Interesting article of 4E PH 3 (Psionics, New Multi Class System etc)


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Matthew Koelbl wrote:


These are all new options that the 4E gaming base is almost universally excited about.

And why are they excited about the new rules? Looks to me that the reason is that they are no longer content with the old rules and the reason is that they are starting to see the flaws in the old rules.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


These are all new options that the 4E gaming base is almost universally excited about.
And why are they excited about the new rules? Looks to me that the reason is that they are no longer content with the old rules and the reason is that they are starting to see the flaws in the old rules.

Oh come on, really? Players being excited over a new product is a sign that all the existing products are terrible? I had really thought you were arguing in good faith, too.

But ok. Ok, I'll bite. What flaws in the old rules are people seeing? Where are you seeing these discussions? I have seen a ton of threads on the new PHB3 content, and I don't think I saw a single mention in them that talked about being excited because of how much they hated the old stuff.

The old rules will continue to work just fine whether you use the new rules or not - as I specifically mentioned in my post. People are excited about the new rules because they want to play psionic characters. Because they like having more multiclassing options for their characters - something WotC promised from the very start of the game, and anticipated by those who wanted to push a little farther than the more sub-class nature of the existing multiclass system. People are excited because Runepriests sound fun. Because skill powers give them more options and let them do awesome things like slap someone out of being dominated, or blather about arcane gibberish to get past some guards.

In what way does that mean they are suddenly seeing flaws in the old system? In what way does this actually predict problems for the future of 4E?

You really are changing the goal-posts here. First you claimed that this was 4.5. I asked for you to support that - to explain how this is a fundamental shift in the game like 3.5 was. Instead, you try to change the topic to this proving that all previous content was flawed. Seriously, what's up with that?


Matthew Koelbl wrote:


They are optional in that they are character driven rules - a character is only a Hybrid if the players choose to be one.

A character is only a fighter, rogue, wizard, or cleric if the player chooses to be one. That's why saying "these rules are optional" is meaningless. All rules are optional.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
they fit solidly into the existing framework of the game.

We actually don't know that. All we know is that the core rules are getting more complex. In 3X, the core rules were in the PHB, DMG, and MM. In 4X, there are many PHBs, many DMGs, and many MMs. There's a much larger core rule set.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:


Except... how? Do you have any examples? Or are these entirely hypothetical problems? Like I said, if you genuinely see problems arising from them, I'm more than willing to acknowledge your concern. But... I don't see them.

At this point, my concerns are based on graph theory, game theory, systems theory, etc. One always wants to pay attention to the "glue" between subsystems. Multiclassing rules are one such "glue", but there are others which are being discussed as being changed here as well. So, let me put it this way..if you are sitting in your living room and notice that there is a foot thick of black smoke hanging at the ceiling, I can't tell you that your house is on fire, but you might want to check out your kitchen.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:


Look, you claimed that this is "4.5". I think the burden of proof is on you to show this is so.

You and I both know that it isn't really "4.5" until "4.5" is printed on the book cover. So, if you want proof, there isn't any. I'm just pointing at the foot thick of black smoke and saying "it looks like your house is on fire".


LilithsThrall wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


These are all new options that the 4E gaming base is almost universally excited about.
And why are they excited about the new rules? Looks to me that the reason is that they are no longer content with the old rules and the reason is that they are starting to see the flaws in the old rules.

So excitement about new additions must mean that the old material is flawed, even though you can't actually identify any flaws? Is that right? Are you sure that's how you want to play this?

I want you to think hard about game supplements you've been excited about in the past. Are you excited about the Pathfinder APG? If so, is your excitement due to flaws in the Pathfinder RPG rules? If it's not, could you do us the favor of considering that perhaps excitement is not an indication of displeasure?


LilithsThrall wrote:
We actually don't know that.

Many of us have been playing with skill powers, hybrid and psionics rules for months, thanks to having preview access to about half the PHB3 through D&D Insider. They fit pretty seamlessly into the existing 4e framework. I'm speaking from experience.

LilithsThrall wrote:
All we know is that the core rules are getting more complex. In 3X, the core rules were in the PHB, DMG, and MM. In 4X, there are many PHBs, many DMGs, and many MMs. There's a much larger core rule set.

Yeah, because there was only one PHB, DMG, and MM in 3.X. Unless you don't count the second round of core books (3.5), the PHB2, the DMG2, the MM2, MM3, MM4, or MM5.

Give me a break.


Scott Betts wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


These are all new options that the 4E gaming base is almost universally excited about.
And why are they excited about the new rules? Looks to me that the reason is that they are no longer content with the old rules and the reason is that they are starting to see the flaws in the old rules.

So excitement about new additions must mean that the old material is flawed, even though you can't actually identify any flaws? Is that right? Are you sure that's how you want to play this?

