A subtle reminder from wizards.(or not so subtle)

[Aegeri]

All the mathcraft in the world doesn't trump actual play.

I'll give someone rolling 4 8's on 4d8, yet you won't give me rolling 5,6 on a single recharge power in the same situation? At the same time, I've actually TPKed a party with a dragon doing exactly this with a surprise round. It's a brutal, short and immensely violent fight. All it took was one lucky recharge.

But in any event, my "mathcraft" is actually more reliable than those claiming a surprise round, rolling max damage twice and heavily mauled PCs make a purple worm challenging. There is a pretty big hole in that logic, but again it's more the fact that if I take something that is designed a lot better - the brown dragon - the result is a crushing one sided TPK in that scenario. With very little actual luck involved either.

Both wound up interesting and fun. I wound up with a nearly dead wizard in the worm's gullet, and the rogue on the way down before the rest took him down.

Looking at your party, I still can't fathom how it dies to a purple worm unless it is horribly put together. Or you're doing things like putting in really one-sided ambushes, which admittedly is a tactic one can do but it is so immensely swingy.

It's not difficult to build a party to take down a specific solo.

Secret to beating the purple worm: Take winged horde.

Problem solves itself after that.

The Purple Worm can also be used effectively to challenge a party. It is not "horribly broken and beyond repair." I'll agree, it needs a little love to be useful right out of the box, but it can still be used. Your statement was that it's worthless, and couldn't be used in a decent encounter. I made an encounter that was decent.

I disagree your encounter was decent, the number of powers and ways of breaking it that I showed you is proof to the contrary.

Now you claim it has inferior damage output. That, my friend, is moving the goalpost.

No it's not. I've been pointing this out for some time now.

The problem is his damage is pitiful. A poorly optimized fighter with 10 con by level 16 has (6*15+11) 101 HP. It takes a lot of rounds to grind that down to bloodied with 2d8+7 damage. Especially when we factor in temporary HP - say the Paladin is Hospitalier and then the Purple Worm is instantly boned to never doing damage.

From this post on the previous page. If you're going to accuse me of a dishonest debating tactic, I would suggest you read my argument so you actually know where I planted them originally first. You could go back further and find this point.

2) Too little damage, so they cannot even generally threaten PCs anyway - especially because they often have terrible action economy to face a party of 5 players.

Would you like me to find more examples of my completely consistent argument, of which I haven't changed the core points I've been making in pages now or does this suffice to demonstrate I am not shifting any goalposts?

Edit: Actually that is way too snippy and unfair to you. My point though I think is sound, I've gone on and on about damage for pages now. I'm certain some people here will be committing mass suicide in protest whenever I write the word "Damage" in a post again in future. How on earth is pointing out the immensely suboptimal damage it does suddenly changing the goalposts, when it's one of my primary points and complaints about the monster to begin with? It's a critical argument, I don't have a goal without it to begin with and then when combined with immensely poor action economy - that is the core argument.

They don't potentially remove a PC from the fight entirely. Different monsters for different circumstances.

You disagree that a PC that is blind and stunned isn't "removed" from the fight? That's definitely not how PCs regard being stunned. What's better, being swallowed and being able to make attacks, or being stunned and ripped to pieces with nothing you can do about it? I know what I'd take and I know how I like to design powers too (pure action denial is something I dislike now in general - but that's another topic!).

If MM1 solos are flawed and broken, then I must have been doing something wrong that first year, because I used them a lot, and they worked fine.

So did I, it was called my players not really knowing how the system worked. Everyone was learning how to play, including myself and while I noticed solos were becoming increasingly ineffective this took some time to develop. It wasn't really until after the first year of DnD I started seeing "Team forced movement" and "Radiant Mafia" become a part of my regular 4E games.

Do you really think that the game balance is the same for monsters from the original MM, with PCs being more aware of their options and how to play the game than when they were learning? Your arguments haven't done anything to really show they aren't flawed and broken at all. While I've got rock solid "mathcraft" that shows otherwise - in that things have changed a lot.

