The Gaming Den Forum Index The Gaming Den
Welcome to the Gaming Den.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Google
 Search WWW   Search tgdmb.com 
So, what did 4E do *right*?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> In My Humble Opinion...
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
shinimasu
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2014
Posts: 66

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

4e has a few ideas I liked that i wish someone else would do better so I guess that's kind of close to "what did it do right?" In that the execution is not great but the idea had merit.

Good idea: Give every class a clear role in combat. The idea is to make it easy to say "If you want to be good at this, play that." If you want to do damage play a striker class. If you want control play a defender. If you want support play leader. And theoretically different leader classes do different things. Some might debuff enemies, some might buff party members, some might heal, some might spam interrupts.

Bad execution: Different classes in the same role all play the same. Hell even different classes in different roles play the same. A warlock is ostensibly supposed to be a striker all about dealing damage but it plays more like a leader. Everything has a debuff power, everything has interrupts, everything has control moves. Nothing it allowed to have its own toys.

Developer oversight: Absolutely no out of combat part roles. The absolute barest minimum "effort" put into going "Oh yeah this thing could be a face if you want I guess." Also "Utility" powers were a joke.


Last edited by shinimasu on Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phlapjackage
Master


Joined: 24 May 2012
Posts: 278

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

shinimasu wrote:
4e has a few ideas I liked that i wish someone else would do better so I guess that's kind of close to "what did it do right?" In that the execution is not great but the idea had merit.

Good idea: Give every class a clear role in combat. The idea is to make it easy to say "If you want to be good at this, play that." If you want to do damage play a striker class. If you want control play a defender. If you want support play leader. And theoretically different leader classes do different things. Some might debuff enemies, some might buff party members, some might heal, some might spam interrupts.

Bad execution: Different classes in the same role all play the same. Hell even different classes in different roles play the same. A warlock is ostensibly supposed to be a striker all about dealing damage but it plays more like a leader. Everything has a debuff power, everything has interrupts, everything has control moves. Nothing it allowed to have its own toys.

Developer oversight: Absolutely no out of combat part roles. The absolute barest minimum "effort" put into going "Oh yeah this thing could be a face if you want I guess." Also "Utility" powers were a joke.

I see this idea as terribad. Most/All the language you're using is that of a MMORPG, not a TTRPG. Maybe if there were a "Warcraft the TTRPG", then the words you're saying would be ok. Maybe there's a niche for people who want to do that? But for D&D or most any other game, no thanks, keep those "defender/striker/leader/etc" bullshit terms and ideas out.
_________________
Koumei: and if I wanted that, I'd take some mescaline and run into the park after watching a documentary about wasps.
PhoneLobster: DM : Mr Monkey doesn't like it. Eldritch : Mr Monkey can do what he is god damn told.
Chamomile: Deaddmwalking... was a holy warrior dedicated not to a specific cause, but to doing battle with a single foe. With his nemesis forever banished from our shores, he goes off to become a normal denner who puts irritating people on ignore rather than endlessly engage them.


Last edited by phlapjackage on Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rasmuswagner
Knight-Baron


Joined: 16 May 2011
Posts: 605
Location: Danmark

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:54 am    Post subject: Re: So, what did 4E do *right*? Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Kaelik wrote:
rasmuswagner wrote:
*Low-light vision. Vision and light in general.


I very seriously doubt this.


So, when was the last time one of your characters benefited from "seeing twice as far in starlight or torchlight"? Because my guess is fucking never.. 4E lowlight vision interacts with things that actually happen.
_________________
Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mask_De_H
Duke


Joined: 18 Jun 2009
Posts: 1735

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

phlapjackage wrote:
shinimasu wrote:
4e has a few ideas I liked that i wish someone else would do better so I guess that's kind of close to "what did it do right?" In that the execution is not great but the idea had merit.

Good idea: Give every class a clear role in combat. The idea is to make it easy to say "If you want to be good at this, play that." If you want to do damage play a striker class. If you want control play a defender. If you want support play leader. And theoretically different leader classes do different things. Some might debuff enemies, some might buff party members, some might heal, some might spam interrupts.