I want you to think hard about game supplements you've been excited about in the past. Are you excited about the Pathfinder APG? If so, is your excitement due to flaws in the Pathfinder RPG rules? If it's not, could you do us the favor of considering that perhaps excitement is not an indication of displeasure?

Let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.

Changes within subsystems of the rules, even adding new subsystems, are completely different from changing the glue between subsystems.

I never said that 4e was flawed because it was adding new classes or changing classes. But, here, we are discussing changes to the glue. That's an entirely different kind of change.

And beta testing -never- finds all the problems, please don't argue that it does.


Scott Betts wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
We actually don't know that.

Many of us have been playing with skill powers, hybrid and psionics rules for months, thanks to having preview access to about half the PHB3 through D&D Insider. They fit pretty seamlessly into the existing 4e framework. I'm speaking from experience.

LilithsThrall wrote:
All we know is that the core rules are getting more complex. In 3X, the core rules were in the PHB, DMG, and MM. In 4X, there are many PHBs, many DMGs, and many MMs. There's a much larger core rule set.

Yeah, because there was only one PHB, DMG, and MM in 3.X. Unless you don't count the second round of core books (3.5), the PHB2, the DMG2, the MM2, MM3, MM4, or MM5.

Give me a break.

You insist that these new changes aren't 4.5, so comparing the rule set to 3.0 and 3.5 combined is making your argument disingenuous.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
We actually don't know that.

Many of us have been playing with skill powers, hybrid and psionics rules for months, thanks to having preview access to about half the PHB3 through D&D Insider. They fit pretty seamlessly into the existing 4e framework. I'm speaking from experience.

LilithsThrall wrote:
All we know is that the core rules are getting more complex. In 3X, the core rules were in the PHB, DMG, and MM. In 4X, there are many PHBs, many DMGs, and many MMs. There's a much larger core rule set.

Yeah, because there was only one PHB, DMG, and MM in 3.X. Unless you don't count the second round of core books (3.5), the PHB2, the DMG2, the MM2, MM3, MM4, or MM5.

Give me a break.

You insist that these new changes aren't 4.5, so comparing the rule set to 3.0 and 3.5 combined is making your argument disingenuous.

I don't need to compare between the two. I did so because you explicitly used "3X" rather than simply "3.0" or "3.5", and then I tacked on 5 additional "core" books that were additions to D&D 3.5 (PHB2, DMG2, MM3, MM4, MM5). Either way you look at it, your argument doesn't hold water. All the editions have had additional "core" books added to them.


LilithsThrall wrote:

Let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.

Changes within subsystems of the rules, even adding new subsystems, are completely different from changing the glue between subsystems.

I never said that 4e was flawed because it was adding new classes or changing classes. But, here, we are discussing changes to the glue. That's an entirely different kind of change.

Could you please give us some examples of what the "changing the glue" is, in the PHB3? And explain to us exactly how it "changes the glue" between subsystems? And how this is in any way a departure from the precedent of 4e, or previous editions?

LilithsThrall wrote:
And beta testing -never- finds all the problems, please don't argue that it does.

The preview material was not beta testing. Preview material is presented as it will be printed in the final product. The finalized hybrid rules I played with were identical to those in the PHB3.

And either way, your argument appears to boil down to "This is bad rules bloat because despite extensive testing and months of play, a problem might arise in the future just like it could with any supplement, making the definition of 'bad rules bloat' so broad as to be meaningless."


Scott Betts wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
We actually don't know that.

Many of us have been playing with skill powers, hybrid and psionics rules for months, thanks to having preview access to about half the PHB3 through D&D Insider. They fit pretty seamlessly into the existing 4e framework. I'm speaking from experience.

LilithsThrall wrote:
All we know is that the core rules are getting more complex. In 3X, the core rules were in the PHB, DMG, and MM. In 4X, there are many PHBs, many DMGs, and many MMs. There's a much larger core rule set.

Yeah, because there was only one PHB, DMG, and MM in 3.X. Unless you don't count the second round of core books (3.5), the PHB2, the DMG2, the MM2, MM3, MM4, or MM5.

Give me a break.

You insist that these new changes aren't 4.5, so comparing the rule set to 3.0 and 3.5 combined is making your argument disingenuous.
I don't need to compare between the two. I did so because you explicitly used "3X" rather than simply "3.0" or "3.5", and then I tacked on 5 additional "core" books that were additions to D&D 3.5 (PHB2, DMG2, MM3, MM4, MM5). Either way you look at it, your argument doesn't hold water. All the editions have had additional "core" books added to them.

PHB2, DMG2, and MM2- aren't core in 3X

They are explicitly core in 4e, though.

You are right that I said 3X when I should have said 3.0 or 3.5, so I stand corrected on that point.