Like your example party, if I make that paladin a hospitalier if the purple worm doesn't attack him he's never getting through any PCs temporary HP granted to him. That's not building to beat a specific monster, that's just building a generally effective character.

Edit: Okay it's actually better than I thought as its not temporary HP it's actually real HP. Point still stands though.

 

[IronWolf]

Excellent post, you've put to words what I have tried to say in other threads.

As much as I keep hearing it said that Essentials isn't a new edition of the rules, I have to respectfully disagree. Even if the people who are making the game claim otherwise.

The thing is, I know why WotC would not want to market Essentials as a new edition of the game, largely due to the fiasco that 3.5 became and their reactions to how things would be different this time around.

Exactly, WotC marketing will avoid calling this a revision at all costs. It does not behoove them to call it a revision and risk even further fallout akin to the 3.0 to 3.5 days. This is actually a case of WotC being smart and learning from past mistakes without the need to stifle 4e development.

My point is both that the Essential's edition is a new edition for the game and also that things are different this time. The Essentials are the first in-print version of what 4E has become. Since launch there have been a lot of changes to the mechanics (skill challenges, actions, stealth to name just a few) to classes (almost all of the classes have had major changes to their powers) and monsters (again, major changes to design philosophy here). In fact, I'd say that the 4E of today is as least as different from 3.0 to 3.5.

Yes, the Essentials version has many changes since the 4e ruleset. And while WotC is not calling it a revision that doesn't change the fact that this print of the ruleset has many changes (i.e. revisions) from the original ruleset.

The difference is, and why I'd say "don't have kittens!" over this, is that we've been in the loop for each of these changes. Imagine 3.5 and how it would have been received if each step along the way the changes were made available in small chunks online. The difference, and why 3.5 made such a bad taste in (some) people's mouths, is because the changes were dropped in the form of revised rulebooks in everyone's lap. If the same changes were made, but we had a compendium available the whole time, there would be much less concern.

Exactly. Another case of WotC learning from past mistakes. Instead of people fighting the notion that this is a revision of rules, they should accept it and instead be lauding WotC for having learned from past mistakes and keeping the community more in the loop as the ruleset has morphed to Essentials. For some reason being labeled a revision has been loaded with undue baggage and people are fighting that instead of just accepting it is a revision, just a revision that WotC has managed to roll out in a smoother fashion than going from 3.0 to 3.5.

So Essentials is the first time you can buy the revised 4E rules, but those rules are already available to you right now, just not in fully printed form. Is Essentials a new edition of the rules? I would definitely say yes, but it's also a new edition done right, where previous material isn't made irrelevant.

Yes. WotC has succeeded in morphing the rules in a more gradual manner while people were in the loop to the point of now printing a set of revised rules. And a set of revised rules that seems on the surface to have better compatibility to the older 4e ruleset than 3.5 to 3.0. Again, another case of WotC having learned from past mistakes.

It seems to me that people are reacting strongly to folks saying this is a revision instead of crediting WotC for pulling off an update from the original 4e ruleset to this Essentials version in a relatively open and smooth manner. A revision is a system that is changed from the original, backwards compatible or not. A revision is not a bad thing, it is most likely an improvement of the rules from lessons learned over time.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Okay, go ahead and show me how the purple worm can make a decent solo encounter. Not with other monsters, but as intended as a creature by itself designed to take on five players of the same level (or around that, EL + 2 or so). Until then I think it more than satisfactorily meets the definition of broken and many other MM creatures do also.

At this point, why bother? The few people who have mentioned their time running these encounters, your response has been that they either didn't run the encounters correctly, or threw out powers and abilities these adventuring parties should have had (basically implying 'if they were any good') to make your point.

Whatever, dude.

 

[Aegeri]

Actually that's incorrect. I made two basic arguments:

1) In the case of the ambush with the chronically low on resources party, I demonstrated with a simple switch of solo monster that the purple worm was still horrible. With a deck utterly stacked against the party it was actually unable to kill them - yet the equal level Brown dragon, whom I picked because it can also fulfill the same role (Burrows, found in desert environments) the result is a one sided clear massacre. That again proves what I've been saying about the power disparity between MM and things that came later (and even between many solos). Also, I don't particularly agree with the scenario actually proving any point due to the fact it relied on considerable luck and the DM basically dumping a creature onto a depleted party. Neither I think make a reliable and strong argument the creature isn't broken.