Bad execution: Different classes in the same role all play the same. Hell even different classes in different roles play the same. A warlock is ostensibly supposed to be a striker all about dealing damage but it plays more like a leader. Everything has a debuff power, everything has interrupts, everything has control moves. Nothing it allowed to have its own toys.

Developer oversight: Absolutely no out of combat part roles. The absolute barest minimum "effort" put into going "Oh yeah this thing could be a face if you want I guess." Also "Utility" powers were a joke.

I see this idea as terribad. Most/All the language you're using is that of a MMORPG, not a TTRPG. Maybe if there were a "Warcraft the TTRPG", then the words you're saying would be ok. Maybe there's a niche for people who want to do that? But for D&D or most any other game, no thanks, keep those "defender/striker/leader/etc" bullshit terms and ideas out.


You probably already accept the Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller paradigm as Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard, and are just freaking out over words.

I would put money on it.
_________________
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 26845

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Minions are kinda cool at first level, which is probably why the 4e design team didn't see how fucking awful they were. The concept was done better in Feng Shui where characters don't level (and written by the same guy, so you can see why he'd try to do it again even though it doesn't work in a leveled system). But it was also effectively done back in WHFRP, where the lowest tier of enemy just had 1 Wound and dropped as soon as you hit them with any attack that did damage.

But the whole system meshed super awkwardly with powers that did bullshit small piles of rider damage and even more awkwardly with the concept of leveling. Level 13 Minions are just so awful conceptually.

MDH wrote:
You probably already accept the Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller paradigm as Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard, and are just freaking out over words.

Absolutely not. I would like to be able to play a Supercharger Warrior or a Shieldmaster Warrior. Those are the same class, but nominally one is a Striker and one is a Defender. And fuck that. Fuck that super hard.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Koumei
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12707
Location: South Ausfailia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

If I ask to play as an Illusionist Wizard, I can accept "Well someone else is already playing an Illusionist Wizard, you'd kind of be stepping on each others' toes a bit there." On the other hand, if they told me "Well someone else is playing a Bard, so we have a Controller just fine, could you specifically play a Defender instead?" then that would warrant the :I face.

3Ed had enough of a problem where (people wrongly thought) you needed a Cleric and Rogue (for "the only possible method of healing" and "the existence of traps" respectively). But even in groups that still believed that, that just meant "Cleric, Rogue, Literally Anything, Literally Anything". You're just making things worse by demanding "Specifically someone who hurts a bunch of enemies for lots of damage, which is totally a protected role." + "Specifically someone who thinks they can draw enemy attention and resist a bunch of damage, because Not Getting Killed is a special unique thing" + "Someone who keeps the rest of the party alive" + "Someone who vaguely hinders the enemy by shifting them about or applying more status effects or something".
_________________
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OgreBattle
Prince


Joined: 03 Sep 2011
Posts: 4915

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Stating roles was a bad idea, it ruins the fiction for many folks and char-op guys will already state in their guides what abilities are good for what class.

How do y'all feel about the sacred cow of 6 stats in 4e, I feel like they could've jettisoned them if they really wanted to move D&D forward.

If they had to be kept though I would interpret half as 'core skills that every sentient being has' and have attack modifiers not related to it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 11938

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:34 am    Post subject: Re: So, what did 4E do *right*? Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

rasmuswagner wrote:
Kaelik wrote:
rasmuswagner wrote:
*Low-light vision. Vision and light in general.


I very seriously doubt this.


So, when was the last time one of your characters benefited from "seeing twice as far in starlight or torchlight"? Because my guess is fucking never.. 4E lowlight vision interacts with things that actually happen.


A) Literally the last time I played a character with low light vision who didn't also have see in darkness.

B) So are you going to refuse to even make an argument for why 4e has better rules because we both know it doesn't, and keep refusing to make an argument so you can't ever be contradicted?