What's the point of this argument? LillithsThrall doesn't like 4E and will say something negative about anything that comes out. You have no chance of changing that. It doesn't matter how founded either argument is.


Scott Betts wrote:


Could you please give us some examples of what the "changing the glue" is, in the PHB3? And explain to us exactly how it "changes the glue" between subsystems? And how this is in any way a departure from the precedent of 4e, or previous editions?

Hybrid classes changes the rules of how two different classes are glued together to create a character. As such, it increases the number of ways that munchkins can twist the rules.

As for how this is different from previous versions of the game, it isn't. If you look at when the game system starts screwing around with the "glue", that's about the time that the version starts going down hill.

Scott Betts wrote:


The preview material was not beta testing. Preview material is presented as it will be printed in the final product. The finalized hybrid rules I played with were identical to those in the PHB3.

That's still beta testing. Beta testing does not mean "only rules which aren't the same as what is published".


LilithsThrall wrote:

PHB2, DMG2, and MM2- aren't core in 3X

They are explicitly core in 4e, though.

I don't see how that changes anything. Are you saying that because they didn't have the word "Core" printed on the front of the book, they are suddenly not a problem when it comes to rules bloat?


Scott Betts wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

PHB2, DMG2, and MM2- aren't core in 3X

They are explicitly core in 4e, though.

I don't see how that changes anything. Are you saying that because they didn't have the word "Core" printed on the front of the book, they are suddenly not a problem when it comes to rules bloat?

I'm saying that when they don't say "core", it is far easier for the GM to say "not in my game".


LilithsThrall wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Could you please give us some examples of what the "changing the glue" is, in the PHB3? And explain to us exactly how it "changes the glue" between subsystems? And how this is in any way a departure from the precedent of 4e, or previous editions?
Hybrid classes changes the rules of how two different classes are glued together to create a character. As such, it increases the number of ways that munchkins can twist the rules.

Yes, it does. Similarly, adding a new feat can change the way any number of disparate rules elements can interact, providing new ways for munchkins to twist the rules.

What I'm getting from you is that adding new options is always bad rules bloat, and that in order to avoid bad rules bloat, companies should never publish any new options.

LilithsThrall wrote:
That's still beta testing.

No, it's not. By the time the preview material is shared with everyone, it is already finalized. The opportunity for them to change the final material based on feedback has passed, which is the point of beta testing.

Now, you could certainly argue that they might use feedback from preview material to make changes after the printing, but the same could be said of the actual printed book, which in turn means that you consider everything to be beta testing.


Scott Betts wrote:


Yes, it does. Similarly, adding a new feat can change the way any number of disparate rules elements can interact, providing new ways for munchkins to twist the rules.

You're right. Depending on the feat, a feat can change the glue. I don't think those kinds of feats are a good idea either.

Scott Betts wrote:


What I'm getting from you is that adding new options is always bad rules bloat, and that in order to avoid bad rules bloat, companies should never publish any new options.

Absolutely not. That's not what I said and I don't know how you got that. I explicitly stated that changes within a subsystem or adding a new subsystem are not the same as changing the glue. Adding a new subsystem is adding a new option. I pointed out that I never said that adding the new classes in PHB2 were a problem - that's adding new options.

Scott Betts wrote:


No, it's not. By the time the preview material is shared with everyone, it is already finalized. The opportunity for them to change the final material based on feedback has passed, which is the point of beta testing.

If the rules are locked in, then, you're right. It isn't beta testing.

However, it still remains true that this preview time you are talking about isn't going to find all the problems. You're group of a couple of hundred players previewing the game aren't smarter than a couple of thousand players who are actively trying to break the game.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Absolutely not. That's not what I said and I don't know how you got that. I explicitly stated that changes within a subsystem or adding a new subsystem are not the same as changing the glue. Adding a new subsystem is adding a new option. I pointed out that I never said that adding the new classes in PHB2 were a problem - that's adding new options.

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how the hybrid rules (or anything else in the PHB3) is not a set of new options. The old multiclass rules didn't disappear. The hybrid rules aren't there to replace them. They're not there to tell you that your character now works differently. They're there to provide a different set of options for character creation.

Are you arguing that these new options are dangerous because they create the potential for imbalance? WotC has been doing a fine job of correcting the balance issues that have arisen. If I were to create a list of flaws with 4e, concerns over munchkinery would not rank very high.

LilithsThrall wrote:

If the rules are locked in, then, you're right. It isn't beta testing.

However, it still remains true that this preview time you are talking about isn't going to find all the problems. You're group of a couple of hundred players previewing the game aren't smarter than a couple of thousand players who are actively trying to break the game.

D&D Insider has tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands, at this point) of active subscribers, all of whom have access to this preview material.

