Hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!
My sides. They hurt.
OP, this'll teach you to talk about anything but mechanics!
The tragedy of 4th edition.
- Thread starter Andor
- Start date
- Status
Hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!
My sides. They hurt.
OP, this'll teach you to talk about anything but mechanics!
Moon-Lancer
First Post
as seen by a druid with shape change, and pit fiend with 60 ac. It was in interesting last battle in 3.5.
Keefe the Thief
Hero
Yeah, i´m happy that it all balanced out when the usual 4e detractors joined into the thread to do some laughing and finger pointing. It´s always good to have some people in a thread like this that tell you "haha, see, this part of the argument is just silly! As usual, [the other side] shows it´s true face! Wooot!"
Jeff Wilder
First Post
Just a note on the thread title:
Classically, a "tragic" flaw is a one that exists in an otherwise laudable character. So the subtext of "The tragedy of 4th edition" is, arguably, that the OP sees a great amount of good in 4E. The fact that the editing and physical quality of the books is so bad (and I agree, BTW) is, again arguably, thus classically tragic. To paraphrase my reading of the OP: "It makes me sad that an otherwise good game has such crappy production values and editing."
In any event, "tragedy" is not an insult. It would take quite a bit of defensiveness on behalf of 4E -- or maybe just ESL -- to take it that way.
Classically, a "tragic" flaw is a one that exists in an otherwise laudable character. So the subtext of "The tragedy of 4th edition" is, arguably, that the OP sees a great amount of good in 4E. The fact that the editing and physical quality of the books is so bad (and I agree, BTW) is, again arguably, thus classically tragic. To paraphrase my reading of the OP: "It makes me sad that an otherwise good game has such crappy production values and editing."
In any event, "tragedy" is not an insult. It would take quite a bit of defensiveness on behalf of 4E -- or maybe just ESL -- to take it that way.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
This. Something isn't a tragedy if it started out rotten, had no potential, or was otherwise clearly bad from the outset. It was pretty clear to me the OP likes 4E, and is just sad it had such major editing flaws.
The idea it was an edition war is about as ridiculous as alleging that any 3E thread complaining about the grappling rules complexity is automatically an edition war.
ryryguy
First Post
(Jumping up thread a little bit... doesn't quite seem worth forking the thread...)
I assume this calculation compares attack bonuses accounting for level progression, stat increases, and expected item bonuses, vs. defenses accounting for the same factors?
It seems a safe bet that a 28th level party is going to have feat, power, and circumstantial/untyped bonuses, not to mention conditions and penalties applied to the monsters, that are a lot higher than what a 1st level party is going to get. Enough to make up -4 on that d20 roll? Of course it's a fuzzy range that's going to vary from party to party from round to round. But it seems plausible.
Keeping the d20 gap on a perfectly flat curve seems undesirable if you want the players to be able to feel like the effects they are having through powers and tactics to also scale up as they reach higher levels.
I assume this calculation compares attack bonuses accounting for level progression, stat increases, and expected item bonuses, vs. defenses accounting for the same factors?
It seems a safe bet that a 28th level party is going to have feat, power, and circumstantial/untyped bonuses, not to mention conditions and penalties applied to the monsters, that are a lot higher than what a 1st level party is going to get. Enough to make up -4 on that d20 roll? Of course it's a fuzzy range that's going to vary from party to party from round to round. But it seems plausible.
Keeping the d20 gap on a perfectly flat curve seems undesirable if you want the players to be able to feel like the effects they are having through powers and tactics to also scale up as they reach higher levels.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
I'm going to assume that even though this was addressed to the one poster, it was a warning to all and the mods were just late on the scene. Because if not...seriously, most of the first page is "following this person's example" pre-emtively.*
*Which I believe means they get sneak attack damage.
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
Considering that the quintessential tragic figure is a guy who killed his father and married his mother - 'You don't want to know what they call Oedipus in Harlem' to paraphrase Woody Allen - I don't really think you can hold up tragedy as a complementary category.
If the basic emotional equation of tragedy is, as you echo above, 'it's sad you're such an unredeemable monster' at best it's simply an ennobled insult.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Actually, the most common theme of an ancient Greek tragedy was excessive pride (hubris) leading to an unfortunate downfall. Heh, maybe this did start out as an edition war... ^_^
Ditto. Exactly.
To be blunt... the 4E rulebooks aren't the most organized and clear gaming materials I've ever seen. Certainly not the worse, but in comparison to Magic (which a lot of the rules-writing, particularly the At-Will/Encounter/Daily Powers is based on) it's pretty primitive. I get the distinct feeling I am looking at a 1st Edition set of Magic cards, rather than the much cleaner 10th edition stuff we get today (where there are also virtually no erratas anymore).
They could have done better, that much is for certain.
- Status
Similar Threads
