PDA

View Full Version : [4e] More Half-Elf Paladin Multiclassing Experimentation



Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-13, 06:03 PM
I just got Primal Power, and I was looking at some of the neat stuff in it. It got me wondering about the possibilities of combining it with my all-time favorite class, which I presume needs no introduction. :smalltongue:

This was also partially inspired by the idea of the Radiant Flame, described in Adventurer's Vault II (which I checked out from the library). The Radiant Flame is a group (or cult, it's not too clear) that combines the worship of the gods and the primal spirits. They have a holy symbol that can be used as a totem by primal characters and divine/primal multiclassers. This group is considered heretical by more conservative churches.

So, with that in mind, I'm gonna try my hand at making a paladin/barbarian multiclass. Here's the current setup:
Race: Half-elf
Class: Paladin, MC barbarian.
Paragon Path: Ancestral Weapon
Epic Destiny: Demigod

Starting Languages: Common, Elven, Draconic

Starting Stats: Str 16, Con 16, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 16.
Level 30 Stats: Str 26, Con 18, Dex 12, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 26.

Ability Score Progression
4: +1 Strength and +1 Charisma
8: +1 Strength and +1 Charisma
11: +1 All
14: +1 Strength and +1 Charisma
18: +1 Strength and +1 Charisma
21: +1 All (+2 extra to Strength and Charisma from Demigod ED)
24: +1 Strength and +1 Charisma
28: +1 Strength and +1 Charisma

Trained Skills: Religion, Diplomacy, Heal, Endurance (taking training in Nature from the Barbarian multiclass)

Feat Progression
1: Weapon Proficiency (fullblade)
2: Berserker's Fury
4: Rampant Fury
6: Focused Expertise
8: Mighty Challenge
10: Group Defense
11: Versatile Master
12: Armor Specialization (Plate)
14: Forceful Challenge
16: Honored Foe
18: Untiring Virtue
20: Pervasive Light
21: Crusading Wrath
22: Pious Champion
24: Paladin's Truth
26: Tireless Wrath
28: Divine Mastery
30: Robust Defenses

Starting Powers: Holy Strike (AW), Virtuous Strike (AW), Valorous Smite (E), Majestic Halo (D), Howling Strike (Dilletante)

Power Progression beyond level 1
2: Virtue (U)
3: Hold Fast (E)
5: Arc of Vengeance (D)
6: Wrath of the Gods (U)
7: Price of Cowardice (E)
9: Shout of Condemnation (D)
10: Cleansing Spirit (U)
11: Blood-Spattered Fury (E)
12: Ancestor's Presence (U)
13: Castigating Strike (E)
15: True Nemesis (D)
16: Divine Aegis (U)
17: Hand of the Gods (E)
19: Corona of Blinding Radiance (D)
20: Ancestral Weapon's Rage (D)
22: Failure Is No Option (U)
23: Demand Respect (E)
25: Discipline the Unruly (D)
27: Stunning Smite(E)
29: Even Hand of Justice(D)
Obviously this is only a crude attempt at a paladin/barbarian setup, and it's obviously skimping on the barbarian side of things. What are good Barbarian things to add to this build? I don't have any truly specific questions. I have a basic idea, but I figure it could be even better.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-13, 09:29 PM
So...no advice? :smallconfused:

Mando Knight
2010-01-13, 09:43 PM
1.) I only just saw this thread. Watching a roommate play MGS4 (and giving him advice, since I've had previous experience with watching a different roommate play it) and then leaving for an hour to fence does that.
2.) I have no idea how to properly optimize a Barbarian without using the Barbarian Handbook or just stumbling around using my normal methods.
3.) Although I should have thought "Wow, I can finally combine the standard Paladin with the Barbarian without houserules!!eleventy!1!" it actually never really occurred to me before. In other words, it's a totally new concept to me, catching me flat-footed. I grant CA to you until the end of your next turn. :smalltongue:

Decoy Lockbox
2010-01-13, 11:13 PM
I made a dragonborn hybrid paladin/barbarian (strength and charisma based) a few months ago that was actually really good (don't' have the character sheet on me atm). Look up the paladin powers "bless weapon" & "wrath of the gods", and the barbarian power "heart strike" to see why. Plus, you can get all armors for a single feat (hybrid talent: paladin armor), have a rather tasty mark via the Mighty Challenge feat, etc. Its a surprisingly functional combo. Paladin/sorceror is great too.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-14, 12:11 AM
I don't have access to the article with hybrid characters, so that's sadly out of the question.

Xallace
2010-01-14, 11:30 AM
With your Con so high, why not switch over to an Axe or Hammer and take advantage of both relevant feats and potentially Con-based Barbarian multiclass powers?

Mando Knight
2010-01-14, 11:52 AM
With your Con so high, why not switch over to an Axe or Hammer and take advantage of both relevant feats and potentially Con-based Barbarian multiclass powers?

Come to think of it, that's a good idea. Switching to the Mordenkrad would increase non-critical average damage output and grant access to Hammer Rhythm, which you'll qualify for thanks to your high Con...

Of course, a hammer or axe doesn't feel "elf-y" and I have no idea why Half-Elves are Con/Cha anyway...

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-14, 12:07 PM
Sounds interesting...Hammer's aren't very "flame-y" but they scream Primal.

Mando Knight
2010-01-14, 12:30 PM
You could also go with the Execution Axe, which will let you keep your High Crit and grab the Brutal 2 while you're at it. But the only support feat I see that could help you with that axe specifically would be Axe Mastery in Epic, so you don't really lose much by grabbing a Fullblade (Brutal 2 and possible 19-20 crit in epic with an extra feat as opposed to +3 proficiency).

Tehnar
2010-01-14, 12:46 PM
I see a possible problem with not hitting enough, and am not sure what a multiclass to barbarian gives you aside from the paragon path.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-14, 02:00 PM
Mainly to add a little striker to my defender, allowing a little more damage. Like I said, I haven't seen what barbarians are capable of in practice, so I have no idea how to optimize them. But then again, I now virtually NOTHING about optimization. Most of this build was taken from the Paladin Handbook with a little bit of stuff from the Barbarian Handbook, mainly to secure the Paragon Path, which was what interested me the most.

What causes the problem of not hitting enough?

Xallace
2010-01-14, 08:15 PM
Of course, a hammer or axe doesn't feel "elf-y" and I have no idea why Half-Elves are Con/Cha anyway...

I don't see Barbarians as being particularly elf-y either, but hey.

Actually, if you go axe you can pick up the Sweeping Blade feat, which turns your OAs into more powerful versions of the fighter's Cleave. If I recall, there's also a Paragon or Epic barbarian feat that lets you use an At-Will when you charge (may just be charges triggered by Rampage, though. Can't remember, and I'm away from book).

I'd say pick up a couple Barbarian powers, just to add to the feel. You want to feel like a barbarian, get yourself more than one rage!

Ancestral Weapon was a good call, and once I'm back to my books I'll see if I can find anything else that synergizes.

Tehnar
2010-01-14, 08:51 PM
Generally everything you do depends on hitting. While this is more the case for fighters then paladins, it is none the less important.

Without hitting you won't be able to benefit from your many buffs and the debuffs you can inflict on monsters. For example if you don't hit with your Virtous strike you won't get the +2 bonus to saves. Or you Valorous smite wont work. Very often this is more important then any secondary benefits gained from higher secondary stats.