I'm really not sure where you're going with this.


Scott Betts wrote:


I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how the hybrid rules (or anything else in the PHB3) is not a set of new options.

You asked me if I was against options, I pointed out that I'm not.

However, being accepting of options does not mean being accepting of all options. So, your new argument doesn't make sense.

Scott Betts wrote:


Are you arguing that these new options are dangerous because they create the potential for imbalance? WotC has been doing a fine job of correcting the balance issues that have arisen. If I were to create a list of flaws with 4e, concerns over munchkinery would not rank very high.

A game is easy to balance when it is new. As the game gets older, the problems with existing rules start to emerge.

Scott Betts wrote:


D&D Insider has tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands, at this point) of active subscribers, all of whom have access to this preview material.

I'm certain that the number of people who are going to get the game after the preview is a much, much larger number than the number of people who have previewed the game. So, my point still stands.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how the hybrid rules (or anything else in the PHB3) is not a set of new options.

You asked me if I was against options, I pointed out that I'm not.

However, being accepting of options does not mean being accepting of all options. So, your new argument doesn't make sense.

Right, what I'm trying to figure out is what distinguishes options you feel are good from options you feel are bad, and exactly why that disparity exists.

LilithsThrall wrote:
A game is easy to balance when it is new. As the game gets older, the problems with existing rules start to emerge.

I've actually seen fewer real balance problems arise from the newer books than from the original core books. The first PHB is still receiving some very clamored-for updates (Demigod, save penalty stacking, blood mages, etc.) even as recently as this month, while newer supplements are much less in need.

LilithsThrall wrote:
I'm certain that the number of people who are going to get the game after the preview is a much, much larger number than the number of people who have previewed the game. So, my point still stands.

Yes, that's true. Past a certain point, though, you can be assured that if any remaining big issues exist, they are combinations that are utilized by so small a percentage of your player base as to essentially be non-issues.

Look, even if you were to identify a real problem with one of the new sub-systems, WotC releases updates on a monthly basis. That's covering as many bases as you possibly can, right there - they have in-house development, hybrid testing, hybrid preview, and then the ability to make additional changes after the material is released. People who are actively playing the game are not complaining about out-of-control balance issues, because the ones that still exist are few and far between (the one big one I can think of is ranger damage output, but that's just a matter of small degrees of damage difference between them and other strikers).


Scott Betts wrote:


Right, what I'm trying to figure out is what distinguishes options you feel are good from options you feel are bad, and exactly why that disparity exists.

As I said, things that change the glue are what concerns me.

LilithsThrall wrote:


I've actually seen fewer real balance problems arise from the newer books than from the original core books. The first PHB is still receiving some very clamored-for updates (Demigod, save penalty stacking, blood mages, etc.) even as recently as this month, while newer supplements are much less in need.

But the game is still only a few years old, It's still a baby.

It's too early to see the -really- bad problems.

LilithsThrall wrote:


Past a certain point, though, you can be assured that if any remaining big issues exist, they are combinations that are utilized by so small a percentage of your player base as to essentially be non-issues.

I don't think that's true. As soon as the small percentage of the player base finds a problem, they'll share it with everyone else. Never underestimate the ability for munchkins to innovate - particularly in a large, complex rule base.


Look, I don't usually bother commenting on "edition wars" threads, but I just gotta say...

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Take note that very little is being added in terms of new rules. They aren't redefining the game as 3.5 did - all they are doing are presenting some new options.

......WHAT!?!?!


Can'tFindthePath wrote:


Look, I don't usually bother commenting on "edition wars" threads, but I just gotta say...

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Take note that very little is being added in terms of new rules. They aren't redefining the game as 3.5 did - all they are doing are presenting some new options.
......WHAT!?!?!

I believe he means actual changes made to the system - parts where the new game essentially says "Your character may have worked like that, but now it works like this." Things like the changes to the skill system, changes to existing spells (Haste, for instance), etc. This is not the same as simply adding new options, which is what additional 4e books do - your character continues to function exactly the same as he used to, but you now have more options to explore when creating a new character or leveling up.


LilithsThrall wrote:
I don't think that's true. As soon as the small percentage of the player base finds a problem, they'll share it with everyone else. Never underestimate the ability for munchkins to innovate - particularly in a large, complex rule base.

Hmm, that's true. I remember when the first handful of people discovered the combo that allowed Pun-Pun, and it wasn't long before every gamer who'd ever visited the boards knew about it.

If a "broken" combination does become popular, however, that will make it larger on WotC's radar and significantly increased the likelihood that it will be corrected in a timely manner.


Scott Betts wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
I don't think that's true. As soon as the small percentage of the player base finds a problem, they'll share it with everyone else. Never underestimate the ability for munchkins to innovate - particularly in a large, complex rule base.