C) "Vision and light in general" are you pretending you didn't say this now? Are you admitting that 4e's visions and light rules are at the absolute best, no better than 3e, or are you still claiming this complete nonsense while refusing to even present an argument for it?
_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
hogarth
Prince


Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 4464
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

souran wrote:

• The table of expected DCs by level broken down into easy/average/hard difficulty. This chart should be on the same page of the DMG as ability score chart is on the PHB. The fact that 3e never produced a chart like this is complete bullshit. Also, I still think that everybody here doesn’t understand 4E DCs. A mountain that has a climb DC 15 has a DC of 15 at every level. What the chart tells you is that the mountains that are relevant to a party should have a DC appropriate to the party level.

You picked an absolutely terrible example.

If a player asks "what skill bonus does my PC need to be considered an expert mountain climber?" a reasonable answer is:
  • The most difficult to climb mountains are DC 25, so if you can hit that DC every time, you're an expert mountain climber.

    A fucking retarded answer is:
  • Your question is unanswerable, because no matter how good you are, there will always be regular mountains, super-mountains, mega-super-mountains, ultra-mega-super-mountains, etc. depending on what is needed to be an appropriate challenge.
  • Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    rasmuswagner
    Knight-Baron


    Joined: 16 May 2011
    Posts: 605
    Location: Danmark

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:40 pm    Post subject: Re: So, what did 4E do *right*? Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Kaelik wrote:
    rasmuswagner wrote:
    Kaelik wrote:
    rasmuswagner wrote:
    *Low-light vision. Vision and light in general.


    I very seriously doubt this.


    So, when was the last time one of your characters benefited from "seeing twice as far in starlight or torchlight"? Because my guess is fucking never.. 4E lowlight vision interacts with things that actually happen.


    A) Literally the last time I played a character with low light vision who didn't also have see in darkness.


    You're full of shit as usual. I asked a specific question, you give a generic answer about how things ought to be in your head. Also, you don't even know what things are; "See in Darkness" is the fairly uncommon ability to see even in Deeper Darkness, what you're thinking about is probably Darkvision.
    Kaelik wrote:

    B) So are you going to refuse to even make an argument for why 4e has better rules because we both know it doesn't, and keep refusing to make an argument so you can't ever be contradicted?


    "Actually matters in situations that actually happen" is a pretty solid argument. "Easier to remember and apply" is another. "They changed things and that makes me irrationally angry" is the only thing you've come up with so far, you human hemorrhoid.
    Kaelik wrote:

    C) "Vision and light in general" are you pretending you didn't say this now? Are you admitting that 4e's visions and light rules are at the absolute best, no better than 3e, or are you still claiming this complete nonsense while refusing to even present an argument for it?


    They are easier AND come into play without MTP more often. That makes them better.
    _________________
    Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Kaelik
    ArchDemon of Rage


    Joined: 07 Mar 2008
    Posts: 11938

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:17 pm    Post subject: Re: So, what did 4E do *right*? Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    rasmuswagner wrote:
    You're full of shit as usual. I asked a specific question, you give a generic answer about how things ought to be in your head. Also, you don't even know what things are; "See in Darkness" is the fairly uncommon ability to see even in Deeper Darkness, what you're thinking about is probably Darkvision.


    God you are such a colossal fucking idiot. No you idiot, I gave a specific answer to the specific question you asked.

    The last time I had a character with low light vison, who didn't also have see in darkness, he saw a roper standing 50ft away from a continual flame rock that was using it to see people before they could see him.

    When my characters have see in darkness, then obviously, low light vision is meaningless, because they can see out to infinite range in the dark, but characters who merely have darkvision 60ft (by far the vast majority of darkvision characters and monsters) would still see the Roper after it has seen them. Hence, low light vision is useful.

    I mean, it could have been the case that any character with low light vision was ever outside at night at all, and therefore was able to see more than 60ft away, that would be a use, but I specifically remember that my last character without see in darkness used low light vision, so get fucked kiddo.

    rasmuswagner wrote:
    "Actually matters in situations that actually happen" is a pretty solid argument. "Easier to remember and apply" is another. "They changed things and that makes me irrationally angry" is the only thing you've come up with so far, you human hemorrhoid.

    They are easier AND come into play without MTP more often. That makes them better.


