The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

[Darwinism]

But in order to make him competitive, that character needs to have magical gear just like the PC's. That either blows wealth allocation for that level, or makes that character a pushover if you take his toys away.

You could give him inherant bonuses, but then the character stops being like a normal character. Not to mention issues with XP and encounter bugeting, the incentive to blow Daily resources immediately and other concerns. The system is not balanced for PvP.

I had thought that enemies drawing their abilities from a different well was a clear advantage for 4e. Now I am not so sure.

The need for the items to be competitive ties back into the Magical Christmas Tree design issue as well: that characters need magical items to remain competitive. Both 3E and 4E fail here.

I liked 3E monster building since I liked modular customizability with monsters within the rules- the ability to give your Hydras Multisnatch or the acquatic elf with morkoth blood Residual Rebound or the wolf Stand Still.

Most of the 3E monsters out of the book really could be better designed - they get all their special abilities for free rather than taking up a feat slot - like rend or the ability to fight with two weapons without penalty for some of the demons - which of course left the designers scratching their heads on what to do with their actual feat slots and taking crud like Toughness. However, by the end of 3.5 there were enough feats out there that you could actually have fit quite a few of the monster abilities within a feat paradigm, with an exchange of feats having an actual opportunity cost. Certainly no need to remove all feats from monsters/NPCs (how are the bad guys casting rituals again?)

I find the 4E DM tools to have incredibly modular monster design. I can grab a type, look at powers of the appropriate level and theme for the monster, and there I go. There's no need to spend a half-hour or much, much more selecting feats and class levels and templates just to make the thing hopefully competitive against the party.

Also bad guys cast rituals the same way minions don't die from sandstorms before they meet a party; the DM says so.

[PhoneLobster]

Also bad guys cast rituals the same way minions don't die from sandstorms before they meet a party; the DM says so.

Which coincidentally is the exact same way that 4E handles faster than light interplanetary combat invasion space ship construction.

Great work 4E. Pure. Genius.

[Darwinism]

Oh, and as for Health Damage Asymmetry; it's actually not nearly so asymmetrical if you realize that healing surges are effectively hit points as well. They're just bottlenecked so that there can be a challenge to the players without having to increase monster damage to disproportionate levels. This actually means that most players have effective HP totals far higher than most creatures, except Elites and Solos later on.

As an example, at level 20 your average Brute will have 250 or so HP, while your Fighter will have around 140 with another 450~ in healing surges. This puts him usually well above anything but a Solo creature in terms of effective health. This holds true even at level 30, where a Fighter would average around 900~ effective HP.

[Darwinism]

Also bad guys cast rituals the same way minions don't die from sandstorms before they meet a party; the DM says so.

Which coincidentally is the exact same way that 4E handles faster than light interplanetary combat invasion space ship construction.

Great work 4E. Pure. Genius.

Isn't it? It's like they realized there's no need for pointless complexity when it comes to things like monsters when a DM can simply state, "It happens thusly," for the sake of the narrative.

[CCarter]

Also bad guys cast rituals the same way minions don't die from sandstorms before they meet a party; the DM says so.

Which coincidentally is the exact same way that 4E handles faster than light interplanetary combat invasion space ship construction.

Great work 4E. Pure. Genius.

Isn't it? It's like they realized there's no need for pointless complexity when it comes to things like monsters when a DM can simply state, "It happens thusly," for the sake of the narrative.

Its not 'pointless' complexity.
Gven that non-combat mechanics are virtually nonexistent its all GM fiat ("Magical Tea Party") and that's not really what I want in an RPG. Maybe I want rules for tunneling through the walls of the castle or Diplomacying someone or summoning giant eagles, so that the game doesn't boil down to combat followed by a cut scene where you walk along the GMs railway tracks for awhile. No mechanics means no player control.

As far as monster feats go, they usually come pre-statted with their feats, so I don't see what the big deal is with complexity: as a GM I only have to bother with them if I want to trade some out to make a monster particularly interesting or unique.

[Darwinism]

Which coincidentally is the exact same way that 4E handles faster than light interplanetary combat invasion space ship construction.

Great work 4E. Pure. Genius.

Isn't it? It's like they realized there's no need for pointless complexity when it comes to things like monsters when a DM can simply state, "It happens thusly," for the sake of the narrative.

Its not 'pointless' complexity.
Gven that non-combat mechanics are virtually nonexistent its all GM fiat ("Magical Tea Party") and that's not really what I want in an RPG. Maybe I want rules for tunneling through the walls of the castle or Diplomacying someone or summoning giant eagles, so that the game doesn't boil down to combat followed by a cut scene where you walk along the GMs railway tracks for awhile. No mechanics means no player control.

