into a very positive place with the new edition.

The problem really is their profound lack of desire to do math or test. Coupled with their constant decisions to say "Aw, fuck it" and throw in a placeholder mechanic to be "patched later." Because let's face it: later never comes. There's supposed to be a Necromancer next spring - even though the game likely will be canceled by then.

-Username17

[DragonChild]

Switching to a chance based duration system rather than tracking large numbers of individual rounds was a good idea.

How do you think this should work out, ideally? Should it be a flat % each time? Should that % ever be modified? By what? Should that % be based off of what spell is being used, who the user is, who the target is?

[Alansmithee]

I like a lot of the ideas of 4th, but I just think a lot are implemented badly. I started about a month ago, and was pretty gung ho after my friend showed me some stuff (after mocking it horribly at first). I enjoyed it at first, it seemed (reasonably) balanced, and everyone always had some option that would be reasonably effective. I actually offered to take over running my friend's game so that he could play (he wanted to try some different characters).

But after playing more, I started noticing more and more the mentioned problems. Combat takes FOREVER. It's very tactical in my opinion, but also very samey. The HP of monsters is just way too high, and the damage they do seems way too low. After my first combat I ran, I seriously felt a lot like I did when I was raiding Molten Core in the early days of WoW. Tanks on boss, dps clear trash, then all focus on boss.

But, I can't really think of many ways they could change things that wouldn't change the balance a lot. I've been trying to think of ways to spruce it up, but I can't. Adding different powers doesn't seem like it would help (assuming that I could balance them) because I'm not sure that they wouldn't just become better variations on what they already have (so instead of adding more flavor, they'd just be built into their current rotations). And I've been thinking about doing something for the monsters, but again the task seems to big. Cutting HP by 25% (or something) and boosting damage that amount MIGHT work, but unless they've used some consistent guideline it would probably just throw the balance off more.

I honestly think there's a lot good and worth saving, but I don't know how to go about it.

[Username17]

Switching to a chance based duration system rather than tracking large numbers of individual rounds was a good idea.

How do you think this should work out, ideally? Should it be a flat % each time? Should that % ever be modified? By what? Should that % be based off of what spell is being used, who the user is, who the target is?

Probably an attack roll vs. Defense each turn to remain in play for DOTs and an arbitrary fail chance each round for buffs.

-Username17

[Alansmithee]

Doing away with Skill Ranks in favor of Skill Tags was a good idea.

Just wondering, why do you think this is? I've found the skill system to be kinda disappointing. I know before it ended up largely with a binary system (either you always do something, or you never do something), but now there doesn't seem much difference in anyone. It's actually quite common that I see people who trained a skill get beat (and easily!) on checks vs. someone using a skill untrained (either when both PCs rolling against a set DC or contested rolls).

This could obviously be an intentional design choice, but it also seems to mean that you're always at the mercy of the RNG. You might be the sneakiest sneak that ever snuck a snuck (or that's your desire) but some dullard guard will still spot you often (well, often enough to really make your stealth character seem not so stealthy)

[Alansmithee]

Switching to a chance based duration system rather than tracking large numbers of individual rounds was a good idea.

How do you think this should work out, ideally? Should it be a flat % each time? Should that % ever be modified? By what? Should that % be based off of what spell is being used, who the user is, who the target is?

Probably an attack roll vs. Defense each turn to remain in play for DOTs and an arbitrary fail chance each round for buffs.

-Username17

I think the biggest problem with this is it would lead to more bookkeeping. You'd now have to keep track of what attack value placed what debuff, rather than just the flat chance it has now for everything.

Not saying it's not a better idea, but in the attempt for everything to be supersimplified that's probably what they were going for.

[DragonChild]

Just wondering, why do you think this is? I've found the skill system to be kinda disappointing. I know before it ended up largely with a binary system (either you always do something, or you never do something), but now there doesn't seem much difference in anyone. It's actually quite common that I see people who trained a skill get beat (and easily!) on checks vs. someone using a skill untrained (either when both PCs rolling against a set DC or contested rolls).

The problem is that ability scores and race count for too much. The paladin should not be adding +7 from charisma and +2 for being a dragonborn on his diplomacy checks, or whatever. If you fix ability scores being so wide, the problem is largely solved.

[ScottS]

But after playing more, I started noticing more and more the mentioned problems. Combat takes FOREVER. It's very tactical in my opinion, but also very samey. The HP of monsters is just way too high, and the damage they do seems way too low. (...) But, I can't really think of many ways they could change things that wouldn't change the balance a lot. I've been trying to think of ways to spruce it up, but I can't. Adding different powers doesn't seem like it would help (assuming that I could balance them) because I'm not sure that they wouldn't just become better variations on what they already have (so instead of adding more flavor, they'd just be built into their current rotations). And I've been thinking about doing something for the monsters, but again the task seems to big. Cutting HP by 25% (or something) and boosting damage that amount MIGHT work, but unless they've used some consistent guideline it would probably just throw the balance off more. I honestly think there's a lot good and worth saving, but I don't know how to go about it.

75%hp/133%dmg is supposedly a reasonably common fix and something I've used since last year (paragon game 11-16). The conceit is that it keeps the "expected total damage per combat" the same while addressing the "monsters take too long to die" issue and the "monsters don't do enough damage to kill anything" issue simultaneously. (Some people even crank it up to 50%hp/200%dmg.)

In my experience it does make combat somewhat more punishing and therefore tense for the PCs (i.e. they actually drop on occasion instead of only maybe losing one surge an entire fight). However, it doesn't really cut down the playtime on "challenging" fights very much. I think the problem there might be that individual initiative/"everyone gets their turn in the spotlight" might not synergize all that well with "spellcasters had the most fun in 3e, so now everyone mechanically is a spellcaster". (flipping through power/item card decks + game-changing abilities/buffs/defbuffs potentially getting dropped by every PC + decision anxiety = multi-hour fights)