    1) Fine you cowardly lying shithead, since you refuse to present any argument for your stupid fucking claim and continue to refuse to say what you think the benefits are over and over, I will go find the fucking 4e rules and copy and paste them here and shit talk literally every complete bullshit failing they have and how stupid you are for thinking they are an improvement. I wouldn't have to do this if you presented an actual argument instead of repeatedly telling us that the rules you refuse to cite give blowjobs that cure cancer, but I'll fucking do it, since you know that if you say anything about the rules at all, the depths of your stupidity will become evident.

    2) Learn to fucking read you child. I presented the argument "since every other part of 4e is fucking garbage it's probably the case that their vision and light rules are also garbage, but hey, if you have any fucking argument at all I'd love to hear it." to which you responded "For reasons I refuse to disclose, 4e vision rules are the bestest!"

    Fuck off.

    EDIT: So I found the shitty 4e rules, and it's fucking hilarious.

    1) The rules for everything are literally identical to 3.5, but with the two changes below:

    2) Torches don't give off any shadowy illumination at all, so low light vision is genuinely fucking useless (except outside at night, where it is exactly the same as 3.5).

    3) Darkvision has infinite range.

    So basically, if you were to ask me to make two changes to make Low Light Vision as useless as possible, it would literally be the 4e rules.

    The guy crowing about how 4e Low Light Vision is actually useful is absolutely perfectly fucking stupid, because 4e Low Light Vision is about as useless as anything can actually be.
    _________________
    "DSMatticus" wrote:
    Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
    That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
    Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


    Last edited by Kaelik on Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:37 pm; edited 2 times in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
    shinimasu
    Apprentice


    Joined: 20 Nov 2014
    Posts: 66

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Koumei wrote:
    If I ask to play as an Illusionist Wizard, I can accept "Well someone else is already playing an Illusionist Wizard, you'd kind of be stepping on each others' toes a bit there." On the other hand, if they told me "Well someone else is playing a Bard, so we have a Controller just fine, could you specifically play a Defender instead?" then that would warrant the :I face.

    3Ed had enough of a problem where (people wrongly thought) you needed a Cleric and Rogue (for "the only possible method of healing" and "the existence of traps" respectively). But even in groups that still believed that, that just meant "Cleric, Rogue, Literally Anything, Literally Anything". You're just making things worse by demanding "Specifically someone who hurts a bunch of enemies for lots of damage, which is totally a protected role." + "Specifically someone who thinks they can draw enemy attention and resist a bunch of damage, because Not Getting Killed is a special unique thing" + "Someone who keeps the rest of the party alive" + "Someone who vaguely hinders the enemy by shifting them about or applying more status effects or something".


    Well that's what I meant, in theory different leaders were supposed to do different things. If you have a leader that gives bonuses to AC, a leader that gives enemies status conditions, a leader that provides extra damage dice to allies, and a leader that grants extra movement to allies that is a theoretically viable party composed of nothing but bards, druids, clerics etc. What the role system was meant to do was make a party of nothing but different kinds of fighter viable if that's what the party wanted to do for some reason. 4e made it very easy to run a campaign about hogwarts, or gladiators.

    I am NOT saying this was a successful implementation. Everything bled together, nothing stood out, and all classes played more or less the same and roles were ultimately less than meaningless. But I feel like it could be done well in a different system that wasn't afraid to give each class within a role their own unique Nice Thing (tm).
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Mord
    Master


    Joined: 24 Apr 2014
    Posts: 208

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    hogarth wrote:
    souran wrote:

    • The table of expected DCs by level broken down into easy/average/hard difficulty. This chart should be on the same page of the DMG as ability score chart is on the PHB. The fact that 3e never produced a chart like this is complete bullshit. Also, I still think that everybody here doesn’t understand 4E DCs. A mountain that has a climb DC 15 has a DC of 15 at every level. What the chart tells you is that the mountains that are relevant to a party should have a DC appropriate to the party level.

    You picked an absolutely terrible example.

    If a player asks "what skill bonus does my PC need to be considered an expert mountain climber?" a reasonable answer is:
  • The most difficult to climb mountains are DC 25, so if you can hit that DC every time, you're an expert mountain climber.