As far as monster feats go, they usually come pre-statted with their feats, so I don't see what the big deal is with complexity: as a GM I only have to bother with them if I want to trade some out to make a monster particularly interesting or unique.

Why do you need rules for tunneling? That some really, really boring stuff right there and if they were even moderately realistic it would take months to get any useful distance. Also there are rules for diplomacy, since there is a skill for it. It's called Diplomacy. Summon spells I guess are a decent point but you seem to want a world where every conceivable action is tied to a rule which would make for one really clunky and long-winded game.

And how, exactly, does a DM arbitrating the actions your player is taking count as railroading? I'm genuinely curious how you got to this conclusion because you're just assuming a lack of player input simply because there aren't well-defined rules for every action. If I tell my DM that I want to do something outside of the set of rules, and he fulfills his role as a DM by telling me how that will be accomplished in game terms, where is the railroad?

[Ravengm]

Also, if you really think skills are half the game in any edition of D&D you're forgetting that D&D is, at its roots, a wargame with roleplaying themes on the side. That doesn't mean you can't turn it into a more roleplaying-centric game but measure up the space in any PHB spent on non-combat-oriented facets of the game and then measure the space spent on things relevant to combat.

Normally this is true, but there are literally two parts to 4E. The combat minigame, and [everything else], which is handled with a skill challenge.

[Darwinism]

Also, if you really think skills are half the game in any edition of D&D you're forgetting that D&D is, at its roots, a wargame with roleplaying themes on the side. That doesn't mean you can't turn it into a more roleplaying-centric game but measure up the space in any PHB spent on non-combat-oriented facets of the game and then measure the space spent on things relevant to combat.

Normally this is true, but there are literally two parts to 4E. The combat minigame, and [everything else], which is handled with a skill challenge.

Calling combat a minigame is sort of representing D&D in general incorrectly; they've all been combat-themed games. And skill challenges certainly can be mis- and over-used but a good DM will use them appropriately and simply have single skill checks for simple tasks.

Arguing that a facet is bad because a bad DM can make it bad is one very silly argument that applies to every mechanic in every game ever to have a GM.

[Winnah]

regarding rituals, I have only seen them mentioned a few times.

NPC class templates are assumed to have access to rituals where damatically appropriate (pretty much exact text).

Vampires get a ritual to make other vampires.

Dragons get ritual access according to their age category (Draconomicon).

I can understand the point made that rituals are only important when it comes to dramatic narrative, because of the focus on combat in 4e. I am not sure if this is a good thing or not.

As for the benefits of modular design, I think that is a matter of personal preference. It's good to be able to pick a stat block out of a book at a moments notice, It's also good to be able to customise a lich or dragon in order to make those encounters memorable. Some 4e templates offer this, but it is impossible to tinker with a solo monster like a dragon without completely redesigning it.

[CCarter]

And how, exactly, does a DM arbitrating the actions your player is taking count as railroading? I'm genuinely curious how you got to this conclusion because you're just assuming a lack of player input simply because there aren't well-defined rules for every action. If I tell my DM that I want to do something outside of the set of rules, and he fulfills his role as a DM by telling me how that will be accomplished in game terms, where is the railroad?

The DM sets the DCs or says "Yes" or "No" depending on what he wants to have happen. I think the classic example is the utube example of play where Chris Perkins goes 'no darkfire doesn't work on inanimate objects' to the newbie because he wants the PCs to go work the magic ballista rather than opening the door under their own power.

That's direct railroading via lack of object breakage rules; you can also have indirect railroading via skill challenges and the like - skill challenges often give quite deterministic outcomes (usually near automatic success) but are designed so that's not apparent to the players. If there's one skill roll to track the giants, or find the clue - there's more of an actual chance of failure.

In other cases for skills like Climb, lack of an objective scale of difficulty is the problem - if my PC is in a forest and wants to climb a tree to get a tactical advantage over the wolves, the GM sets the DC and so can stop you climbing the tree if he feels like it, whereas in 3.0 the DC for a tree is in the rulebook. Same issue with a number of other skills with DCs that scale with level. In 3.0 you can work out how much the evil overlord spent on locks if every door the PCs encounter is DC 40, and probably chisel them out with your adamantine pocket knife for sale so the GM knows not to do it again.

[Darwinism]

And how, exactly, does a DM arbitrating the actions your player is taking count as railroading? I'm genuinely curious how you got to this conclusion because you're just assuming a lack of player input simply because there aren't well-defined rules for every action. If I tell my DM that I want to do something outside of the set of rules, and he fulfills his role as a DM by telling me how that will be accomplished in game terms, where is the railroad?

