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

[evilbob]

Forked from: what do you do when a +3 bloodclaw weapon is more powerful than a +4 artifact

I forked my own thread (does that cause blindness?) because I think it kept getting mired in folks' very helpful solutions to very specific problems, instead of taking a look at what I believe is a much bigger, meta-problem. Or maybe it's just a rant from someone who's expectations are unrealistic compared to what 4.0 can deliver - you decide. This is a continuation of that previous thread's thoughts, especially in response to everyone's continued calls to "JUST HOUSERULE BLOODCLAW ALREADY!"


So I've thought a little more about this issue, and I think there's another aspect of what is bothering me that I perhaps haven't fully expressed. Let me be clear: I don't mind house rules - I actually really like them. I have made tons and tons of house rules, and spent hours and hours (back in 3.5 especially) trying to tweak ideas or create new rules or create settings and change ideas to suit what I thought was good. For example, I had house rules like "gold weighs nothing", "barbarians don't gain illiteracy", "casters can sub gold for material components", and "all magic items resize to fit their wearer" - stuff like that. When I think back about those rules, it occurs to me that what I was mainly doing was to change the game to make it easier or faster, or to suit a setting. I was side-stepping rules that I thought were boring or cumbersome, or I was altering how things worked to fit the game idea that I wanted to run. And I never felt bad about these rules or coming up with new rules or the endless amount of tweaking I did, because - as I now feel - I wasn't really "fixing" anything so much: I was just changing it to suit me. That is what house rules are all about: changing the game to suit your ideas and conceptions, and personalizing it. And I think those house rules are great.

My 4.0 house rules don't work that way. They're more like "there's only one expertise feat and it grants +1 to all attacks at level 5/15/25" and "wizards can choose the artificer power vanguard's lighting as an at-will instead of scorching burst and use int instead of wis" and "all dual-stat classes are single-stat classes - pick a stat and it works for all powers". 100% of the house rules I have implemented or considered for 4.0 are not designed to color or tweak the game to suit me: they are designed to fix what I consider (in my own, admittedly limited knowledge) blatant game imbalances. In other words: I'm not improving on a design or customizing the game; I am correcting it. I am proof-reading it.

This is the heart of the matter for me. I know lots of stuff in 3.5 was imbalanced, but somehow, the longer I play, 4.0 keeps starting to seem even more so. Perhaps the even power levels just make it more obvious? In any case, the thing I keep running into - over and over and OVER again - are things that are just plain ...well, I hate to use that horrible "b" word, so I will say "game-altering." Bloodclaw, reckless, storm of blades, hurricane of blades, (mild low-pressure system of blades,) endless save penalties combined with several wizard daily powers, auto-damage wizard daily powers - these are just a few examples off the top of my head. Divine Miracle, the whole Punisher of the Gods destiny - the list goes ON and ON. (Punisher of the Gods is one of my favorites, actually: when the Char-Op forum collectively agrees not to use an epic destiny in power comparisons because it's just too over-the-top, you KNOW it's game-breaking). And since new books and new Dragon articles keep coming out each month at a frantic pace, the list just keeps getting longer and longer.

Folks, this is not my job! It is not my job to proof-read WotC materials, play-test them, and then fix it! I HAVE a job, and it's not NEARLY as interesting as that one! (Ok, to be more specific: I WISH I HAD THAT JOB!) But I don't, and no matter how much I wish they did, WotC doesn't pay me to fix or proof-read their material. In fact, I pay them to use it. And the more money I give them so that I can beta-test their products, the more I resent it. The more I feel like I am getting duped. And the less I want to play.

This is the heart of the matter: this is why I get frustrated, and why I come complaining to those who could possibly understand. You can't just put a band-aid on the problem because the patient is bleeding out, folks. I know people will disagree with specific examples, and I know that there is a wide range between what is actually game-altering and what is not, and I know there are specific solutions that exist for many of these specific problems (including the ever-popular BAN BAN BAN) - but this doesn't solve the problem. Sure, they might solve a problem, or some problems, but it doesn't solve the problem. And that problem is that WotC doesn't pay me to edit their books.

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?