Of course this all depends on your DMs style. If he sends enemies at you that are your level or lower, your to hit is ok. For higher level enemies it gets worse, since they are harder to hit (and thus control/defend against) and are more dangerous then lower level monsters.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-14, 09:03 PM
So how do I fix that?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-14, 09:10 PM
I don't see Barbarians as being particularly elf-y either, but hey.
Take a gander at the Valenar (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Valenar) :smallbiggrin:

I'm actually playing a Half-Elf Barbarian at the moment, but I dunno what to say really.

I'm not really seeing the synergy here, to be honest. I mean, by all means swap in a Barbarian Rage power and take the "gets Rampage" feat... but I dunno if a Paladin really needs Barbarian to strike. Didn't DP fix that? :smallconfused:

EDIT: Fixing the "to-hit" problem is pretty easy. Take some -AC powers (or hand out with a Leader who has them) and take Weapon Expertise. Problem solved.

Mando Knight
2010-01-14, 10:16 PM
Your to-hit is fine. You've got Expertise, start with at least 16 in both of your attacking stats, and are proficient in your weapon. Hitting won't really be a problem for you, especially if you've got a competent leader.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-14, 10:19 PM
Oh hey - instead of Howling Strike, how about Pressing Strike?

That "Shift 2, even through enemies" before the attack is incredibly useful. I use it all the time as a Thaneborn Barbarian - and it'll be more tactically useful than just getting an extra d6 on a single charge in the Encounter.

Oh, and it's Push 1 too :smalltongue:

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-14, 10:47 PM
That's true. The synergy I was looking for was mainly in the area of healing surges, which the Ancestral Weapon Paragon Path really boosts. Plus, I was interested in the whole Radiant Flame concept.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-14, 10:54 PM
That's true. The synergy I was looking for was mainly in the area of healing surges, which the Ancestral Weapon Paragon Path really boosts. Plus, I was interested in the whole Radiant Flame concept.
What are you using those surges for, anyhow? With a WIS of 13, you're not going to be using much in the way of Lay on Hands (whatever variant you're using).

Honestly, I'd drop CON to 14 and pump WIS up a bit. Heck, even making CON 13 (15 with modifiers) can get WIS up to 14 and you'll be up to a +3 modifier at LV 11.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-14, 11:24 PM
I had the impression that you can never have too many healing surges. :smallconfused:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-14, 11:37 PM
I had the impression that you can never have too many healing surges. :smallconfused:
Ho!

There are too many Healing Surges if you end your days with 'em to spare. After all, you're sacrificing one Daily usage of Lay on Hands for 1 additional Surge - wouldn't it be better to be down 1 surge so that the Striker doesn't keel over while the Cleric is busy?

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-15, 12:14 AM
No no, that's not what I meant. I meant that the Ancestral Weapon path allows you to add your Charisma modifier to your healing surges, allowing you to gain more health when you spend them.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-15, 09:49 PM
No no, that's not what I meant. I meant that the Ancestral Weapon path allows you to add your Charisma modifier to your healing surges, allowing you to gain more health when you spend them.
Yes, but how much health recovery do you need?

Also - you should swap a Daily for a Rage. Specifically, Silver Phoenix Rage (5), which is awesome.

I guess I should ask you to elaborate on your aims as a character.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-15, 11:41 PM
I really don't have any aims, since there aren't any 4e games I can join at the moment. There's nothing here in Hastings, and I start college soon, so I won't have time to join one IRL, and on the forum where I do most of my roleplaying, I'm probably one of only two or three people that actually likes 4e. Our admin there has told me that I can show him any 4e character and he can make a 3.5 character that does everything the 4e character can do better.

In order to make better use of Rampage, I'm gonna HAVE to take some barbarian power multiclass feats. I knew that when I came up with the idea. But I have no idea what barbarian powers to take.

I don't really know what I'm doing. As the thread title says, this was mainly a thought experiment, since there's no 4e campaign I can join, that I wouldn't have to DM myself, and I actually want to play! :smallannoyed:

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-16, 01:07 PM
Should I just scrap this build and start from the ground up?

Mando Knight
2010-01-16, 01:40 PM
Should I just scrap this build and start from the ground up?

I don't really see why you should...

Sir Homeslice
2010-01-16, 01:47 PM
Our admin there has told me that I can show him any 4e character and he can make a 3.5 character that does everything the 4e character can do better.

Sounds like a pleasant person and definitely not a jackass.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-16, 03:15 PM
He's not a jackass. He's a great DM, and he has been willing to play 4e in the past. But as a system, he prefers 3.5, since in his opinion fighters are the best in that system. He believes that they were nerfed in both Pathfinder and 4e, Pathfinder because of the way the new class features were set up and 4e by eliminating the ability to make multiple attacks in a round.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-16, 04:16 PM
I asked because you don't really seem to be leveraging the Barbarian stuff at all.

Yes, it's nice to regain more HP, but there's more to being a Paladin than that.

To start with, you need WIS 14 if you really want to make half of their powers worthwhile. Lay on Hands is great, and nearly all of the good Paladin powers have some sort of WIS component.

Suggested LV 11 Stats

STR 19
DEX 11
CON 17
INT 9
WIS 15
CHA 18


Secondly, you want to have Rages - they just make you more awesome, and Silver Phoenix has silly amounts of synergy. Regen 3 and you pop a Surge when you hit 0 HP? Ideal!

Next, you need to include Versatile Master at LV 11. Why? Because it turns you into a more awesome version of a Human - and here, picking up Recuperating Strike as an At-Will is excellent. Not only is it going to get you +1 THP over Bolstering Strike, but it cues off of CON instead of WIS - and you like CON for many, many reasons. Oh, and you gain 5+CON THP while raging - and you have two rages :smalltongue:

Those are just some examples. I drafted something up to LV 11 with the following principles in mind:
- Maximize Survivability
- Focus on Striking

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Raging Flame, level 11
Half-Elf, Paladin, Ancestral Weapon

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 19, Con 17, Dex 11, Int 9, Wis 15, Cha 18.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 13, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 14.


AC: 23 Fort: 20 Reflex: 16 Will: 20
HP: 92 Surges: 13 Surge Value: 27

TRAINED SKILLS
Religion +9, Intimidate +14, Endurance +11, Diplomacy +16, Perception +12

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +3, Arcana +4, Bluff +9, Dungeoneering +7, Heal +7, History +4, Insight +9, Nature +7, Stealth +3, Streetwise +9, Thievery +3, Athletics +7

FEATS
Level 1: Weapon Proficiency (Execution axe)
Level 2: Berserker's Fury
Level 4: Rampant Fury
Level 6: Power Attack
Level 8: Acolyte Power
Level 10: Adept Power
Level 11: Versatile Master

POWERS
Dilettante: Recuperating Strike
Lay on Hands: Lay on Hands
Paladin at-will 1: Ardent Strike
Paladin at-will 1: Holy Strike
Paladin encounter 1: Radiant Smite
Paladin daily 1: Blood of the Mighty
Paladin utility 2: Divine Counter
Paladin encounter 3: Invigorating Smite
Paladin daily 5: Martyr's Retribution (retrained to Silver Phoenix Rage at Adept Power)
Paladin utility 6: Pure Devotion (retrained to Relentless Surge at Acolyte Power)
Paladin encounter 7: Thunder Smite
Paladin daily 9: Final Rebuke
Paladin utility 10: Benediction

ITEMS
Plate Armor, Execution axe

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-16, 05:39 PM
Okay...I like what I'm seeing here. I knew Versatile Mastery would need to be there, it's practically essential for any half-elf build. How would this build change when taken up to epic level?