The DM sets the DCs or says "Yes" or "No" depending on what he wants to have happen. I think the classic example is the utube example of play where Chris Perkins goes 'no darkfire doesn't work on inanimate objects' to the newbie because he wants the PCs to go work the magic ballista rather than opening the door under their own power.

That's direct railroading via lack of object breakage rules; you can also have indirect railroading via skill challenges and the like - skill challenges often give quite deterministic outcomes (usually near automatic success) but are designed so that's not apparent to the players. If there's one skill roll to track the giants, or find the clue - there's more of an actual chance of failure.

In other cases for skills like Climb, lack of an objective scale of difficulty is the problem - if my PC is in a forest and wants to climb a tree to get a tactical advantage over the wolves, the GM sets the DC and so can stop you climbing the tree if he feels like it, whereas in 3.0 the DC for a tree is in the rulebook. Same issue with a number of other skills with DCs that scale with level. In 3.0 you can work out how much the evil overlord spent on locks if every door the PCs encounter is DC 40, and probably chisel them out with your adamantine pocket knife for sale so the GM knows not to do it again.

Skills in general give deterministic outcomes and can always be abused; it's just that 4E has decided that the DM should know their party enough that they can assign appropriate DCs when they're not provided for. You're arguing that a DM can use them to railroad you but if a DM's going to railroad you they're going to do it with and without skills. It's not a problem inherent to the system; it's a problem inherent to DMing.


edit: For the love of god people stop saying, "the combat focus of 4E," like it's new to the franchise. The entire franchise has always been focused around combat.

[violence in the media]

Isn't it? It's like they realized there's no need for pointless complexity when it comes to things like monsters when a DM can simply state, "It happens thusly," for the sake of the narrative.

Fuck. This. Noise.

If shit can just happen whenever and for any fucking reason, then we're not playing a game with any sort of tactics or strategy, we're playing fucking Toon. Pass me the goddamn bunny ears and an Acme catalog in that case.

All that "pointless complexity" you disdain actually gives the players information that they can deduce other things from and come up with plans in anticipation or response to those factors. i.e. If all devils can teleport, and we encounter one trapped in a dungeon for a 100 years before we kill it, then we can assume that someone bound him there for a reason, that teleporting is blocked somehow, or that our DM doesn't think things through when designing adventures. This is all pertinent and desirable information.

You strike me as the kind of guy that probably fell into the 3rd category a lot with 3.x, weren't you? Your favorite edition before 4th was 2nd, amirite?

[Darwinism]

Isn't it? It's like they realized there's no need for pointless complexity when it comes to things like monsters when a DM can simply state, "It happens thusly," for the sake of the narrative.

Fuck. This. Noise.

If shit can just happen whenever and for any fucking reason, then we're not playing a game with any sort of tactics or strategy, we're playing fucking Toon. Pass me the goddamn bunny ears and an Acme catalog in that case.

All that "pointless complexity" you disdain actually gives the players information that they can deduce other things from and come up with plans in anticipation or response to those factors. i.e. If all devils can teleport, and we encounter one trapped in a dungeon for a 100 years before we kill it, then we can assume that someone bound him there for a reason, that teleporting is blocked somehow, or that our DM doesn't think things through when designing adventures. This is all pertinent and desirable information.

You strike me as the kind of guy that probably fell into the 3rd category a lot with 3.x, weren't you? Your favorite edition before 4th was 2nd, amirite?

Nope, I ditched AD&D after playing 3E and ditched 3E for 3.5, because they're all improving on one another. Just like I ditched 3.5 for 4E.

Also, what the hell do monster abilities like teleport, which can still exist in 4E and are always relevant, matter when what was trimmed from 4E is largely irrelevant factors like Craft (Basketweaving) or the overabundance of static skill checks meaning that players would always know exactly the difficulty of any given task? Oh and building monsters the same as players which was a very stupid idea.

Also shit can, and always has been capable of, happening for no reason. It's called DM fiat. It certainly can be used inappropriately but properly done it only contributes to a good game.

[Josh_Kablack]

[Lago PARANOIA]

So many of the assumptions about 4E getting easy or that X or Y can completely break the game or so on assumes that your DM is a robot who can only ever follow the rules as written, which ignores the entire point of a DM.

I dunno about you guys but all of my DMs have been people and the good ones know that they can tweak adventures to suit their players level of competence.

1) Then you shouldn't have had a problem with 3E, because DMs could 'balance' things, too. See, I can employ stupid handwaves too!

