Discussion on iterative attacks

[StreamOfTheSky]

Does it occur to anyone else after looking at the MOUNTAINS of errata, faq's and rules debate that 4E was NEVER as good a system as they were trying to pass it off as? That even if they were making a good faith effort to patch all the holes, the system they built that was SUPPOSED to eliminate so much of this kind of argument was in fact EPIC FAIL at doing so? Hmn...

It was either this or report you. I chose the more amusing option.

EDIT: Also...

Does it occur to anyone else after looking at the MOUNTAINS of errata, faq's and rules debate that Pathfinder was NEVER as good a system as they were trying to pass it off as? That even if they were making a good faith effort to patch all the holes, the system they built that was SUPPOSED to eliminate so much of this kind of argument was in fact EPIC FAIL at doing so? Hmn...

Does it occur to anyone else after looking at the MOUNTAINS of errata, faq's and rules debate that 2E was NEVER as good a system as they were trying to pass it off as? That even if they were making a good faith effort to patch all the holes, the system they built that was SUPPOSED to eliminate so much of this kind of argument was in fact EPIC FAIL at doing so? Hmn...

Does it occur to anyone else after looking at the MOUNTAINS of errata, faq's and rules debate that rocks/paper/scissors was NEVER as good a system as they were trying to pass it off as? That even if they were making a good faith effort to patch all the holes, the system they built that was SUPPOSED to eliminate so much of this kind of argument was in fact EPIC FAIL at doing so? Hmn...

 

[Vegepygmy]

Does it occur to anyone else after looking at the MOUNTAINS of errata, faq's and rules debate that 3E was NEVER as good a system as they were trying to pass it off as?

As if there's some game system out there that is as good as its creators would have us believe?

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of your question.

 

[Dandu]

as if there's some game system out there that is as good as its creators would have us believe?

Paranoia.

 

[Jhaelen]

Does it occur to anyone else after looking at the MOUNTAINS of errata, faq's and rules debate that 3E was NEVER as good a system as they were trying to pass it off as?

Nope. If anything, the amount of errata is indicative of the quality of support for the system.

If it had been a bad system, it wouldn't have been successful and they wouldn't have bothered releasing so much errata.

 

[Runestar]

What 3e errata?

Sure, there was a ton of rules FAQs, but in general, wotc didn't really bother to fix the problematic stuff, opting instead to feed us with more of the same broken material. Even the stuff they did revise barely scratched the surface of what was wrong with 3e.

That and I am still waiting for my tome of battle errata...

 

[Persiflage]

What 3e errata?

These 3E errata.

That and I am still waiting for my tome of battle errata...

Why?

Google ""Tome of Battle" errata", hit #3, on the page linked to above...

Published in September 2008.

Presumably you weren't waiting that impatiently

 

[Runestar]

These 3E errata.



Why?

Google ""Tome of Battle" errata", hit #3, on the page linked to above...

Published in September 2008.

Presumably you weren't waiting that impatiently

Which is like a mere trickle compared to the errata 4e has received. Seriously, each of the PDFs you linked contains very few errata each, so they don't really do anything to balance out the game.

As for ToB errata, please download said file, read through it, then get back to me again. There is a very good reason why I am complaining despite knowing of its existence since the very day it was released.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Which is like a mere trickle compared to the errata 4e has received.

So, going back to Man in the Funny Hat's original question, does that mean 4E is not as good a system as they are trying to pass it off as being?

 

[radmod]

It was either this or report you. I chose the more amusing option.

EDIT: Also... [1 post after another by Man ITFH]

Just for the edification of us newbie posters, why is this so funny?

A CnP Spam?

As to the 'broken' system:
In computers as in gaming, it is often said there is no system that can't be broken!

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Just for the edification of us newbie posters, why is this so funny?

A CnP Spam?

Basically because it was a bs attack on 3E. Lots of game systems get eratta and such, some like 4E with even greater frequency.

To clarify: When I criticize the skill rank system in 4E as a "ruse," a fictious improvement for "untrained" skills that people claim makes it superior to 3E, where 0 ranks remains stagant, it's a valid criticism. Everyone gains skill bonus at 1/2 level rate, and the challenge DCs specifically take this into account. So you're basically just running in place, not actually improving. Also, that critique IS unique to 4E's game system, and probably some others (Star Wars Saga Edition is similar, right?).

It would be totally unfair and a bs argument if I tried to say, for example... "4E's a stupid rules system, they think a human can stab a giant to death with a sword smaller than the giant's toothpick!" because...well, that's a fantasy genre staple and common in all editions of D&D.

Hope that clears it up. Maybe it's not funny...I just found it amusing and it made me smile for some reason.

(I was going to leave it at 4E, but decided to edit and point out it's true of lots of games because a) these boards have a hair trigger for "edition warring," and I wouldn't be surprised if I somehow got a reprisal for it even if MitFH didn't; and b) I don't actually know what MitFH's game preferences are, I shouldn't just assume 4E.)