2) In the other case, he raised a theoretical party and so I pointed out powers I think are fairly common. Having run 6 games myself, I've seen a wizard in just about every game. I think since Winged Horde was published, I've seen only one player not take it - that's because he's a blaster wizard. I can give you lots of other powers that will do the same thing - there are loads of good powers in 4E across all classes. He never actually specified what powers I did or didn't have, so I made suggestions as to what I would have if I was playing the various characters. You do know there are a lot of ways of accomplishing the same thing in 4E when it comes to making a party right? I don't rely on a limited set of options to prove my point - there are hordes of good PPs, powers and similar I could bring up. Some are just expressly very good like the Paladin Hospitaler paragon path and winged horde. It's not like without these it suddenly means these PCs are going to be suddenly challenged by the purple worm - when there are plenty of other temp HP, healing, attack, immobilize, daze and similar powers I could also use.

If the point is that a poorly written solo can challenge a party of people who have immensely depleted resources or that build characters that have a dearth of good combat options, I don't really view that as a valid argument really. If they do poorly against a purple worm, an actually well written solo is going to butcher them. Hence my "mathcraft" using a brown dragon. You can simply compare what the Purple Worm managed to do by getting obscenely lucky, with what a Brown dragon reliably does to the entire party in the same situation. That makes my point for me easily.

Edit: For the record, I went and pulled out my "DM notes" from my old IRL game where I also ran a purple worm. My party was Warden/Rogue/Warlord/Fighter/Wizard. It came out of a cavern that was pretty narrow (but it could burrow through the walls and similar). Getting a surprise round, it missed the Wizard and then lost initiative (Warlord lol). Warden marked it and activated displacer armour (roll two d20 and take lowest for the rest of the encounter on melee and ranged attacks - this was sadly pre-errata). It got immobilized by the wizard so it couldn't go anywhere in a hurry. The party then utterly dismantled it in 3 rounds with lead the attack on - pushing it with forced movement every time it would get a turn so it couldn't attack anyone except the warden. That was their 4th encounter that day IIRC. Of course it did do a great service - it baited out lead the attack so that wasn't available for something more important. My PCs were a mixture of different builds, some optimized and others not so optimized - but they didn't have any problems killing it trivially. 90% of the time it was dazed, stunned or immobilized. Of course, in fairness to it an already poor creature had to suffer through an immensely broken item (Displacer Armour) and the old "pre-nerf" bloodmage (who has ridiculous DPR).

Of course, I could have threw it at my party after the actual antagonist was through with them. I think even the purple worm would have no trouble beating a party that had two members with 1 HP (no healing surges remaining), one with 15 hp (1 surge remaining), one with 60 hp (2 surge remaining), one with 3 hp (no surges remaining) and the last was on around 96 HP (3 surges - the Warden predictably. Could never kill him) with no dailies or action points between them. It would have wiped the floor with that party, does that make it a good solo?

 

[CountPopeula]

Yes. WotC has succeeded in morphing the rules in a more gradual manner while people were in the loop to the point of now printing a set of revised rules. And a set of revised rules that seems on the surface to have better compatibility to the older 4e ruleset than 3.5 to 3.0. Again, another case of WotC having learned from past mistakes.

It seems to me that people are reacting strongly to folks saying this is a revision instead of crediting WotC for pulling off an update from the original 4e ruleset to this Essentials version in a relatively open and smooth manner. A revision is a system that is changed from the original, backwards compatible or not. A revision is not a bad thing, it is most likely an improvement of the rules from lessons learned over time.

I think that a lot of the arguing just comes from people having differing definitions on what a "revision/new edition/whatever term we're using" means. To a lot of people, it means "everything that came before this is obsolete." To some people it doesn't.