Hmm, that's true. I remember when the first handful of people discovered the combo that allowed Pun-Pun, and it wasn't long before every gamer who'd ever visited the boards knew about it.

If a "broken" combination does become popular, however, that will make it larger on WotC's radar and significantly increased the likelihood that it will be corrected in a timely manner.

Fixing problems by adding new stuff generally creates even more new problems.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
I don't think that's true. As soon as the small percentage of the player base finds a problem, they'll share it with everyone else. Never underestimate the ability for munchkins to innovate - particularly in a large, complex rule base.

Hmm, that's true. I remember when the first handful of people discovered the combo that allowed Pun-Pun, and it wasn't long before every gamer who'd ever visited the boards knew about it.

If a "broken" combination does become popular, however, that will make it larger on WotC's radar and significantly increased the likelihood that it will be corrected in a timely manner.

Fixing problems by adding new stuff generally creates even more new problems.

The fixes I'm referring to are the errata/updates that WotC releases on a monthly basis. They contain the change, the reason for the change, and the full re-printed rules text of the revised rule element.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:
glue

This is an honest query.

What is the "glue" you are referring too?

It would help (I believe) the discussion to evolve from "he said, she said" to something constructive. What fundamental core system is endangered by PHB3?

Yes adding options adds the possibility of player-abuse, as seen in 3.5e. Unforeseen combinations arise that cause the balance of the players to shift. Other than (as stated by Scott) not publishing anything other than a single book there isn't a lot that can be done.

WotC response to this "bloat" issue is to have a very effect "ambulance at the bottom of the cliff" in their monthly update releases and DDI, we can't really expect or ask for more.

S.


Stefan Hill wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
glue

This is an honest query.

What is the "glue" you are referring too?

If you'll look about six of my posts back, you'll find an answer to this.


Stefan Hill wrote:
WotC response to this "bloat" issue is to have a very effect "ambulance at the bottom of the cliff"

Haha, I've never heard that phrase used before. I like it.


Scott Betts wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:


Look, I don't usually bother commenting on "edition wars" threads, but I just gotta say...

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Take note that very little is being added in terms of new rules. They aren't redefining the game as 3.5 did - all they are doing are presenting some new options.
......WHAT!?!?!
I believe he means actual changes made to the system - parts where the new game essentially says "Your character may have worked like that, but now it works like this." Things like the changes to the skill system, changes to existing spells (Haste, for instance), etc. This is not the same as simply adding new options, which is what additional 4e books do - your character continues to function exactly the same as he used to, but you now have more options to explore when creating a new character or leveling up.

Ah, I see. I'm sure you are right about that. Still, "redefined the game" is pretty strong language for adjusting a few spells and class abilities to make the game play better.


Scott Betts wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:


Look, I don't usually bother commenting on "edition wars" threads, but I just gotta say...

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Take note that very little is being added in terms of new rules. They aren't redefining the game as 3.5 did - all they are doing are presenting some new options.
......WHAT!?!?!
I believe he means actual changes made to the system - parts where the new game essentially says "Your character may have worked like that, but now it works like this." Things like the changes to the skill system, changes to existing spells (Haste, for instance), etc. This is not the same as simply adding new options, which is what additional 4e books do - your character continues to function exactly the same as he used to, but you now have more options to explore when creating a new character or leveling up.

Ah, I see. I'm sure you are correct. Still, "redefined the game" are pretty strong words when referring to 'adjusting a few spells and class abilities, and cleaning up most of the prestige class slop'....IMO

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
glue

This is an honest query.

What is the "glue" you are referring too?

If you'll look about six of my posts back, you'll find an answer to this.

Drat, stupid forum ate my post... <grrrr>

What I said was;

Add any two (or more) classes in 4e together and it's likely to you end up with something neither more or less "mechanically combat effect" than it's parents. This stems from damage potential similarity of the various class (groups) in 4e.

Dang post eating forum...

S.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Dang post eating forum...

To be honest if it is hampering posts to this thread, I have to thank the post eating monster.


LilithsThrall wrote:

I never meant to give you the impression that I like 4e. I'd rather claw my eyes out with a rusty garden fork.

Then why post on the 4E board? Why not just ignore it exist and stay happy.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:


Look, I don't usually bother commenting on "edition wars" threads, but I just gotta say...

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Take note that very little is being added in terms of new rules. They aren't redefining the game as 3.5 did - all they are doing are presenting some new options.
......WHAT!?!?!

As Scott points out, I'm mainly just talking about what 3.5 meant for previous material. The 3.5 Player's Handbook obseleted the 3.0 Player's Handbook - it made direct (and relatively significant) changes to the material, such that the best approach for continued play was to just use the 3.5 PHB and everything that came after it.