Gametime
2010-01-16, 06:27 PM
He's not a jackass. He's a great DM, and he has been willing to play 4e in the past. But as a system, he prefers 3.5, since in his opinion fighters are the best in that system. He believes that they were nerfed in both Pathfinder and 4e, Pathfinder because of the way the new class features were set up and 4e by eliminating the ability to make multiple attacks in a round.

Of the many justified and unjustified reasons I have seen given for the superiority of 3.5 over 4th, this is the first to make me do a double take.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-16, 06:51 PM
He uses a lot of multiclassing and stuff to make the fighter more effective. As I said, he claims that he can take any 4e build and make a character that does what said 4e build does better than the 4e character can. What he believes is that 4e's method of balancing the classes was making all the classes suck equally.

Kylarra
2010-01-16, 06:53 PM
He uses a lot of multiclassing and stuff to make the fighter more effective. As I said, he claims that he can take any 4e build and make a character that does what said 4e build does better than the 4e character can. What he believes is that 4e's method of balancing the classes was making all the classes suck equally.Psh, that's really a strawman, since they're two different systems. What matters is capabilities relative to other people within the same system.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-16, 07:00 PM
So how am I supposed to convince him that 4e doesn't suck?

Mando Knight
2010-01-16, 07:13 PM
So how am I supposed to convince him that 4e doesn't suck?

Depends. Do you have any DMing capability of your own?

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-16, 07:57 PM
I've got the imagination, but not the technical capability.

Here are my admin's specific grievances with 4e:

1. The powers themselves are very cookie-cutter in nature, as most rely on a number of stock effects (such as "Slide", "Slow", "Stun", "Spend a healing surge", etc.)

2. The fluff descriptions of the powers are incomprehensible. The world-fluff is also generally silly - even if some argue it is actually unnecessary to pay attention to the core fluff at all it still feels like a bad writer's fantasy heartbreaker. Examples also include the infamous Bear Lore check which requires an unusually high Nature Knowledge check to know that bears use their claws to attack. Give that one a second to settle before you continue reading.

3. Characters are more durable, reducing the fear of death and TPK. On the other hand, a series of playtest combats carried out by Touhoufags show that a party that knows what it's doing and uses group tactics well will cut through encounters several levels higher than themselves like a hot knife through butter.

4. The skill challenge system, which was supposed to cover non-combat action sequences, was completely broken as-published, to the point that difficulties were inverted (in many cases it was impossible to accrue four successes before two failures on a complexity 1 skill challenge, while it was often nearly impossible to fail a high-complexity skill challenge), and the published examples of negotiation made Fighters completely useless in skill challenges because their lone class social skill, Intimidate, generated automatic failures (which was completely against the intention of the skill challenge rules).

5. Over-reliance on unimaginative 'adjectivenoun' naming conventions, for instance: Darkleaf Armor: Darkleaves from the gravetrees of the Shadowfell give this armor its protective properties..

6. Lack of non-combat content such as crafting. This criticism partially refers to the reduced skill list and partially to the fact that the greatest focus of the game are obviously the Powers which are largely combat-oriented.

7. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.

8. The Mongol dilemma--soldiers on horseback can defeat a number of the game's monsters by virtue of the monsters not having decent ranged attacks.
9. Giving a flying monster a bow breaks the game.

10. Various broken abilities that demonstrate a lack of playtesting and/or willful disregard for legitimate concerns (Orbizard, Demigod epic destiny, rangers soloing Orcus, and so on).

11. Complete lack of internal consistency: assuming a dynamic world in which NPCs are cognizant (and thus not static "mobiles" to kill for XP and loot) causes the game to break down.

12. The entire economic system is a cluster**** of not-sense-making.

13. Vastly dissociated mechanics: how do I describe what's going on in a way that makes sense? Too many powers cripple the ability to narrate a cohesive scene outside of a completely metagame interpretation.
Daily powers for non-casters. "I can only swing for 6[W] + Strength damage once per day!"

14. Entire armies of high-level minions die in a sandstorm.

15. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.

16. A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes.

17. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)

18. Use of Dungeons and Dragons terms in 4e abilities that don't make any sense. Examples: The 'Sleep' spell doesn't put anything to sleep in 4e terms, 'Disintegrate' doesn't disintegrate, spells and rituals named after characters, even though there is no way to research spells and rituals, among others.

19. Elimination of iconic spells, class features, and whole classes in the name of balance--try playing an enchanter or necromancer or a witch with a familiar. Sorcerers, bards, rangers with animal companions, druids, and monks were all not available in the initial release.

20. Exception-based design wanking, plus **** like the four different "evil eye" variations. Includes ability interaction and "How the hell do I adjudicate this?"

21. HP bloat resulting in grinding and "padded sumo" at higher levels

22. Instead of eliminating the 15-minute workday, the devs put everyone on the 15-minute workday schedule.

23. Everyone playing the same class is generally superior to everyone playing a different class.

24. Powers often have ambiguous fluff, interfering with suspension of disbelief; see Bloody Path.

Mando Knight
2010-01-16, 09:25 PM
1. The powers themselves are very cookie-cutter in nature, as most rely on a number of stock effects (such as "Slide", "Slow", "Stun", "Spend a healing surge", etc.)
3.5 melee was worse. Charge or full attack, with only a handful of side effects that you could cause outside of magic items. And for that matter, I could say the same for 3.5 spells: with the exception of a few choice spells, higher level spells are mostly "the same thing as the lower-level spell, but more."

2. The fluff descriptions of the powers are incomprehensible. The world-fluff is also generally silly - even if some argue it is actually unnecessary to pay attention to the core fluff at all it still feels like a bad writer's fantasy heartbreaker. Examples also include the infamous Bear Lore check which requires an unusually high Nature Knowledge check to know that bears use their claws to attack. Give that one a second to settle before you continue reading.
Is 3.5 really that much better? And if he can do that much better, then why hasn't he sent his material in? Bear Lore is silly, though.

3. Characters are more durable, reducing the fear of death and TPK. On the other hand, a series of playtest combats carried out by Touhoufags show that a party that knows what it's doing and uses group tactics well will cut through encounters several levels higher than themselves like a hot knife through butter.
That's part of the idea... a group that looks tough on paper can be defeated by a weaker, smaller force if that force has superior tactical capabilities. It's how commandos work. If you can't threaten your PCs with even higher-level monsters, start analyzing why rather than blaming it on the dev team first, especially when there are plenty of others who have found otherwise.

4. The skill challenge system, which was supposed to cover non-combat action sequences, was completely broken as-published, to the point that difficulties were inverted (in many cases it was impossible to accrue four successes before two failures on a complexity 1 skill challenge, while it was often nearly impossible to fail a high-complexity skill challenge), and the published examples of negotiation made Fighters completely useless in skill challenges because their lone class social skill, Intimidate, generated automatic failures (which was completely against the intention of the skill challenge rules).
So just drop Skill Challenges or use one of the several dozen houserules. I don't believe that 3.5 had anything like them, so I don't really blame WotC for messing up when they tried something completely new rather than a tried-and-true method.

5. Over-reliance on unimaginative 'adjectivenoun' naming conventions, for instance: Darkleaf Armor: Darkleaves from the gravetrees of the Shadowfell give this armor its protective properties..
As opposed to... what? If he thinks he can do better, why doesn't he apply for a job at WotC?

6. Lack of non-combat content such as crafting. This criticism partially refers to the reduced skill list and partially to the fact that the greatest focus of the game are obviously the Powers which are largely combat-oriented.
That is in the process of being addressed. Martial Practices in Martial Power 2 and some backgrounds allow for various non-combat abilities.

7. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.
Don't see how that comes out. It might not be versatile in terms of the genres it's designed to support, but it does support what it says it supports quite robustly.

8. The Mongol dilemma--soldiers on horseback can defeat a number of the game's monsters by virtue of the monsters not having decent ranged attacks.
Problem of the DM not calibrating the encounters properly, not a problem of the system itself. If he can't do his job to challenge the PCs properly, he deserves to get wiped out by Mongolian-style PCs.

9. Giving a flying monster a bow breaks the game.
...And? Was 3.5 any different?

10. Various broken abilities that demonstrate a lack of playtesting and/or willful disregard for legitimate concerns (Orbizard, Demigod epic destiny, rangers soloing Orcus, and so on).
I'd say that 70 pages of updates trying to actively patch what the dev team missed is a good argument against not caring for legitimate concerns. The amount of playtesting that can be done is inversely proportional to the amount of material that can be produced in a year. As a for-profit company, WotC has to toe a rather narrow line in order to keep Hasbro's execs happy enough to continue providing them a budget.

11. Complete lack of internal consistency: assuming a dynamic world in which NPCs are cognizant (and thus not static "mobiles" to kill for XP and loot) causes the game to break down.
I do not see this break. I do not know if it's a strawman, something he sees that I don't, or an illusion conjured by his bias against the system.

12. The entire economic system is a cluster**** of not-sense-making.
I don't see it that way. A "used" magic item doesn't provide much more buy-back value than a used textbook. Most merchants want to run a profit, and the magic item market is a rather exclusive club.

13. Vastly dissociated mechanics: how do I describe what's going on in a way that makes sense? Too many powers cripple the ability to narrate a cohesive scene outside of a completely metagame interpretation.
Daily powers for non-casters. "I can only swing for 6[W] + Strength damage once per day!"
It could be a trick that you only get a chance to use once a day (to quote Viral, "A sneak attack only works once!") or it may be too physically straining to use multiple times a day.

14. Entire armies of high-level minions die in a sandstorm.
Obvious solution is to grant the minions fighting in a sandstorm condition immunity to problems related to sandstorms. Why wouldn't the mooks of a desert society be prepared against such?

15. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.
No answer. He hates all the 4e fluff that WotC can come up with, he won't like anything I give to justify it.

16. A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes.
YMMV. Powers haven't been standardized between all classes beyond using most of the same terminology, which streamlines the system for players as they need to learn only one set of rules for reading and using their abilities rather than three, four, fifty, or whatever.

Quite frankly, I see it as a case of not reading what's there, and rejecting everything given then complaining that there's nothing left.

17. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)
I'm sorry, what?

18. Use of Dungeons and Dragons terms in 4e abilities that don't make any sense. Examples: The 'Sleep' spell doesn't put anything to sleep in 4e terms, 'Disintegrate' doesn't disintegrate, spells and rituals named after characters, even though there is no way to research spells and rituals, among others.
Sleep's mechanics knock an opponent unconscious. What else does one expect to be part of a sleep spell? Disintegrate deals a large amount of damage, then threatens to fully destroy a foe if he doesn't have the constitution to resist it. The fact that it doesn't turn enemies to dust when it kills something is possibly an oversight, and possibly a matter of mechanical balance. I don't know.

Researching spells, rituals, etc. is mostly a matter of homebrewing them. I don't see a difference from 3.5.

19. Elimination of iconic spells, class features, and whole classes in the name of balance--try playing an enchanter or necromancer or a witch with a familiar. Sorcerers, bards, rangers with animal companions, druids, and monks were all not available in the initial release.
It wasn't just for balance. It was mostly a matter of being able to develop something that worked in the given time. If WotC was going to release all of the 3.5 PHB classes and races in the 4e PHB 1, the book would have taken several months longer to publish, contained twice as many pages, and cost nearly a hundred dollars.

20. Exception-based design wanking, plus **** like the four different "evil eye" variations. Includes ability interaction and "How the hell do I adjudicate this?"
Say what? I don't understand.

21. HP bloat resulting in grinding and "padded sumo" at higher levels
MM2 fixes that a bit, but it's better than the climactic dragon battle ending in a single spell that the wizard prepared a half dozen of. If I recall, Zeromus also takes a while to slag to death, but I wouldn't call that a problem.

22. Instead of eliminating the 15-minute workday, the devs put everyone on the 15-minute workday schedule.
If they want to nova every day, sure. A party that uses its dailies wisely can last for several encounters before needing to take a nap. If it becomes a problem, then there's nothing in the DMG that says you can't have bad things happen for napping for 8 out of every 9 hours.

23. Everyone playing the same class is generally superior to everyone playing a different class.
I have never seen this argument before, and I don't know where he's getting the idea.

24. Powers often have ambiguous fluff, interfering with suspension of disbelief; see Bloody Path.
Don't like the fluff? Then put in your own. What did he expect, every power's fluff being a solid-gold oneliner? That they travel back in time to get Shakespeare, the Brothers Grimm, Tolkein, and C.S. Lewis to write the stuff?

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-16, 09:46 PM
Thank you MandoKnight. Mind if I show him these rebuttals and then return with his response to them? I'll make sure to let him know they came from you.

Mando Knight
2010-01-16, 09:49 PM
Go ahead. You can even let me have all the blame if he's upset with 'em. I understand that I can't expect you to proxy his arguments for him, and I don't mind when someone gets upset with me because I show them how they're wrong or even just plain disagree with them.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-16, 10:54 PM
Okay, I got a response out of him:


3.5 melee was worse. Charge or full attack, with only a handful of side effects that you could cause outside of magic items. And for that matter, I could say the same for 3.5 spells: with the exception of a few choice spells, higher level spells are mostly "the same thing as the lower-level spell, but more."

Not so. I can make a single-class fighter that can do something different every turn.


Is 3.5 really that much better? And if he can do that much better, then why hasn't he sent his material in? Bear Lore is silly, though.

I was unaware I was obligated to do WotC's jobs for them. Whether or not I can do better doesn't make 4e more or less crappy.


That's part of the idea... a group that looks tough on paper can be defeated by a weaker, smaller force if that force has superior tactical capabilities. It's how commandos work. If you can't threaten your PCs with even higher-level monsters, start analyzing why rather than blaming it on the dev team first, especially when there are plenty of others who have found otherwise.

But at the other end of the power scale, by the time the characters reach high level there's nothing you can threaten them with, they were killing the toughest things in the game five levels ago. It makes 4e a level 20-25 game, not a level 30.


So just drop Skill Challenges or use one of the several dozen houserules. I don't believe that 3.5 had anything like them, so I don't really blame WotC for messing up when they tried something completely new rather than a tried-and-true method.

So, your solution is to houserule away the crap, or do away with it? While that's all well and good, this isn't an argument about how to fix 4e, it's about why 4e as presented by WotC sucks. And skill challenges are a big part of it. On top of the mechanical problems, they're boring.


As opposed to... what? If he thinks he can do better, why doesn't he apply for a job at WotC?

Again, I'm not obligated to do their jobs.



That is in the process of being addressed. Martial Practices in Martial Power 2 and some backgrounds allow for various non-combat abilities.

It should have never been a problem in the first place.


Don't see how that comes out. It might not be versatile in terms of the genres it's designed to support, but it does support what it says it supports quite robustly.

It's not about genre. 4e was supposed to be a solution to all the overpowered ease of 3.5, yet 4e core is child's play to break with just the player's handbook.