2) One things DMs can't account for is intra-party imbalance. If all of the PCs are Wizard or Ranger level then the DM can just jack up the challenge; you get the reward of being able to take on monsters 2-5 levels ahead of schedule. But if some people are playing, say, non-Crit Fisher Avengers and the others are playing DPR-focused druids you can't easily account for that. You have one of three options.

2A) Let the imbalance remain in the game, keep the difficulty levels so that even the buttmonkey classes can feel like they're contributing. This is what 4E has largely opted to do but the power creep is accelerating so quickly that people are starting to notice the fact that some party configurations can consistently beat combat encounters more than twice as fast as the recommended party. People are really starting to grumble about Twin Strike and Wizards a lot.

2B) Jack up the difficulty of the encounter to match the optimized player. This makes things too hard on the non-optimized players.

2C) Take away the overpowered characters' toys. This was an option back early in the edition when you could count the number of genuinely overpowered things on two hands (Blood Pulse, Orb of Imposition, Blade Cascade, Pray for More + Vorpal Weapon, etc..) but it's far, far too late. Twin Strike gets a lot of hate because it's an obvious target, but Superchargers and Basic Attack Whores and Burst Monkeys and Zone Users and Summoner aren't behind them. At this point, the power creep has gotten so out of whack that the only real way to solve it is to do a massive rewrite of 4E material, either powering up the old stuff (at a time when book creation is slowing down to a trickle) or doing a nerf at least three times as large as their 150 pages of errata.

[Lago PARANOIA]

It's probably a good thing that rangers are taking so much of the heat, which is probably why they don't want to nerf them.

If Wizards or Warlords took up the Darling of the CharOp Boards crown (which they should, but people get hard-ons over single-target DPR) then the whining would only be even worse. I wonder if WotC realizes that and has thus allowed the ranger to go without a nerf for so long. Or because even if Rangers got their Twin Strike toys removed the class has so many other powerful toys that it would cause a modest dip in their actual DPR (because the CharOp boards favor steady-state DPR, not practical DPR like stuff from minor action encounter attacks and the Ranger's suite of devastating single-target DPR dailies) so they're deciding not to piss off their fanbase.

[Darwinism]

So many of the assumptions about 4E getting easy or that X or Y can completely break the game or so on assumes that your DM is a robot who can only ever follow the rules as written, which ignores the entire point of a DM.

I dunno about you guys but all of my DMs have been people and the good ones know that they can tweak adventures to suit their players level of competence.

1) Then you shouldn't have had a problem with 3E, because DMs could 'balance' things, too. See, I can employ stupid handwaves too!

Because clearly masses and masses of houserules neutering entire classes just so they're on the same level as martial classes is directly analogous to a DM upping the difficulty past the baseline recommendation which is only a recommendation.

[Shiritai]

So many of the assumptions about 4E getting easy or that X or Y can completely break the game or so on assumes that your DM is a robot who can only ever follow the rules as written, which ignores the entire point of a DM.

I dunno about you guys but all of my DMs have been people and the good ones know that they can tweak adventures to suit their players level of competence.

1) Then you shouldn't have had a problem with 3E, because DMs could 'balance' things, too. See, I can employ stupid handwaves too!

Because clearly masses and masses of houserules neutering entire classes just so they're on the same level as martial classes is directly analogous to a DM upping the difficulty past the baseline recommendation which is only a recommendation.

2) One things DMs can't account for is intra-party imbalance. If all of the PCs are Wizard or Ranger level then the DM can just jack up the challenge; you get the reward of being able to take on monsters 2-5 levels ahead of schedule. But if some people are playing, say, non-Crit Fisher Avengers and the others are playing DPR-focused druids you can't easily account for that. You have one of three options.

2A) Let the imbalance remain in the game, keep the difficulty levels so that even the buttmonkey classes can feel like they're contributing. This is what 4E has largely opted to do but the power creep is accelerating so quickly that people are starting to notice the fact that some party configurations can consistently beat combat encounters more than twice as fast as the recommended party. People are really starting to grumble about Twin Strike and Wizards a lot.

2B) Jack up the difficulty of the encounter to match the optimized player. This makes things too hard on the non-optimized players.


2C) Take away the overpowered characters' toys. This was an option back early in the edition when you could count the number of genuinely overpowered things on two hands (Blood Pulse, Orb of Imposition, Blade Cascade, Pray for More + Vorpal Weapon, etc..) but it's far, far too late. Twin Strike gets a lot of hate because it's an obvious target, but Superchargers and Basic Attack Whores and Burst Monkeys and Zone Users and Summoner aren't behind them. At this point, the power creep has gotten so out of whack that the only real way to solve it is to do a massive rewrite of 4E material, either powering up the old stuff (at a time when book creation is slowing down to a trickle) or doing a nerf at least three times as large as their 150 pages of errata.

