Forked Thread: what do you do when bloodclaw > artifact (& HR just doesn't cut it)

[Badwe]

You are right that "play a different game" is the final solution, and all the parameters you have imposed make it the only solution for you. After reading both of your threads I feel as though you have responded to, and declined, all solutions that could possibly work besides that.

You've been offered numerous helpful suggestions in TWO threads now, and none of them have been satisfying because you view the issues as being too intrinsic to 4e to be solved with mere houseruling or simply sucking it up, or any other variation proposed. At this point it seems like the only answer that hasn't been proposed is for wizards to build a time machine to go back and never print bloodclaw in AV. Short of that happening, it seems as though you've implied yourself that 4e can never be fixed in the way you want it to be, so why fight it?

Honestly, without snark or edition bashing, i think you should just play a different game. I am genuinely sorry that you view these issues in 4e as irreconcilable and that nobody else seems to see it the way you do, but forking threads about this issue and responding to the threads over and over again are not going to change that. Your own constraints are so specific that you truly have created a no-win situation for yourself. there literally isn't another solution, go play something else. If not 3.5, then maybe pathfinder or GURPS or a retro-clone. These are all also great games, they have their own differences, plusses, and minuses from 4e, but I can safely guess that they will each not have an issue of a bloodclaw weapon being better than a similarly leveled artifact and that therefore you won't have to negative house-rule. With any luck, they will also lack this vague, systemic failure that you also percieve in 4e, though I can't say for sure.

But please, just try something else. At this point I can't honestly guess what you want to hear from other people: is it just that you'd like to hear that other people see the same systemic problem with 4e? I will take you at face value that you're not simply trying to bash 4e. I am just stumped at what could possibly solve your predicament short of just trying something new, so that is my recomendation.

 

[Herschel]

There is nothing broken about Bloodclaw Weapons. There are more powerful weapons out there. The onus is on the DM to deal with the situation if they're in the game. That extra damage they do to the wielder can add up dangerously if encounters are designed correctly, for example.

 

[Mistwell]

evilbob, I seem to recall in the 3e rules forum over the years that you were also one of the folks who had a lot of trouble with broken 3e stuff as well. So the claim that perhaps your brokeness meter is set a few clicks higher than some other folks here is probably accurate.

For example, I will never call something that adds +1 or +2 hit, damage, or both as broken. It does not break the game. Something being more powerful than other things on a level like that is just not a big deal in the games I play.

To me, so far, there are fewer broken things in 4e than in 3e. But, that may be because there are fewer books out for 4e compared to the end of 3e. Or it might be their change in editing and playtesting policy. I don't know.

 

[evilbob]

It could be universal, frankly that doesn't concern me. Nor, I think, should it you. It doesn't matter what works or doesn't at my table or anyone else's.

Nah - I disagree. And my counter-point is this forum. It does matter if a problem is wide-spread; we're all in this together, especially with 4.0.

Once you identify a problem you either ignore and learn to live with it, fix it, or move on to something else. I'm not sure there are other choices. You seem to not want to live with it or fix it.

I am hoping there is a way to fix it. I am hoping there are more options than the obvious three you gave.


Mistwell: I don't recall quite the same feelings, but fair enough.


Badwe: Fair enough.

Apparently my princess is in another castle.

 

[malraux]

And honestly, I don't know if it's even fair to say that there aren't that many problems in 4.0: I mean, many issues seem pretty well-documented to me, and are clearly affecting many games. My point: this still feels somewhat universal. Of course: I could be wrong.

I don't think its nearly as big as you claim it to be. Online boards self-select to amplify issues, so even if this is only a problem in a few games, it will seem like many. You seem to not like actual discussions of what is overpowered and aren't interested in methods that involve you fixing the problem. At that point, your issue is to either hope that all future material works for you, which seems unlikely, or move to a system that fits your wants.

 

[ST]

I feel like to some extent the thread is "Validate my opinions about X." Done. I think it's perfectly reasonable and normal to either (a) tweak some rules that bug you, or (b) use something else.

I'm not sure there's much else we can offer in the way of support beyond that. I don't mean that in a dismissive fashion; maybe discussing the issue will lead to more questions or discussion. I'm just going with my take on the conversation.

I will say that I think maybe one reason you weren't feeling supported in the conversation was that people were addressing things as they come up in play, whereas your concerns seem to be more along the line of an abstract dissatisfaction with the principles involved. Does this seem accurate, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

[Umbran]

Does this make sense? Does anyone else agree? Is this a problem without a solution or is there some shining beam of light that I have missed? Or is it all just in my big conceited head, as I am sure many already believe?

The shining light you have missed is that the patient is not "bleeding out".