Problem of the DM not calibrating the encounters properly, not a problem of the system itself. If he can't do his job to challenge the PCs properly, he deserves to get wiped out by Mongolian-style PCs

Same as the last one. The game shouldn't be that easy to break, yet it is.


...And? Was 3.5 any different?
Yes, very much so. Most ranged weapons dealt mediocre damage, one guy with wings and a bow isn't going to TPK anyone in 3.5.


I'd say that 70 pages of updates trying to actively patch what the dev team missed is a good argument against not caring for legitimate concerns. The amount of playtesting that can be done is inversely proportional to the amount of material that can be produced in a year. As a for-profit company, WotC has to toe a rather narrow line in order to keep Hasbro's execs happy enough to continue providing them a budget.

Again, these problems are so glaringly obvious it makes you wonder just how much playtesting they did. If they didn;t have to fix the core rules, they could spend more time making splatbooks to bring in more money to keep Hasbro happy. WotC are their own worst enemy.


I do not see this break. I do not know if it's a strawman, something he sees that I don't, or an illusion conjured by his bias against the system.

It's caused by 4e's inherent lack of versatility. In 3.5, DMs were free to attach whatever abilities they wanted to an NPC, make them whatever they needed to be. 4e has to rigidly defined roles to allow this.


I don't see it that way. A "used" magic item doesn't provide much more buy-back value than a used textbook. Most merchants want to run a profit, and the magic item market is a rather exclusive club.

This one is more of an opinion, actually.


It could be a trick that you only get a chance to use once a day (to quote Viral, "A sneak attack only works once!") or it may be too physically straining to use multiple times a day.

The "tiring" thing is laughed at by anyone who's done any form of manual labor in his life. Giving nonmagical warrior types daily abilities is just insane.


Obvious solution is to grant the minions fighting in a sandstorm condition immunity to problems related to sandstorms. Why wouldn't the mooks of a desert society be prepared against such?

Because it's just a sandstorm, elite soldiers shouldn't be able to be taken out by incliment weather.


No answer. He hates all the 4e fluff that WotC can come up with, he won't like anything I give to justify it.

Dude, it's magic healing powers for everyone. There is no way to justify that.


YMMV. Powers haven't been standardized between all classes beyond using most of the same terminology, which streamlines the system for players as they need to learn only one set of rules for reading and using their abilities rather than three, four, fifty, or whatever.

I was unaware reading was such a problem for people these days. And it's not like you're not allowed to open the book and double check how things work.


I'm sorry, what?

There is little machanical difference between a lot of wizard "spells" and mundane ranged attacks, Fighter tricks, and a lot of other powers. It all keeps boiling down to multiplying rolls with a standard modifier, with maybe a secondary status effect tossed in. It's boring.


Sleep's mechanics knock an opponent unconscious. What else does one expect to be part of a sleep spell? Disintegrate deals a large amount of damage, then threatens to fully destroy a foe if he doesn't have the constitution to resist it. The fact that it doesn't turn enemies to dust when it kills something is possibly an oversight, and possibly a matter of mechanical balance. I don't know.

Then why call it "disintigrate" in the first place?


Researching spells, rituals, etc. is mostly a matter of homebrewing them. I don't see a difference from 3.5.

3.x had rules to adjucate this, nobody had to homebrew anything. It's sounding more and more like WotC wanting players to do the designer's jobs for them.


It wasn't just for balance. It was mostly a matter of being able to develop something that worked in the given time. If WotC was going to release all of the 3.5 PHB classes and races in the 4e PHB 1, the book would have taken several months longer to publish, contained twice as many pages, and cost nearly a hundred dollars.

And yet, it was all in the 3.5 core books all at the initial release. Doesn't look like that much of a problem to me. Maybe if they spent more time giving players what they want rather than trying to be "revolutionary" it wouldn't be a problem.


Say what? I don't understand.

3.5 gave whole paragraphs to describe how spells work. 4e gives two scentences of fluff if you're lucky.


MM2 fixes that a bit, but it's better than the climactic dragon battle ending in a single spell that the wizard prepared a half dozen of. If I recall, Zeromus also takes a while to slag to death, but I wouldn't call that a problem.

Again, it should never have been an issue in the core rules.


If they want to nova every day, sure. A party that uses its dailies wisely can last for several encounters before needing to take a nap. If it becomes a problem, then there's nothing in the DMG that says you can't have bad things happen for napping for 8 out of every 9 hours.

It kills the willing suspension of disbelief if everyone runs on the same power countdown. "Hey, I'm Mr Fighter and I have three minor attacks I can do as often as I want, and two I can only do once a fight each!" "Really?" says Mr Wizard. "Me too! What a coincidence."


I have never seen this argument before, and I don't know where he's getting the idea.

Try it sometime. A party of Fighters will grind through anything, with one or two multiclassing into ranger or cleric powers. The same goes for every other class. Just dip into a few other power pools, and everyone can play the same class.


Don't like the fluff? Then put in your own. What did he expect, every power's fluff being a solid-gold oneliner? That they travel back in time to get Shakespeare, the Brothers Grimm, Tolkein, and C.S. Lewis to write the stuff?

Yet again, I am supposed to do their jobs for them. Am I the professional game designer/writer now? It's starting to feel like it's expected of me.

Sir Homeslice
2010-01-17, 01:13 AM
You DO know he ripped these off verbatim from 1d4chan, right?

In any case, I'm bored enough to type up responses. Kill me now.


1. The powers themselves are very cookie-cutter in nature, as most rely on a number of stock effects (such as "Slide", "Slow", "Stun", "Spend a healing surge", etc.)
They are cookie cutter on paper. Not so much in play, although I have to admit that PHB1 was WotC's way of dipping their toes in the water, so to speak.


2. The fluff descriptions of the powers are incomprehensible. The world-fluff is also generally silly - even if some argue it is actually unnecessary to pay attention to the core fluff at all it still feels like a bad writer's fantasy heartbreaker. Examples also include the infamous Bear Lore check which requires an unusually high Nature Knowledge check to know that bears use their claws to attack. Give that one a second to settle before you continue reading.
No they're not, it's not that silly, it makes sense when you're a peasent dirt farmer with less education than malnourished kids in Barely Important Third World Country Seven. Regardless it is kind of silly.


3. Characters are more durable, reducing the fear of death and TPK. On the other hand, a series of playtest combats carried out by Touhoufags show that a party that knows what it's doing and uses group tactics well will cut through encounters several levels higher than themselves like a hot knife through butter.
Not remotely. MM2 does change it though.


4. The skill challenge system, which was supposed to cover non-combat action sequences, was completely broken as-published, to the point that difficulties were inverted (in many cases it was impossible to accrue four successes before two failures on a complexity 1 skill challenge, while it was often nearly impossible to fail a high-complexity skill challenge), and the published examples of negotiation made Fighters completely useless in skill challenges because their lone class social skill, Intimidate, generated automatic failures (which was completely against the intention of the skill challenge rules).
I've got nothing, skill challenges were generally crap.


5. Over-reliance on unimaginative 'adjectivenoun' naming conventions, for instance: Darkleaf Armor: Darkleaves from the gravetrees of the Shadowfell give this armor its protective properties..
I've got nothing as I don't care.


6. Lack of non-combat content such as crafting. This criticism partially refers to the reduced skill list and partially to the fact that the greatest focus of the game are obviously the Powers which are largely combat-oriented.
I don't care about crafting in the slightest, and the reduced skill list gives more flexibility to skills.


7. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.
Blatantly incorrect.


8. The Mongol dilemma--soldiers on horseback can defeat a number of the game's monsters by virtue of the monsters not having decent ranged attacks.
Blatantly incorrect.


9. Giving a flying monster a bow breaks the game.
You do have me here. Oh wait, this isn't specific to 4e.


10. Various broken abilities that demonstrate a lack of playtesting and/or willful disregard for legitimate concerns (Orbizard, Demigod epic destiny, rangers soloing Orcus, and so on).
Can't contest, you're right. Easily fixed though. Or already fixed.


11. Complete lack of internal consistency: assuming a dynamic world in which NPCs are cognizant (and thus not static "mobiles" to kill for XP and loot) causes the game to break down.
This is nothing full of buzzwords. And blatantly incorrect.


12. The entire economic system is a cluster**** of not-sense-making.
If I wanted a perfect economic system I'd play the actual stock market and take up heavy drinking. In addition, it does make a certain amount of sense.


13. Vastly dissociated mechanics: how do I describe what's going on in a way that makes sense? Too many powers cripple the ability to narrate a cohesive scene outside of a completely metagame interpretation.
Daily powers for non-casters. "I can only swing for 6[W] + Strength damage once per day!"
You used "disassociated mechanics." You fail this point, next.


14. Entire armies of high-level minions die in a sandstorm.
Blatantly incorrect. The minion's HP doesn't matter out of combat, sandstorms don't deal damage in HP, if the sandstorm DID deal damage in HP the minions would be unaffected, or you're making things up. Pick one.


15. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.
Again, incorrect. Although I don't expect much out of you, having ripped this straight from 1d4chan.


16. A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes.
Blatantly incorrect.


17. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)
You're right. Stat combinations aren't classes, and does damage isn't a class concept. Fortunately, the developers of 4e didn't just make classes as stat combinations and didn't have does damage as a class concept.

So you're actually wrong. Huh. Come back once you have an idea of what you're talking about.


18. Use of Dungeons and Dragons terms in 4e abilities that don't make any sense. Examples: The 'Sleep' spell doesn't put anything to sleep in 4e terms, 'Disintegrate' doesn't disintegrate, spells and rituals named after characters, even though there is no way to research spells and rituals, among others.
When you sleep you're unconcious. Disintegrate does disintegrate things if they die from it, and I wasn't aware you had to have a mechanic to do something. I guess all characters die from not being able to poop now.

Psst. Spell creation has always been the realm of "homebrew it."


19. Elimination of iconic spells, class features, and whole classes in the name of balance--try playing an enchanter or necromancer or a witch with a familiar. Sorcerers, bards, rangers with animal companions, druids, and monks were all not available in the initial release.
Hahahahaha. This isn't a complaint. Things need to change, deal with it.


20. Exception-based design wanking, plus **** like the four different "evil eye" variations. Includes ability interaction and "How the hell do I adjudicate this?"
OH BOY THE ALEXANDRIAN'S INSIPID DRIVEL. What a shock, different members of a race with a unifying racial trait have adapted their unifying racial trait to suit their needs. What BLASPHEMY.


21. HP bloat resulting in grinding and "padded sumo" at higher levels
I've got nothing, MM2 solos and on have it better.


22. Instead of eliminating the 15-minute workday, the devs put everyone on the 15-minute workday schedule.
Aside from the fact that anyone operating themselves on a fifteenminute day work schedule is an idiot. You can also only take one extended rest in a period of twelve hours.


23. Everyone playing the same class is generally superior to everyone playing a different class.
Except in rare instances, no it's not.


24. Powers often have ambiguous fluff, interfering with suspension of disbelief; see Bloody Path.
You lose this argument by mentioning bloody path, as it has fluff. Corner cases do not ruin the entire system.

Not so. I can make a single-class fighter that can do something different every turn.
But not effectively.


I was unaware I was obligated to do WotC's jobs for them. Whether or not I can do better doesn't make 4e more or less crappy.
It's called being a DM.


But at the other end of the power scale, by the time the characters reach high level there's nothing you can threaten them with, they were killing the toughest things in the game five levels ago. It makes 4e a level 20-25 game, not a level 30.
Eh, epic tier. You can still challenge the players.


So, your solution is to houserule away the crap, or do away with it? While that's all well and good, this isn't an argument about how to fix 4e, it's about why 4e as presented by WotC sucks. And skill challenges are a big part of it. On top of the mechanical problems, they're boring.
Eh, skill challenges.


Again, I'm not obligated to do their jobs.
Called being a DM.


It should have never been a problem in the first place.
Don't care about responding to this.


It's not about genre. 4e was supposed to be a solution to all the overpowered ease of 3.5, yet 4e core is child's play to break with just the player's handbook.
No it's not, and child's play is a bit strong of a phrase to use.


Same as the last one. The game shouldn't be that easy to break, yet it is.
Mongols were never a problem.


Yes, very much so. Most ranged weapons dealt mediocre damage, one guy with wings and a bow isn't going to TPK anyone in 3.5.
This isn't a problem in 4e.


Again, these problems are so glaringly obvious it makes you wonder just how much playtesting they did. If they didn;t have to fix the core rules, they could spend more time making splatbooks to bring in more money to keep Hasbro happy. WotC are their own worst enemy.
Congratulations, you've figured out that WotC's competence tends to vary wildly.


It's caused by 4e's inherent lack of versatility. In 3.5, DMs were free to attach whatever abilities they wanted to an NPC, make them whatever they needed to be. 4e has to rigidly defined roles to allow this.
Blatantly incorrect.


his one is more of an opinion, actually.
Don't care, not bothering.


The "tiring" thing is laughed at by anyone who's done any form of manual labor in his life. Giving nonmagical warrior types daily abilities is just insane.
I don't care about this, since I don't see daily powers as a problem.


Because it's just a sandstorm, elite soldiers shouldn't be able to be taken out by incliment weather.
They aren't.


Dude, it's magic healing powers for everyone. There is no way to justify that.
No it's not. HP does not always equal physical damage.


I was unaware reading was such a problem for people these days. And it's not like you're not allowed to open the book and double check how things work.
I don't know what you're complaining about now, so whatever.


There is little machanical difference between a lot of wizard "spells" and mundane ranged attacks, Fighter tricks, and a lot of other powers. It all keeps boiling down to multiplying rolls with a standard modifier, with maybe a secondary status effect tossed in. It's boring.
gj simplyfing range, defense targetted, keywords, hit effects, and effects to "everything's a roll with stuff added."


Then why call it "disintigrate" in the first place?
Fluff says it disintegrates, so whatever.


3.x had rules to adjucate this, nobody had to homebrew anything. It's sounding more and more like WotC wanting players to do the designer's jobs for them.
No it didn't. The rules amount to "homebrew it."


And yet, it was all in the 3.5 core books all at the initial release. Doesn't look like that much of a problem to me. Maybe if they spent more time giving players what they want rather than trying to be "revolutionary" it wouldn't be a problem.
Things need time to develop, deal with it. 4e's not supposed to be a 3.5e clone.


3.5 gave whole paragraphs to describe how spells work. 4e gives two scentences of fluff if you're lucky.
And mechanics. I much prefer what 4e does, namely because it gives the other nonspellcasting classes options.


Again, it should never have been an issue in the core rules.
Whatever, things happen.


It kills the willing suspension of disbelief if everyone runs on the same power countdown. "Hey, I'm Mr Fighter and I have three minor attacks I can do as often as I want, and two I can only do once a fight each!" "Really?" says Mr Wizard. "Me too! What a coincidence."
Key word, willing.