I'm not making any value judgements on that in any way, I'm just pointing out that it isn't remotely comparable to the current situation - the PHB3 doesn't render any existing material obselete. It just adds to the game, precisely in the same fashion all other supplements have.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Ah, I see. I'm sure you are correct. Still, "redefined the game" are pretty strong words when referring to 'adjusting a few spells and class abilities, and cleaning up most of the prestige class slop'....IMO

No, yeah, you are totally correct here. Poorly worded and hastily written on my part, and my total apologies for doing so! What I should have said was probably, "redefined core elements of the game", in that it made actual changes to existing material, as compared to simply adding new options (the situation being compared to in this thread.)

It was definitely true that 3.5 and 3.0 were fundamentally the same game - and, indeed, I knew people that didn't even notice the difference, and played with some players with one PHB and some with the other, simply because they didn't have characters involved in a lot of the big changes that took place.

Still, by and large, most people migrated to 3.5 in full, and I will certainly stand by the view that what it did was a very different scenario than what is taking place right now.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
I don't think that's true. As soon as the small percentage of the player base finds a problem, they'll share it with everyone else. Never underestimate the ability for munchkins to innovate - particularly in a large, complex rule base.

Hmm, that's true. I remember when the first handful of people discovered the combo that allowed Pun-Pun, and it wasn't long before every gamer who'd ever visited the boards knew about it.

If a "broken" combination does become popular, however, that will make it larger on WotC's radar and significantly increased the likelihood that it will be corrected in a timely manner.

Fixing problems by adding new stuff generally creates even more new problems.

You keep making statements like this. "This behavior generally causes more problems." "Changes to the glue of a system can be problematic."

But... there is no real weight to such vague and undefined claims. We haven't seen any problems created by adding new stuff or fixing old problems. You mention the glue, but... no glue is being changed. Note that the hybrid rules involve complete hybrid entries for any classes being used - you have to use those hybrid entries, you can't just pick and choose elements from two classes and past them together. They no more fundamentally alter the glue of the game than adding new classes does so.

I mean, let's say we acknowledge your concern. Things like this could be a good reason to fear hybrids - I was worried when I first heard the general concept of them. But the execution completely won me over. They are amazingly well balanced. The potential for abuse is almost entirely mitigated. Sure, there are some potent combos - but the same is true without them in the picture at all. The most potent optimizations available in 4E don't involve hybrids at all.

They have seen a ton of use and analysis, and the overall conclusion is that they are very well balanced. You are certainly entitled to your concern, but no one playing the actual game shares it, and I think that speaks for itself.

Liberty's Edge

Blazej wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Dang post eating forum...
To be honest if it is hampering posts to this thread, I have to thank the post eating monster.

I know these repetitive themed threads can be annoying. But, I was a 4e-hater when 4e first arrived. It was threads such as this that made me determined to give 4e a good go so I could response to 4e-crusaders with "well I played and I was right, 4e does suck". Unfortunately after I played for a while I actually found I enjoyed the game immensely. So, and Scott can attest to this, I have found I needed to eat my words rather than, as mentioned by LillithsThrall, scratch my eyes out with some sort of rusty gardening tool.

S.


I haven't seen them in play yet, but my initial instinct is to distrust the hybrid rules. Personally I'm perfectly happy with MC feats, especially giving away free power-swap feats to PCs with the appropriate MC feat.

PS: As much as .5 editions suck, I'm beginning to think that 4.5 wouldn't be such a horrible thing. Our errata is now 88 pages long; some of it I couldn't care less about (skill challenges). But some of the problems that have surfaced since the game's release the errata hasn't even touched (Expertise & defense boosters). I think the wizard class would be a whole lot different, and better, if it were revised using the design clarity that the controller role lacked at 4e's start.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I haven't seen them in play yet, but my initial instinct is to distrust the hybrid rules. Personally I'm perfectly happy with MC feats, especially giving away free power-swap feats to PCs with the appropriate MC feat.

PS: As much as .5 editions suck, I'm beginning to think that 4.5 wouldn't be such a horrible thing. Our errata is now 88 pages long; some of it I couldn't care less about (skill challenges). But some of the problems that have surfaced since the game's release the errata hasn't even touched (Expertise & defense boosters). I think the wizard class would be a whole lot different, and better, if it were revised using the design clarity that the controller role lacked at 4e's start.