    A fucking retarded answer is:
  • Your question is unanswerable, because no matter how good you are, there will always be regular mountains, super-mountains, mega-super-mountains, ultra-mega-super-mountains, etc. depending on what is needed to be an appropriate challenge.


  • I've never considered that to be a fair criticism. You can still know if you are an expert mountain climber for a given context, so why should the fact that there exist greater challenges outside your context be so offensive?

    If I'm able to climb K2 on Earth, I know I'm a pretty badass mountain climber. Olympus Mons is even bigger and scarier and presumably has a higher DC, but it's not on Earth, so why do I need to angst about it? Leave aside the fact that if I were on the Prime Material, there would, beyond even Olympus Mons, presumably be hell-mountains in the depths of the outer planes made out of screaming, hostile masses of skulls and bones which would have an even higher Climb DC.

    So, the reasonable answer to the player question here is "Well, the toughest mountains around here are DC 25, so if you can hit that DC every time, you're an expert mountain climber in this region of the game world. Of course, nastier mountains do exist elsewhere."
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Pedantic
    Apprentice


    Joined: 09 Feb 2012
    Posts: 60

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Mord wrote:
    I've never considered that to be a fair criticism. You can still know if you are an expert mountain climber for a given context, so why should the fact that there exist greater challenges outside your context be so offensive?

    If I'm able to climb K2 on Earth, I know I'm a pretty badass mountain climber. Olympus Mons is even bigger and scarier and presumably has a higher DC, but it's not on Earth, so why do I need to angst about it? Leave aside the fact that if I were on the Prime Material, there would, beyond even Olympus Mons, presumably be hell-mountains in the depths of the outer planes made out of screaming, hostile masses of skulls and bones which would have an even higher Climb DC.

    So, the reasonable answer to the player question here is "Well, the toughest mountains around here are DC 25, so if you can hit that DC every time, you're an expert mountain climber in this region of the game world. Of course, nastier mountains do exist elsewhere."


    If the only meaningful difference between the challenges my character will face as he levels up is that you've appended the words "screaming" before and "of skulls" after the obstacle, I don't really want to play your game.

    That leads to a system where skills aren't abilities my character has, they aren't tools I can leverage against the fiction to achieve my goals, they're descriptions on the slot machine that is "rolling to move the story along."

    Knowing my character can climb shit consistently is valuable because I know climbing is an option when I'm faced with problems. Knowing my character will have the same chance of success when trying to climb a "level appropriate" obstacle he's had since level 1, means we should dispense with the dice and flip some coins for results before we get to the next set-piece encounter.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Koumei
    Serious Badass


    Joined: 07 Mar 2008
    Posts: 12707
    Location: South Ausfailia

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    shinimasu wrote:
    Well that's what I meant, in theory different leaders were supposed to do different things. If you have a leader that gives bonuses to AC, a leader that gives enemies status conditions, a leader that provides extra damage dice to allies, and a leader that grants extra movement to allies that is a theoretically viable party composed of nothing but bards, druids, clerics etc. What the role system was meant to do was make a party of nothing but different kinds of fighter viable if that's what the party wanted to do for some reason. 4e made it very easy to run a campaign about hogwarts, or gladiators.

    I am NOT saying this was a successful implementation. Everything bled together, nothing stood out, and all classes played more or less the same and roles were ultimately less than meaningless. But I feel like it could be done well in a different system that wasn't afraid to give each class within a role their own unique Nice Thing (tm).


    I'm not sure they get points for having a nice idea that other people have already had before them, then fucking the idea up in execution. If it was a unique good idea that nobody had thought to implement but they failed to design it well through sheer incompetence, that's one thing, and would make a great leaping-off point for others. Listening to existing ideas and then implementing them well would still get points for "listening to the right advice" and generally successfully doing anything. But "Let's have each class do things in its own way that still fits an overall role + theme" is not unique, and they basically lost their own thumbs trying to make it work, and turned it into a shitty limitation of choices.
    _________________
    Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
    There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Mord
    Master


    Joined: 24 Apr 2014
    Posts: 208

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Pedantic wrote:
    If the only meaningful difference between the challenges my character will face as he levels up is that you've appended the words "screaming" before and "of skulls" after the obstacle, I don't really want to play your game.