And I think the implication with the whole "I heard this from some guy on the internet" thing about the original core books being discontinued is that that the older builds for the classes are now disallowed or somehow mechanically broken against the revised rules. The fact of the matter is that there's a mad number of options for the classes in the PHB1. A quick count of level 1 fighter at-wills gave me 16, of which a given fighter can know 2, or 3 if he's human. At some point the focus should move away from them a little bit and on to new classes.

I really think we'd have had a lot less of this "OMG 4.5!" stuff if the classes in Essentials just had new names. Of course the way they did it, they get new classes and some of the powers are available to the old ones, so established players have more incentive to buy it. It looks like Arcane and Divine classes will get the most use, since they're going to have a whole slew of powers the PHB classes can use, while Martial characters will seemingly just get new utilities.

 

[Aegeri]

And I think the implication with the whole "I heard this from some guy on the internet" thing about the original core books being discontinued is that that the older builds for the classes are now disallowed or somehow mechanically broken against the revised rules. The fact of the matter is that there's a mad number of options for the classes in the PHB1. A quick count of level 1 fighter at-wills gave me 16, of which a given fighter can know 2, or 3 if he's human. At some point the focus should move away from them a little bit and on to new classes.

This is so well put. I think by now they have over saturated some classes and there are others begging to have more. Fighters, Rangers and Wizards would easily be the three best supported classes in fourth edition. Do we really need far more options for three classes with a huge amount of fantastic options?

There are some classes in 4E that have barely any good support at all - the more recently published the bigger the gap in good options. Primal characters could use some more options, particularly Shamans could use some better AC. Runepriests and Seekers need some love. Psionic Classes are getting Psionic Power, but we don't know what happens to things like Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2 and other books that would bring those classes on par with the options martial characters have.

Now we have essentials, which just gives more options for many classes that already have billions of good options. There are other classes you've published wizards. They need more attention.

 

[The Little Raven]

Now we have essentials, which just gives more options for many classes that already have billions of good options. There are other classes you've published wizards. They need more attention.

And they will get it. AFTER Essentials has its run. They've been clear on this. Chill out.

 

[Gloomshroud]

Is there a point associated with posting this?

What's the point of asking if there's a point to the point he's trying to make a point about?

 

[Aegeri]

And they will get it. AFTER Essentials has its run. They've been clear on this. Chill out.

I'm not so sure on that actually and I really want to see the post-essentials releases for myself - hopefully they announce some at Gencon. But it is really quite silly that the Runepriest and Seeker are not going to see book support for almost a year since they came out (EG Divine Power 2). Other classes that would have been bought up and could use some new options aren't going to see anything until post-March next year.

Yet the classes that get more options have had 2 total books and billions of dragon articles. It's just very disappointing to see these other classes get "left behind" more and more. Although I don't play DnD (I run three games) this does impact me indirectly. I'm routinely seeing the same classes every game. I have to pull teeth to get PCs to play certain classes - because they just don't have the support that others have. New options generate excitement and interest in a wide range of classes, so you don't see the same things turning up all the time because they just have the most options.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm not so sure on that actually and I really want to see the post-essentials releases for myself - hopefully they announce some at Gencon. But it is really quite silly that the Runepriest and Seeker are not going to see book support for almost a year since they came out (EG Divine Power 2). Other classes that would have been bought up and could use some new options aren't going to see anything until post-March next year.

Yet the classes that get more options have had 2 total books and billions of dragon articles. It's just very disappointing to see these other classes get "left behind" more and more. Although I don't play DnD (I run three games) this does impact me indirectly. I'm routinely seeing the same classes every game. I have to pull teeth to get PCs to play certain classes - because they just don't have the support that others have. New options generate excitement and interest in a wide range of classes, so you don't see the same things turning up all the time because they just have the most options.

Whenever a reboot is done the default "main" classes always get treatment first. The later classes will get their rebuilds in time. The formula builds ( basing everything on the same at-will/encounter/daily structure is over. The shadow power source book should shed some light on what future power books for other sources will look like. The old power formula build stuff will continue to work as it always did but don't hold your breath waiting for any more.