Try it sometime. A party of Fighters will grind through anything, with one or two multiclassing into ranger or cleric powers. The same goes for every other class. Just dip into a few other power pools, and everyone can play the same class.
I've tried it before. It's fun for one off games, but varied parties tend to do better.



Yet again, I am supposed to do their jobs for them. Am I the professional game designer/writer now? It's starting to feel like it's expected of me.
It's called being a DM. Alternately, let your players do it.

Mando Knight
2010-01-17, 01:14 AM
Responses to your DM's responses to my responses.

Not so. I can make a single-class fighter that can do something different every turn.
Show me.

But at the other end of the power scale, by the time the characters reach high level there's nothing you can threaten them with, they were killing the toughest things in the game five levels ago. It makes 4e a level 20-25 game, not a level 30.
Stop. Did you do your job? Did you use the monsters' abilities properly? Did you include a sufficient number of monsters for the encounter? Did you target the players intelligently? Others have been able to create threatening situations with encounters within only a level or two of the characters, so why can't you? If your encounters are being trounced regularly by a party of a much lower level, then you're apparently incapable of running the monsters well enough. You keep complaining about WotC not doing it's job, why can't you do yours?

It's not about genre. 4e was supposed to be a solution to all the overpowered ease of 3.5, yet 4e core is child's play to break with just the player's handbook.
And they fix it. Rangers can't one-shot Orcus anymore. Wizards have a harder time getting a -16 to enemy saves now. Paladins can mark more enemies. Double swords aren't by far the best weapon in existence anymore. In 3.5 you had almost none of that. And, perhaps, just perhaps, some of the things you consider a "break" in 4e is actually an intentional ability. Perhaps some of those things were put there on purpose. I don't know which ones you're talking about, so I can't pass judgment.

Most ranged weapons dealt mediocre damage, one guy with wings and a bow isn't going to TPK anyone in 3.5.
He is if there isn't anyone who can shoot him down. And a winged foe with a bow in 4e isn't going to TPK any party that's prepared to fight a flying enemy.

Again, these problems are so glaringly obvious it makes you wonder just how much playtesting they did. If they didn;t have to fix the core rules, they could spend more time making splatbooks to bring in more money to keep Hasbro happy. WotC are their own worst enemy.
No, that's not how it works. WotC isn't omniscient. They can try to figure out everything, but in the end they will always forget something. Those 70-ish pages of updates fix things in a way that WotC has never bothered to do before, even though there are dozens of gaping, glaring holes in 3.5 that nearly any veteran optimizer can point out without putting down his coffee.

It's caused by 4e's inherent lack of versatility. In 3.5, DMs were free to attach whatever abilities they wanted to an NPC, make them whatever they needed to be. 4e has to rigidly defined roles to allow this.
Eh? Where do you get that? The roles are assigned as per the needs of the character, not to restrict them. If a character blows things up from afar, it's likely an Artillery or Controller type character, depending on what else it does. If it comes in with armor and a big weapon, it's probably either a Brute or a Soldier. They're descriptions, and every role has monsters in them that have powers that would normally belong in a different role.

The "tiring" thing is laughed at by anyone who's done any form of manual labor in his life. Giving nonmagical warrior types daily abilities is just insane.
No, not when you think about it in a positive way. If you want it to look ludicrous, it will. But when it's a move that is just too hard to try more than once, it makes sense that you can pull it off only once a day.

Because it's just a sandstorm, elite soldiers shouldn't be able to be taken out by incliment weather.
Minions aren't elites. They're mooks. It's just plain common sense that a monster is resistant to standard hazards of its habitat, so ignore any damage to the minions caused by the sandstorm.

Dude, it's magic healing powers for everyone. There is no way to justify that.
It's not magic except when the magic guy does it. When it's the Fighter doing it, it's because he's just that tough, or he's finding some inner reserve of strength. Perhaps healing surges are just a measure of the character's ability to recover his stamina for the day.

I was unaware reading was such a problem for people these days. And it's not like you're not allowed to open the book and double check how things work.
It's efficiency. Smooth out the unnecessary variations in the system to make it work just as well with less effort.

There is little machanical difference between a lot of wizard "spells" and mundane ranged attacks, Fighter tricks, and a lot of other powers. It all keeps boiling down to multiplying rolls with a standard modifier, with maybe a secondary status effect tossed in. It's boring.
The mechanical similarity is just how the rules are set up. It's only boring if you stop thinking about how they are different, and wanting it to look boring to everyone else.

3.x had rules to adjucate this, nobody had to homebrew anything. It's sounding more and more like WotC wanting players to do the designer's jobs for them.
Adjudicate what? Homebrewing new spells? Do you expect WotC's dev team to be all-knowing benevolent deities who produce every rule in perfect form the first time, granting everything any group could ever need or want? If so, wake up.

And yet, it was all in the 3.5 core books all at the initial release. Doesn't look like that much of a problem to me. Maybe if they spent more time giving players what they want rather than trying to be "revolutionary" it wouldn't be a problem.
3.5 core spends not much more than one page each for classes without spells, and the spellcaster classes have a lot of overlap. There's no overlap between powers in 4e, so WotC has to publish what's roughly the equivalent of the entire Bard spell list for each class.

Again, it should never have been an issue in the core rules.
Not if it's something that was decided not necessary for the core rules. They can only put so much into each book for a given price. If they can't fit a secondary feature into a book, it gets cut until a later one. That's just how it works.

It kills the willing suspension of disbelief if everyone runs on the same power countdown. "Hey, I'm Mr Fighter and I have three minor attacks I can do as often as I want, and two I can only do once a fight each!" "Really?" says Mr Wizard. "Me too! What a coincidence."
No, you're not willing. It's just a mechanic. You could complain about HP, or BAB, or whatever else as being a mechanic that breaks your suspension of disbelief, but if you're complaining about suspension of disbelief because you dislike the mechanic, you're just obscuring the truth.

Try it sometime. A party of Fighters will grind through anything, with one or two multiclassing into ranger or cleric powers. The same goes for every other class. Just dip into a few other power pools, and everyone can play the same class.
Everyone can, but they need to dip into another class to do so. They also die to things that would be trivial for a party with a dedicated Controller or Leader. Again, this comes down to the DM's tactical capabilities and ability to balance encounters.

It's starting to feel like it's expected of me.
It always has been. DM, remember? It's part of the territory. Write the fluff for your own stuff.

...I'm starting to get the impression that he's just not cut out for the job.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-17, 09:03 PM
He's a better DM than I am. :smallfrown:

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-17, 10:23 PM
Responses from my friend, MandoKnight, to your responses (he helps me optimize my 4e characters, by the way):

[QUOTE]Show me.

3.5 fighters has enough feats to use Psionic feats (Wild Talent makes this possible), Combat Form feats, steal a martial maneuver or two, maybe Ki feats from PHB 2 (Stunning Atack makes this possible) and still have plenty of room for the Weapon Supremacy feat tree for general-purpose effectiveness.


Stop. Did you do your job? Did you use the monsters' abilities properly? Did you include a sufficient number of monsters for the encounter? Did you target the players intelligently? Others have been able to create threatening situations with encounters within only a level or two of the characters, so why can't you? If your encounters are being trounced regularly by a party of a much lower level, then you're apparently incapable of running the monsters well enough. You keep complaining about WotC not doing it's job, why can't you do yours?

DM control can only do so much if the math in on the player's side every time.