    You're the one who introduced the climb test as an example. If you don't like it, come up with something better and I'll be happy to use it.

    Pedantic wrote:
    That leads to a system where skills aren't abilities my character has, they aren't tools I can leverage against the fiction to achieve my goals, they're descriptions on the slot machine that is "rolling to move the story along."

    Knowing my character can climb shit consistently is valuable because I know climbing is an option when I'm faced with problems. Knowing my character will have the same chance of success when trying to climb a "level appropriate" obstacle he's had since level 1, means we should dispense with the dice and flip some coins for results before we get to the next set-piece encounter.

    When you have +X to Climb, you can climb some shit consistently, not all shit everywhere forever. The existence of Olympus Mons does not prevent you from climbing K2. What is so offensive to you about your Climb bonus being sufficient to trivialize K2 but not Olympus Mons or Mount Flameskull?

    Let's say it takes a +X to Climb to master all the mountains in the local Prime Material. When you level up and start adventuring in Hades or whatever, why in the fuck wouldn't you expect there to be tougher mountains just like there are tougher monsters? CR12 monster, CR12 mountain. This isn't rocket science.

    You're pitching a fit that you can't reach some arbitrary +X to Attribute Z and from then on automatically win all "Z" checks forever, which is as retarded as it is petulant. When you extend your shitty logic to the rest of the game, you have to throw out the entire concept of "level-appropriate challenge" and "progression" as being "descriptions on the slot machine."


    Last edited by Mord on Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    virgil
    King


    Joined: 07 Mar 2008
    Posts: 5907

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    For someone ranting about context, Mord seems to be missing it. Hogarth specifically said 'ultra-mountain' is a stupid answer to the climbing question, and Pedantic said 'screaming'. That gives no qualitative information about the climb DC, and is the point of contention. When the mountain just has a sign that says "in hell" or "must be level 16 to enter because it's soo metal", that is less descriptive of the actual difficulty than actually mentioning the continuous rain of boiling, human fat. That the latter, which gives actual reasons, is better than the former is self evident
    _________________
    Come see Sprockets & Serials
    How do you confuse a barbarian?
    Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
    Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


    Last edited by virgil on Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    hogarth
    Prince


    Joined: 27 May 2009
    Posts: 4464
    Location: Toronto

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Mord wrote:
    Leave aside the fact that if I were on the Prime Material, there would, beyond even Olympus Mons, presumably be hell-mountains in the depths of the outer planes made out of screaming, hostile masses of skulls and bones which would have an even higher Climb DC.

    I don't know what to tell you. If you think bypassing a hell-mountain of screaming skulls by requiring a DC $TEXAS Climb check is a cool idea, you are a certified fucking retard. Not because doing stuff on a hell-mountain is stupid, but rolling big DC skill checks is something nobody but a shitty GM would get a boner from.


    Last edited by hogarth on Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Mord
    Master


    Joined: 24 Apr 2014
    Posts: 208

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    virgil wrote:
    For someone ranting about context, Mord seems to be missing it. Hogarth specifically said 'ultra-mountain' is a stupid answer to the climbing question, and Pedantic said 'screaming'. That gives no qualitative information about the climb DC, and is the point of contention. When the mountain just has a sign that says "in hell" or "must be level 16 to enter because it's soo metal", that is less descriptive of the actual difficulty than actually mentioning the continuous rain of boiling, human fat. That the latter, which gives actual reasons, is better than the former is self evident

    I'm waiting for the part where you explain how any of that relates to Pedantic's claim, which is that the existence of challenges with DCs high enough that any given +X bonus doesn't autowin "leads to a system where skills aren't abilities my character has."

    Near as I can tell, hogarth's actual objection to 4E's difficulty treadmill isn't that MCs are insufficiently creative in fluffing the challenges, but that challenges that pose an obstacle to a character of some nonsepcific but high level exist at all.

    hogarth wrote:
    I don't know what to tell you. If you think bypassing a hell-mountain of screaming skulls by requiring a DC $TEXAS Climb check is a cool idea, you are a certified fucking retard.

