4E is unacceptable

[Delta]

Read Derren's post, which FE was replying to. Derren specifically said 4e was a failure because people expect a new edition to have as many options as the last one, towards the end.

I did read Derren's post, and that's why I replied. At no point did he mention supplements. At no point did he use the phrase "towards the end" or anything remotely like that. You are making that up.

So, again, his analysis is correct if you compare core-rules to core-rules.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Ok, I am sure you heard it all before.

Oh, yes.

And not only that, but I'm also getting flashbacks to the year 2000...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I did read Derren's post, and that's why I replied. At no point did he mention supplements. At no point did he use the phrase "towards the end" or anything remotely like that. You are making that up.

So, again, his analysis is correct if you compare core-rules to core-rules.

That still depends on your definition of options. If you consider Fighter10/Wizard10 an option than 3.5E core wins hands down. If you compare options that work and let you contribute to the success of playing the game, the story is much different.

 

[Mallus]

You are aware that D&D is a role playing game?

Even role-players stand to benefit from character modeling tools that work (more than %50 of the time).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Even role-players stand to benefit from character modeling tools that work (more than %50 of the time).

Also remember that as a "roleplayer" you are playing somebody who routinely puts themselves in life or death situations. Building your character to be suboptimal at dealing with such situations is playing russian roulette with your character's life, and in the end you are roleplaying a foolish character.

 

[Derren]

That still depends on your definition of options. If you consider Fighter10/Wizard10 an option than 3.5E core wins hands down. If you compare options that work and let you contribute to the success of playing the game, the story is much different.

Fighter 10 Wizard 10 works. But if you are soo concerned about powergaming then take Eldricht Knight (its core, even if you don't want it to be true).
Dodge does also work as does thoughness (live safer for wizards) and the monk class.

And when you consider any choice except the most powerful one in a given situation not valid then 4E doesn't have much valid choices either (who needs the Linguist feat...).
But again, people can make non minmaxed characters and not suck and still have fun with the game.

As for what I said, delta is right. I generally only compare core rules with each other, at least until 4E has at least 4 or so splatbooks.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Fighter 10 Wizard 10 works. But if you are soo concerned about powergaming then take Eldricht Knight (its core, even if you don't want it to be true).
Dodge does also work as does thoughness (live safer for wizards) and the monk class.

And when you consider any choice except the most powerful one in a given situation not valid then 4E doesn't have much valid choices either (who needs the Linguist feat...).
But again, people can make non minmaxed characters and not suck and still have fun with the game.

As for what I said, delta is right. I generally only compare core rules with each other, at least until 4E has at least 4 or so splatbooks.

This is probably the first time I have ever heard anyone claim that Fighter10/Wizard10 works. Have we been playing the same game all these years? Toughness a feat that works? Ditto, this is probably the first time I have heard anyone try to claim that.

Given the ridiculousness of some of your claims above, is your whole point that minmaxers are jerks who don't matter? Its hard to take you seriously when you are claiming that Fighter10/Wizard10 works as a 20th level character and that toughness is worth taking.

 

[Derren]

This is probably the first time I have ever heard anyone claim that Fighter10/Wizard10 works. Have we been playing the same game all these years? Toughness a feat that works? Ditto, this is probably the first time I have heard anyone try to claim that.

Given the ridiculousness of some of your claims above, is your whole point that minmaxers are jerks who don't matter? Its hard to take you seriously when you are claiming that Fighter10/Wizard10 works as a 20th level character and that toughness is worth taking.

When you define "works" as "being able to roxxor everything with bazilliond12" damage then no, fighter 10/wizard10 does not work, but so don't most pure classes in 3E. But when you mean "being enjoyable to play and not sucking totally" then yes, fighter 10 / wizard 10 works. Again, if you are concerned about power take the Eldricht Knight PRC which is core.

And have you ever played an elven wizard from level 1? Or a human wizard with not pumped con? Thoughness does become rather attractive then. Remember that a feat must not be "the best choice for everyone all the time" to work. A feat which helps certain classes at certain times works too.

And no, minmaxers don't matter when discussing the available options of an editions as minmaxers tend to not care about options, just about power and will always take what is the most powerful thing.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(humor)



Edition War Threads are back, I see.
Let me join in the fun:

I hereby state that the only good D&D edition, is 161E D&D, the Edena Edition.

Accept no substitute!

 

[cinderember]

That isn't really a valid argument. The times have changed and so have the expectations. And when the new product can't deliver enough content to be at least comparable to the last version then this is a failure.

To use the PC market as example, do you think the excuse "Its at least more than Pong" is a valid excuse for a game having much less content than its predecessor?

See, this is exactly what my point was. It's not that it isn't onpar with previous editions, its that it seems to have made very little progress. Added to the frustration of that is that some of this lack of progress seems to be intentional, sans the errata part, which I hope truly is errata and not some marketing ploy to sell 4.0 revised/4.5. They intentionally held back content. They intentionally added in the RPGA/D&D insider plugs. (And for the record, I'd rather have a full page add in the back of my book, than strewn throughout in space hogging "side-bars"...with references such as "though this character would not be allowed in the RPGA" sprinkled in there as a way to make non RPGA-ers feel inferior.)

Its better than pong, but I expected more of a HALO 3, and got a Super Mario Bros 1.