If I had my way (and I hate to throw more fuel on this particular fire), I'd like to see it handled much in the same way that updates in WoW are - the subscription fee pays for a constant stream of updates, many of which make significant changes to the game based on experience as that game evolves. Now, this has some feasibility problems, especially in that the changes to the game are largely handled by the game in WoW, whereas a human DM needs to handle them in D&D, but the groundwork being laid by D&D Insider is certainly making this particular avenue of escape from the edition treadmill a little more practical.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
PS: As much as .5 editions suck, I'm beginning to think that 4.5 wouldn't be such a horrible thing. Our errata is now 88 pages long; some of it I couldn't care less about (skill challenges). But some of the problems that have surfaced since the game's release the errata hasn't even touched (Expertise & defense boosters). I think the wizard class would be a whole lot different, and better, if it were revised using the design clarity that the controller role lacked at 4e's start.

There is certainly plenty of stuff I'd change if I had a chance to revise the whole edition, but I imagine its that way for everyone. :) The 82 page errata seems a lot heftier than it actually is, though - and I'm actually pretty happy with the Wizard these days. It's big initial weakness was At-Wills, and it has had some solid options these days.

But yeah, Expertise? I want to smack whatever designer came up with that and have continued to keep it in the system. Terrible idea born out of backlash to a largely nonexistent problem, poorly executed several times over. I'm less bothered by the defense feats, but still dislike any 'must have' feats floating around in the game.

Goes to show even a 4E fan can have things to complain about. :) The rest of the system I'm pretty happy with, though! I don't think a full revamp would serve much good - spot-fixing small problems seems a much better approach, at least thus far.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I haven't seen them in play yet, but my initial instinct is to distrust the hybrid rules. Personally I'm perfectly happy with MC feats, especially giving away free power-swap feats to PCs with the appropriate MC feat.

I've seen the Hybrid as one of the players in our group runs one. Nothing to be really concerned about in my experience. What was created was a fighter/ranger. Pretty much just another Melee Striker in my experience, on par with the parties fighter, a little more mobile and hits a little harder but a little less staying power and AC not quite as good - my cleric is hauling this guys ass out of the fire on a regular basis.


LilithsThrall wrote:


But the game is still only a few years old, It's still a baby.
It's too early to see the -really- bad problems.

Will if the big problems will wait another 6 years or so it won't be an issue at all as we'll have moved on to 5th.

Actually I don't buy this for a moment - game breaking problems get noticed in some reasonable period of time or they are simply not game breaking problems.

LilithsThrall wrote:


I don't think that's true. As soon as the small percentage of the player base finds a problem, they'll share it with everyone else. Never underestimate the ability for munchkins to innovate - particularly in a large, complex rule base.

Pretty much any real cool combo that gets found by the optimizers gets nerfed by WotC errata in a fairly timely manner. In fact if you do have an obscure game breaking combo you had best guard that secret and never breath a word of it - if your babbling on about it high and low its going to come to WotCs attention and you can pretty much bank on your combo being nerfed.

Being a Munchkin is a high stress job these days - you have to find the broken combo and implement it and then you usually only get to play with it for a month before it gets nerfed and you have to race off to find another broken combo knowing full well that it'll probably be nerfed in a month.


Stefan Hill wrote:

I know these repetitive themed threads can be annoying. But, I was a 4e-hater when 4e first arrived. It was threads such as this that made me determined to give 4e a good go so I could response to 4e-crusaders with "well I played and I was right, 4e does suck". Unfortunately after I played for a while I actually found I enjoyed the game immensely. So, and Scott can attest to this, I have found I needed to eat my words rather than, as mentioned by LillithsThrall, scratch my eyes out with some sort of rusty gardening tool.

S.

The threads themselves don't bother me directly, it is just that it always seems that, in threads in these forums and elsewhere, I'm not going to get away with reading the thread without my game of choice being insulted by someone who really dislikes 4th Edition/Pathfinder/Wizards of the Coast/Paizo. I would count myself lucky if a poster doesn't decide to insult anyone (including me) for playing the hated game just because how often that pops up.

Then I get to watch as sides getting drawn out. I might see someone dismissing an insulting poster on one side for being so filled with bile, but then defending another insulting poster just because he agrees on which of the games rules and which of them drools.

Both of which I don't point to anything here at the moment, but it is a matter of time before it happens I think.

And I guess while I am posting in the thread anyway...

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

Pretty much any real cool combo that gets found by the optimizers gets nerfed by WotC errata in a fairly timely manner. In fact if you do have an obscure game breaking combo you had best guard that secret and never breath a word of it - if your babbling on about it high and low its going to come to WotCs attention and you can pretty much bank on your combo being nerfed.

Being a Munchkin is a high stress job these days - you have to find the broken combo and implement it and then you usually only get to play with it for a month before it gets nerfed and you have to race off to find another broken combo knowing full well that it'll probably be nerfed in a month.

While this for the most part is true, it does assume that a game where both the player's and DM often check for updates to errata.

In the normal game, I would suggest that if you use a broken combo, but use it such that you don't draw attention to yourself, it is likely no one is going to care.