    I didn't design the d20 skill system. If you don't think Climb checks should still be relevant past some level, that's cool, but that's an issue with the way the skills were chosen, not with the way challenge DCs are set. Incidentally, go fuck yourself, you strawmanning piece of shit. No one ever suggested running an adventure, or even a session, that consists of "roll once to Climb. OK we're done here."


    Last edited by Mord on Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:30 pm; edited 2 times in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Ice9
    Duke


    Joined: 07 Mar 2008
    Posts: 1519

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Mord wrote:
    When you extend your shitty logic to the rest of the game, you have to throw out the entire concept of "level-appropriate challenge" and "progression" as being "descriptions on the slot machine."

    Fighting increasingly tough monsters as you increase in levels, primarily staying level-appropriate, is a treadmill / slot machine. It’s just a treadmill that many people prefer to the alternative: getting TPK’d by over-level monsters and/or spending time on cake-walk fights that are a forgone conclusion.

    The treadmill nature can be disguised by giving the higher level monsters a better special effects budget. Not that D&D is very consistent about that. Having NPCs be more impressed by the new monsters works too, to an extent. But ultimately, if you stick to level-appropriate foes, you’re kinda running in place. It’s more noticeable in some campaigns than others.

    Or you can go with a “buffered sandbox” style, where you have the same range of foes from the start to the end, but take measures to avoid inconvenient outcomes, such as making over-level foes very obvious and flee-able, and summarizing fights when there’s no threat there. Having high-level foes over in high-level places (like other planes) works, but only for one or maybe two divisions; if you do it repeatedly it’s just the treadmill again.


    Last edited by Ice9 on Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:40 pm; edited 2 times in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    LR
    Knight


    Joined: 12 Mar 2010
    Posts: 309

    PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Well, if you absolutely must have a 'level appropriate climbing challenge', you can and should do a lot better than some flavor of 'it's bigger than a regular mountain'.

    Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


    Last edited by LR on Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:28 am; edited 2 times in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Mord
    Master


    Joined: 24 Apr 2014
    Posts: 208

    PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    LR wrote:
    Well, if you absolutely must have a 'level appropriate climbing challenge', you can and should do a lot better than some flavor of 'it's bigger than a regular mountain'.

    [...]

    Nice. XD

    Alternatively, something like this would also be in theme...


    Last edited by Mord on Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    JonSetanta
    King


    Joined: 07 Mar 2008
    Posts: 5011
    Location: interbutts

    PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    The only thing I liked about 4e was that you add your CON score to HP at level 1 rather than the bonus.

    Every other D&D edition can learn something from that.
    _________________
    My fiction blog and novelette

    FrankTrollman wrote:
    Scaling feats were just a bad idea. I'm sorry I wrote them.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Dogbert
    Knight-Baron


    Joined: 21 Apr 2011
    Posts: 650

    PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Treasure parcels.

    Unlike PF, 4E never fooled itself about the need of the Christmas Tree effect, they just made things easier and got rid of the randumb in treasure acquisition, making it easier for builds to come together rather than needing to suck the cock of the party wizard to craft such items for you.
    _________________
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Voss
    Prince


    Joined: 07 Mar 2008
    Posts: 3604

    PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    JonSetanta wrote:
    The only thing I liked about 4e was that you add your CON score to HP at level 1 rather than the bonus.

    Every other D&D edition can learn something from that.

    Start hp bloat even earlier so it can fuck things up even better?
    Make low damage weapons even more pointless?
    That people should be completely fearless in the face of a guy with a knife or mace, because they can't even do a significant percentage of the necessary damage, let alone be lethal?


    @Dogbert - er, actually one of the 4e claims was that the Christmas tree was going to be less of a thing. Instead it's naked corpse was nailed to the players face, and bullshit +X to Y items were absolutely mandatory, to the point that interesting magic items had no reason to exist, especially in treasure parcels, which were all about getting those numbers up to the required level on time.

    Or worse, to be rendered down so... the party crafter could make the important things for you.


    Last edited by Voss on Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:30 am; edited 1 time in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> In My Humble Opinion... All times are GMT
    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
    Page 2 of 4

     
    Jump to:  
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group