No, that's not how it works. WotC isn't omniscient. They can try to figure out everything, but in the end they will always forget something. Those 70-ish pages of updates fix things in a way that WotC has never bothered to do before, even though there are dozens of gaping, glaring holes in 3.5 that nearly any veteran optimizer can point out without putting down his coffee.

They're professional game designers who had months go go over the core books, there's no excuse.


Eh? Where do you get that? The roles are assigned as per the needs of the character, not to restrict them. If a character blows things up from afar, it's likely an Artillery or Controller type character, depending on what else it does. If it comes in with armor and a big weapon, it's probably either a Brute or a Soldier. They're descriptions, and every role has monsters in them that have powers that would normally belong in a different role.

exactly. You have these rigidly defined roles, whereas in 3.5 there were no roles. Meaning players were always facing an unknown enemy. It wasn't "He's a Brute so we do Attack Pattern Delta 4" or some crap.


No, not when you think about it in a positive way. If you want it to look ludicrous, it will. But when it's a move that is just too hard to try more than once, it makes sense that you can pull it off only once a day.

But that's just it, there's no such thing. No single act is so tiring you can only do it once a day.


It's not magic except when the magic guy does it. When it's the Fighter doing it, it's because he's just that tough, or he's finding some inner reserve of strength. Perhaps healing surges are just a measure of the character's ability to recover his stamina for the day.

You can dress up the proverbial **** twinkie all you want, it doesn't change what it is. You can grit your teeth and fight through the pain, sure. Happens all the time. Till something happens to aggrivate the wound. Like another fight.


It's efficiency. Smooth out the unnecessary variations in the system to make it work just as well with less effort.

Reading isn't effort.


The mechanical similarity is just how the rules are set up. It's only boring if you stop thinking about how they are different, and wanting it to look boring to everyone else.

And there was no such thing in 3.5. Spells never seemed like a fighter's attack.


Adjudicate what? Homebrewing new spells? Do you expect WotC's dev team to be all-knowing benevolent deities who produce every rule in perfect form the first time, granting everything any group could ever need or want? If so, wake up.

They have months to review and edit the books, it's not that hard to make the system at least difficult to break. And if breaking it is so easy, why didn't the playtesters pick up on it?


3.5 core spends not much more than one page each for classes without spells, and the spellcaster classes have a lot of overlap. There's no overlap between powers in 4e, so WotC has to publish what's roughly the equivalent of the entire Bard spell list for each class.

No, they outlined what the classes had access to. You then look up the chapter with those things in them.


Not if it's something that was decided not necessary for the core rules. They can only put so much into each book for a given price. If they can't fit a secondary feature into a book, it gets cut until a later one. That's just how it works.

They fit all that stuff into the core 3.5 book. I never heard anyone complain about it being massively incompletele.


No, you're not willing. It's just a mechanic. You could complain about HP, or BAB, or whatever else as being a mechanic that breaks your suspension of disbelief, but if you're complaining about suspension of disbelief because you dislike the mechanic, you're just obscuring the truth.

I don't complain about rules that make sense. Giving dailey powers to nonmagical characters is insane. Encounter, I can believe. Dailey? No way.


Everyone can, but they need to dip into another class to do so. They also die to things that would be trivial for a party with a dedicated Controller or Leader. Again, this comes down to the DM's tactical capabilities and ability to balance encounters.

And that's how 4e defies it's own class role idea. You don't actually need those roles filled.


It always has been. DM, remember? It's part of the territory. Write the fluff for your own stuff.

I didn't have to wtite new fluff for a 3.5 Fireball. Or Defensive Roll. Or 99% of anything else a player could do.

Artanis
2010-01-17, 10:59 PM
I think you forgot the end quote tag or something.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-17, 11:02 PM
I think you forgot the end quote tag or something.

I just copied what was in the PM he sent me.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-17, 11:02 PM
Convincing people like your DM is a waste of time. Arguing here about it is not only a waste of time, but bait for forum violations.

If you don't like the game he's doing, find another DM. If there isn't one, find likeminded individuals and do a rotating DMing. The only way to get better is to practice.

Reverent-One
2010-01-17, 11:05 PM
Ok, I have to ask, if a few shenanigans that mostly take till epic levels to pull off, which many, if not most character's won't reach, are inexcusable because "They have months to review and edit the books, it's not that hard to make the system at least difficult to break." and thus makes 4e suck, how the heck does he justify his preference of 3.5? Did not they have just as much time making 3.0 and created a system exponentially more broken from the get-go? And then they changed enough of the system to call it 3.5 and STILL couldn't come anywhere near fixing the fundamental flaws. It's like saying "Maine is too hot, it sucks. I prefer Florida." O.o

Mando Knight
2010-01-17, 11:51 PM
At this point, he's not even trying. He wants to be spoon-fed fluff that he likes, given a system of mechanics that looks completely different for spellcasters and not-spellcasters (which is horribly inefficient for anyone designing the thing), and won't properly listen to anything I suggest. He apparently has no respect for the work it takes to produce even what WotC has, and probably hasn't even really tried to do any of that kind of thing himself.

You're sure this guy is the best DM in your group? Has anyone else tried, or do you lack the time you need to put something together? I'm really curious now, as this guy really rubs me the wrong way.

Decoy Lockbox
2010-01-18, 01:33 AM
He's a better DM than I am. :smallfrown:

Dude is a total jackass, I'd never play in any of his games, and you deserve better. His posts make him sound like the comic book guy from the simpsons -- "Worst roleplaying game edition ever!"

When you posted that thing he said about "3.5 fighters are better than 4e fighters" I almost had a spit-take with the coke I was drinking. Is he not aware that 4e fighters were, at least the last time I checked CharOP, regarded as one of, if not the best class in the game?

EDIT: I'd like to add, as a huge 4e fan, that anyone who picked up 4e thinking that it would solve all the balance problems inherent in tabletop RPG gaming was being incredibly naive. I just see it as a more playable way to game than the previous editions, that's all. When 5th edition comes out, if it somehow makes it easier to tell stories of dragon slaying, dungeon looting and epic storylines in a game framework featuring in-depth tactical combat, then I'd drop 4e in a heartbeat. But until then...

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-18, 10:29 AM
At this point, he's not even trying. He wants to be spoon-fed fluff that he likes, given a system of mechanics that looks completely different for spellcasters and not-spellcasters (which is horribly inefficient for anyone designing the thing), and won't properly listen to anything I suggest. He apparently has no respect for the work it takes to produce even what WotC has, and probably hasn't even really tried to do any of that kind of thing himself.

You're sure this guy is the best DM in your group? Has anyone else tried, or do you lack the time you need to put something together? I'm really curious now, as this guy really rubs me the wrong way.

As I said before, he's not so much a DM as a gamemaster. He's the admin of the forum I frequent (you can reach it through the link in my sig). He promoted me to moderator, and he's the only one who contributes more to the games there than I do. He runs 11 of the more than twenty RPs there. Compared with him, my track record's pretty weak. He doesn't even really use any real game system that much in the RPs. None of us do. It's mostly free-form. We ended up getting into this argument because I was frustrated that there isn't more 4e play, and as a result, my D&D books, both 3.5 and 4e, are doing nothing except collecting dust in my room.

I've tried setting up an RL 4e game with some of my friends, and they claim I did a good job DMing, but it fell apart because no one's schedule was flexible enough to have a time where everyone could meet at once, and the only 4e RP I've tried to run online fell apart because I have no idea how to run a 4e style battle online. It's always when the battling comes around that I flounder.