 

[Crothian]

If I am reading this right (and I'm starting with this so if I am wrong I can be corrected) that you do not like it when to any problem or issue with the game people suggest you just House Rule it. I'm not looking at any specific problems with this, just that there are problems.

The biggest issue with the game the causes House Rules is what works at my table might not work at yours. As I read through the 4e threads and see people present what they feel are problems at their own table I find myself thinking that these are not problems for me. DMs run games differently. Players play the same characters differently. What works at a thousand different gaming table could not work at mine. Does this mean the game is broken and the editors of Wizards somehow screwed up? No, it means their are factors in my own game that could be causes this rule or whatnot to be a problem. That's why people house rule things.

Now, I imagine there are going to be some things that get through the editors and are mistakes and real problems with the books. These happen in every game with every company. If you are finding there are too many issues with the game and you do not want fix them yourself then consider a different game. There is nothing wring with that. Not every RPG is for everyone.

 

[malraux]

As I said previously, I think the gain on your brokenness meter is set a few clicks too high. I can't say that balance is perfect, but its far better than 3e (ime). In a lot of ways, everything feels overpowered, but that doesn't change the game balance much, as everything is overpowered to the same degree. But seriously, the feel of 4e might not be for the kind of game you want. 4e works best for somewhat over the top sort of feel (again ime). If that's not what you want out of the game then there's nothing wrong with looking elsewhere.

But being over the top is distinct from being unbalanced or broken. Most of your critiques feel like they are more focused against the style than actual mechanical problems.

 

[AllisterH]

(ARGH..had a fully written response out and just lost it)

I think the biggest difference might be that you can SEE what the problem is quite easily in 4e. Take the issue with the problematic weapon qualities in AV. The three that people seem to have a major problem with are radiant, reckless and bloodclaw. Mainly because those three "break the math" so to speak. I mean, there are slightly above 100 weapon qualities in the 4e AV, yet those three are the ones that go above and beyond what the others do.

As such, as a DM, if I'm reading you right, you find yourself saying "Geez, if I can see what the problem is and easily fix it, why didn't the WOTC designers do the same".

Contrast that with say the 3e CODzilla issue. Most people don't even know where to start in fixing that class without a wholesale rewrite of the class.

As well, certainly in previous editions, you houserules not just "flavour changes" (although, technically, many of those flavour rules were not just flavour but mechanical rules) but also spells and items so your houserule document was a mix of mechanics and flavour rules. As you said, your 4e houserules are only mechanics so it makes seem even worse to you (although personally, I consider this a win for me as a DM)

Finally, you might simply enjoy playing/modding 3e and there's nothing wrong with playing 3.x if that suits your taste. AS much as this community is fractured, at the end of the day, I see us all simply playing D&D.

 

[Oni]

I'd challenge you to find an RPG that doesn't have broken rules, but it's not really fair to set someone to an impossible task.

Instead I'll make a suggestion. Take a deep breath and stop changing everything. Yes there are some things in 4e that are clearly better than others, but frankly in the end that difference is not usually all that vast. I think balance has become such a watchword in 4e that it is really easy to get caught up in hyper-analyzing the rules to the point that even the slightest inequity causes alarm bells to go off, stuff that in the past would never have even given most people pause. So don't sweat the small stuff, and if something becomes a problem cut it out or alter it. I think you'll find that really won't change that much.

 

[evilbob]

Thanks for the responses.

Crothian: I wouldn't say that I don't like the "just house rule it" response; it's a fair suggestion and I've used it myself. I'm saying it doesn't really apply here - in my opinion - because the problem is systemic; it's bigger than "house rules." Plus, there comes a point at which I am no longer house-ruling but rather re-writing. I'm not just quashing bugs but changing the source code, so to speak. I feel that that time is either close or has come.

Players -do- play differently and each table is different: you are completely right. And what I am talking about isn't a problem for some people: that's also true. Many people just play the game and ignore what I am calling "imbalances" or they don't notice them or ultimately it doesn't detract from their fun, and that's awesome. I'm just not those people. And while I agree that it doesn't necessarily cause everyone to notice or care, I think it does affect everyone, even if it is on a level that they don't notice. As I said in my other post, sometimes it just manifests in a growing, unspecific dislike of a certain character that you're playing or power that you're using; you know something just isn't right but you don't know what. I know I have seen people affected by imbalance even when they did not know it was there.