Seriously, it's like you don't even read the posts you respond to.

[Archmage]

Also shit can, and always has been capable of, happening for no reason. It's called DM fiat. It certainly can be used inappropriately but properly done it only contributes to a good game.

Hi, this is the Gaming Den. We banter about game design. The goal in the productive discussions around here (when they happen) is to distinguish "good design" from "bad design" based on certain predefined criteria.

If the answer to whole swaths of your game is "DM arbitrarily decides the answer," you haven't designed a game at all. There isn't even anything interesting to debate or discuss.

And to paraphrase something that's been said on this board before, Cops and Robbers is potentially a fun game, but if someone tried to sell me the "rules" to Cops and Robbers I'd laugh in their face.

[Shazbot79]

The DM sets the DCs or says "Yes" or "No" depending on what he wants to have happen. I think the classic example is the utube example of play where Chris Perkins goes 'no darkfire doesn't work on inanimate objects' to the newbie because he wants the PCs to go work the magic ballista rather than opening the door under their own power.

The reason Chris Perkins gave for this was bullshit, but his call wasn't.

Darkfire is the 4E version of "Faerie Fire" which is an illusory effect and does not generate heat.

I'd like to think that most DM's with a lick of common sense wouldn't rule against using an actual fire power to melt ice.

EDIT: quote tags.

[Akula]

Quote tags.

And I have stopped bothering with reading Darwinism's posts, they invariably don't address the issues that they nominally respond to, wasting everyone's time. I don't see the point in anyone responding to him, as he will not read a word of it.

[Username17]

The DM sets the DCs or says "Yes" or "No" depending on what he wants to have happen. I think the classic example is the utube example of play where Chris Perkins goes 'no darkfire doesn't work on inanimate objects' to the newbie because he wants the PCs to go work the magic ballista rather than opening the door under their own power.

The reason Chris Perkins gave for this was bullshit, but his call wasn't.

Darkfire is the 4E version of "Faerie Fire" which is an illusory effect and does not generate heat.

I'd like to think that most DM's with a lick of common sense wouldn't rule against using an actual fire power to melt ice.

The problem is that Chris Perkins didn't even read the power far enough to get to the question of whether it burned things or not. Which goes to the heart of the matter. It's fine if you decide to handwave the rules and just go to a cut scene where the fire melts the ice. But if you don't, then you'd better fucking stick to the rules. Because telling the players "no" to their ideas without the rules backing you up is infuriating to the players.

And that's the problem. Since breaking doors doesn't even have rules, every time the players try the DM has to either allow them to succeed or deny them without reference to the rules. One may be a bit anticlimactic, and the other is a direct and literal insult to the players. That's not a good position for the DM to be in. The DM needs noncombat interaction rules so that he can say "No" to players without appearing to be capricious.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

It is less an issue of the ruling itself and more the fact that it demonstrates the entirety of the 4e mindset encapsulated into a single moment of catastrophic childhood-destroying failure.

[Darwinism]

It is less an issue of the ruling itself and more the fact that it demonstrates the entirety of the 4e mindset encapsulated into a single moment of catastrophic childhood-destroying failure.

Actually my childhood remains pretty good, just like 4E.

Seriously, it's like you don't even read the posts you respond to.

Or it's like I respond to the more idiotic comments and leave the ones where he actually tries to make points alone. Hence responding to this one.

Oh though I did re-read it and the idea that DMs can't deal with intra-party imbalance is laughably stupid. If your DM can't sit down with his group and talk to them like adults, you should probably find a new group. And even failing mature discussion it's infinitely possible to build a monster specifically to ruin anyone who thinks they've got the bestest most powerfullest character, though this is usually a bad idea.

[Darwinism]

Also shit can, and always has been capable of, happening for no reason. It's called DM fiat. It certainly can be used inappropriately but properly done it only contributes to a good game.

Hi, this is the Gaming Den. We banter about game design. The goal in the productive discussions around here (when they happen) is to distinguish "good design" from "bad design" based on certain predefined criteria.

If the answer to whole swaths of your game is "DM arbitrarily decides the answer," you haven't designed a game at all. There isn't even anything interesting to debate or discuss.

And to paraphrase something that's been said on this board before, Cops and Robbers is potentially a fun game, but if someone tried to sell me the "rules" to Cops and Robbers I'd laugh in their face.

But that's not the answer to swaths of the game; it's an answer to situations where codifying reality would be pointlessly pedantic.