If you apply the combo such that it does disturb the balance, creates significant issues, and otherwise breaks the game, even if there is no actual errata on it the DM is going to nullify the combo anyway. I would suggest that the steady inclusion of errata doesn't incredibly impact games or Munchkins.

But of course, in reference to the previous comment, that still means that if word spreads of a character breaking combo, I do not believe that it would destroy the game or really harm the game significantly. The game is going to work fine.


Oddly enough, as a 4E hater, I kind of like the PHB3. The ability to use what is effectively an encounter power more than once in a single combat, rather than having a power that just doesn't work in one combat or another answers one of the serious problems I had with the system when it first came out. If anyone ever convinces me to try the game again, I will probably play something psionic. More at will powers and the ability to boost them to encounter powers (and to choose which ones I do or do not boost) is exactly the kind of option I like. If this option had existed when they first came out with the system my group might be playing it instead of Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sebastian wrote:

OKAY, SERIOUSLY, SHUT THE f!&! UP ABOUT THE EDITION WARS. GO FIND SOME PLACE ELSE TO HAVE THIS STUPID f!&!ING DEBATE FOR THE 982ND TIME.

GOOD GOD, AM I SICK OF THIS s*!!. IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS, YOU EITHER LIKE IT, OR DON'T. NO ONE CARES HOW YOU FEEL, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND, SO JUST KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

Shouting at people to tell them to stop shouting works so well....

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


Pretty much any real cool combo that gets found by the optimizers gets nerfed by WotC errata in a fairly timely manner. In fact if you do have an obscure game breaking combo you had best guard that secret and never breath a word of it - if your babbling on about it high and low its going to come to WotCs attention and you can pretty much bank on your combo being nerfed.

It's a lost cause, sooner or later someone will want thier fifteen minutes of fame and post "The Great Discovery". Posting a combo that specifically gets nerfed by WOTC? That's the Nobel Prize of Munchkining!


Zexsudel wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

I never meant to give you the impression that I like 4e. I'd rather claw my eyes out with a rusty garden fork.

Then why post on the 4E board? Why not just ignore it exist and stay happy.

The thread wasn't originally on the 4e boards and that's when I made my first post.

My second post was an accident in that I didn't realize that the thread had been moved.
My posts after that were replying to other people who asked for further elucidation on my earlier posts.


Blazej wrote:


The threads themselves don't bother me directly, it is just that it always seems that, in threads in these forums and elsewhere, I'm not going to get away with reading the thread without my game of choice being insulted by someone who really dislikes 4th Edition/Pathfinder/Wizards of the Coast/Paizo. I would count myself lucky if a poster doesn't decide to insult anyone (including me) for playing the hated game just because how often that pops up.

I promise you that if you go to the WotC forums to discuss 4e, I won't follow you to post bad things about 4e.

I try to stay out of 4e forums (this case was an accident).
What I'd like to know is why people who are pro-4e are constantly peddling that crap in forums which aren't about 4e.


LilithsThrall wrote:

PHB2, DMG2, and MM2- aren't core in 3X

They are explicitly core in 4e, though.

They are core, but not in the sense that they must be used at all times. Core, in 4E, means that the designers are making everything compatible. So you will be able to drop warforged into your Forgotten Realms game or you will be able to take game concepts from the upcoming Dark Sun campaign setting and use them in your Eberron game or whatever. They are trying to design everything to work together if someone chooses to do so. Previous editions had separate rules that sometimes collided when dropped into different settings. Dark Suns races in 2E had different ability modifiers, for example.

4E PHBs and other books (DMG 2, AV 2, MM2, etc.) are exactly as they were in previous editions, more options. Just as in previous editions you can play with the minimum three books, or you can expand your collection. In 3.5, if someone wanted to play a duskblade, they needed to get the PHB 2. Does that make it a "core" book?

Also, the designers have never hidden the fact that they were going to expand on the 4E mechanics, bringing in new options. The advent of the psionic mechanics and the upcoming Dark Sun campaign setting are both examples of them taking the 4E rules set in new directions. These directions, though, still follow the basic precepts already put down.


mouthymerc wrote:


They are core, but not in the sense that they must be used at all times.

Nothing must be used at all times. That's what rule 0 is about. But that doesn't mean that there is no core. And with it being core, the GM has to say 'no' to core rules, not just 'no'. That increases conflict and misunderstandings.

mouthymerc wrote:
Also, the designers have never hidden the fact that they were going to expand on the 4E mechanics, bringing in new options. The advent of the psionic mechanics and the upcoming Dark Sun campaign setting are both examples of them taking the 4E rules set in new directions. These directions, though, still follow the basic precepts already put down.

Your point?

51 to 100 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Interesting article of 4E PH 3 (Psionics, New Multi Class System etc) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.