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.

And yes: "go play a different game" is always the final solution.


malraux: Your point about my brokenness meter is fair and possibly quite true. I will say that I honestly have no problem with the "over the top" style of the game - in fact, it can be fun, and it's something I enjoy with 4.0. But when one PC is much more "over the top" than another - that's when it is less fun. Or at least, it's less fun when all PCs expect to be the same level of over-the-top, anyway.


AllisterH: I also wonder if the problems are just more evident in 4.0. This is by no means an edition-war-related thread; I am not trying to tear down or promote one over the other. (In fact, 4.0 has so many improvements in my mind I doubt I could easily switch back.) But yes: "Geez, if I can see what the problem is and easily fix it, why didn't the WOTC designers do the same" is something I constantly hear in my head when I read new material. The last straw was really the expertise feats. Those were such a poorly constructed and quite obvious mess, that when they released errata on them days after the book was released, I suddenly had quite clear confirmation that not only was I not wrong: I was right. I could have done a better job. And that's when your blind faith in the system starts to die.




Another thought I had to contribute about my own play style was something I hadn't really noticed until I posted those house rules together above: I dislike "negative" house rules and favor "positive" ones. By that, I mean: I dislike house rules that impose a penalty to PCs or take something away from a PC. I prefer house rules that give bonuses to PCs or give them something new or better. So, I'd rather give PCs a flat bonus to attack rather than take away the expertise feats altogether, for example. This may be part of the reason I see bloodclaw weapons as such a personal issue: the only "positive" change that could fix those weapons would be to make every other item in the game better. And that is simply beyond my purview.

As always, your own millage will vary on the degree of outrage.

 

[evilbob]

Oni: That was my response to myself some time ago. Sorry: too many game-altering issues since then.

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.

 

[Crothian]

Crothian: I wouldn't say that I don't like the "just house rule it" response; it's a fair suggestion and I've used it myself. I'm saying it doesn't really apply here - in my opinion - because the problem is systemic; it's bigger than "house rules." Plus, there comes a point at which I am no longer house-ruling but rather re-writing. I'm not just quashing bugs but changing the source code, so to speak. I feel that that time is either close or has come.

And this is why I say the game might not be fore you. If you find yourself needing to rewrite the source code and that is something you really do not want to do then I would seriously look into something else. When it comes to RPGs and having fun with them it is important to find a game that matches what the GM and players want. If it starts to become to much like work and not play then you might want to step back and look elsewhere. The nice thing about that is you can always come back to 4e if for whatever reason you feel you want to. The game's not going anywhere.

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.

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. If it is a problem for you, then it is a problem. 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.

 

[AllisterH]

Oni: That was my response to myself some time ago. Sorry: too many game-altering issues since then.

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.

Ah but that now gets to the nitty gritty as to what is a "reasonable" number of errors.

Take adventurer vault as our example

By my count, there are over 100 weapon qualities. 3 of them are overpowered/problematic. I honeslty was impressed by that.

The only "throw the whole section out" was solitaires so I consider Adventurer vault a pretty good "error-free" product.

Suggestion: Do what I do. Use the power of the char op boards. My players and I utilize it by simply asking the question "ok, what are the most powerful/broken weapon qualities/items/powers in this product".

By the very next day, you'll have a list and my players KNOW this already so they don't even bother taking things like bloodclaw...more people need to use the charop forum as it is a force for good and not just a place for min maxers.

 

[Mallus]

Some thoughts:

There is a difference between customizing a game system and fixing it's faults. I find the former a lot more creatively satisfying than the latter. But in the end it boils down to: are you willing to do the work?

My group's customization of 4e includes a built-from-the-fictional-ground-up homebrew setting and frequent re-skinning of monsters.

Our fixes include a half a page worth of house rules, bans (no RRoT), and caps (no Bloodclaw weapons over +2). Also, we sometimes use Stalker0's Obsidian system for Skill Challenges.

We find the system completely playable without them, but find they improve the system.

All told, fixing the mechanical flaws in the system amounted to maybe an hour of work, spread over the first several months of playing.

The homebrew setting took a bit longer, but we really enjoy that kind of customization.