Really. Honestly. Lots of people play the game and have fun with it just fine. It isn't perfect, but the statistical evidence is that it is not, on the whole, fundamentally any more broken than any other game.

Say you go to a party, and there's a person there you cannot stand - you think he's a yutz of the first water. But, oddly, lots of other folks seem to enjoy his company just fine.

Now, it is possible that you are a superior judge of character, and everyone else at the party fails to see that the guy's a complete smeghead. But honestly, that's not the way to bet. In all likelihood, it isn't that he's fundamentally a bad person, but that something in the interaction between you and he is wonky.

Now, certainly, one way to deal with the situation is to avoid this guy. But another is to sit down and look at your interaction, talk things out, and come to a compromise. Compromises entail changes on both sides, not just one.

The reason you get no satisfactory answers to your basic question is that you're asking the wrong question. There is no simple fix for this fundamentally broken system, because it isn't a fundamentally broken system. It is the interaction of you with the system that is broken. And, if you look to implement a solution that is only on the game's side, yes, it looks like a big steaming mess.

The simple solution probably lies in change the game in small amounts, and in changing your expectations and/or how you play by small amounts. If you aren't interested in changing how you look at or deal with things, then you are probably just best served by avoiding the system.

 

[ST]

Say you go to a party, and there's a person there you cannot stand - you think he's a yutz of the first water. But, oddly, lots of other folks seem to enjoy his company just fine.

Now, it is possible that you are a superior judge of character, and everyone else at the party fails to see that the guy's a complete smeghead. But honestly, that's not the way to bet. In all likelihood, it isn't that he's fundamentally a bad person, but that something in the interaction between you and he is wonky.

Now, certainly, one way to deal with the situation is to avoid this guy. But another is to sit down and look at your interaction, talk things out, and come to a compromise. Compromises entail changes on both sides, not just one.

The reason you get no satisfactory answers to your basic question is that you're asking the wrong question. There is no simple fix for this fundamentally broken system, because it isn't a fundamentally broken system. It is the interaction of you with the system that is broken. And, if you look to implement a solution that is only on the game's side, yes, it looks like a big steaming mess.

I don't usually post to say "That was awesome", but mad props. That's a really, really astute observation.

So many conflicts in life come from things not meeting expectations, and it's all too easy to forget that sometimes it's the expectations that have to be altered and not the thing.

 

[ryryguy]

Please understand: I KNOW NOTHING IS PERFECT. That's not what I am asking; it's honestly not close, although that is what apparently some folks seem to pick up from my posts, so I'm probably not being clear. All I am asking is for a reasonable number of errors. 4.0 is no longer in the "reasonable" range to me.

Perhaps you are focusing on number of errors when you should be focusing on error rate?

4e's design is very modular. Expansions and additions largely take the form of adding new modules - lots of new modules. Every new class has what amounts to a full spell list. The modules also tend to be relatively compact. Not that I'm doing an actual comparison here, but the additional weapon properties in AV alone - how does the quantity of them compare to the number of magic weapons across all 3e supplements?

With so many modules, even if the error rate is very low, the absolute number of them is going to go up. I guess whether the error rate is acceptably low is a bit of a judgement call. But definitely, pay attention to the rate and not the total.

A plus side of the modular design is that it's pretty easy to correct the errors you perceive because they are local to a particular module. Change (or ban) that module. Almost all of the specific problems you've listed fall into this category: issues with specific powers or weapon properties. To me, these really are like fixing bugs not changing the source code, to use your metaphor.

(Side note: generally speaking you do have to change the source code to fix a bug. Maybe the analogy you're looking for is changing the operating system? )

Systemic problems would be more like, "defenders don't work, it's not a fun role to play and/or they don't work as advertised." Or, "I can't properly balance an encounter." Among the problems you've mentioned that I see falling into this category are maybe the V-shaped class thing, and the expertise feats. There are undoubtedly some others - issues with solos, the original skill challenge system.

Here, the questions are - how much damage do they actually do in play? and, since you're very focused on what WotC is doing, it seems - is WotC addressing the existing ones? Are more of them being introduced?

Again, it's subjective territory. My takes: they don't hurt the play experience all that much, maybe a little at the margins. WotC has done some good in addressing them, but could do better. And I don't see WotC introducing new systemic mistakes as they move forward.

 

[corncob]

Say you go to a party, and there's a person there you cannot stand - you think he's a yutz of the first water. But, oddly, lots of other folks seem to enjoy his company just fine.

Now, it is possible that you are a superior judge of character, and everyone else at the party fails to see that the guy's a complete smeghead. But honestly, that's not the way to bet. In all likelihood, it isn't that he's fundamentally a bad person, but that something in the interaction between you and he is wonky.

And if the other person is female, there's also a good chance that you're in Act I of a Rom Com.