The tragedy of 4th edition.

[Andor]

Aside from wonky math and spells that were broken and weren't truly fixed until late into the edition's life. Polymorph, Flurry of Blows, substandard rangers were all problems from the outset.

Except those weren't problems. One of the design decisions for 3e was to allow sub-optimal choice so that people who gamed the system were rewarded. You may disagree with that design goal but you can't point to it's results and claim they were errors in writing or editing, they were deliberate inclusions. And polymorph did not start out as an enormous problem, it became one as more and more monster books were added to the mix.

Radiant. Unlike flaming and frost weapons, there is no ability to convert the magic item's weapon damage into necrotic damage (only bonus necrotic on a critical hit).

Agreed. Ahh. Except that according to CustServ any blow struck by a flaming or Frost weapon had those keywords, what the powers do when active is convert all damage delt to fire or frost, thus stripping out any other keywords.

No, because the power (Holy Strike) does not have the Necrotic or Psychic keywords, which is the requirement for Dark Fury to work. The weapon does not give the power new keywords.

But on page 55 it say "The other keywords define the fundamental effects of a power. For instance, a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword."

That seems to state that the keywords follow the damage type and not the other way around. Something cust serve has directly contradicted when discussing the Illusion powers from the Wizard web enhancement. So CustServ and the RAW seem to disagree (nothing new to 4e.)

At very least there is a lack of clarity. At worst you're going to have upset players as you try to tell them that no their feats don't work the way they thought they did after all. And it's a problem that would have been utterly avoided by better writing and examples.

 

[The Little Raven]

NO ONE apparently ran 4e through the wringer and found the rule wierdnesses/power issues that were noticed on day 1 of release (Blade Cascade/Keywords/Seal of Binding/Twin Attacks vs Careful/Skill Challenges etc...).

Or maybe their actual playtests determined something different from the community's theorycraft. Remember, they obviously didn't playtest 3rd that well, because monks were "obviously" overpowered.

(1) The addition of magic items (or generally, gear based powerups NOT treated as inherent to the wielder) broke the level based scalings.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at. 4th Edition is the first edition in which magic items are accurately and transparently factored into the power curve.

This is the biggy: the rule skeleton of 4e does not work very well over a large level range, but WOULD work superbly for a superhero port.

And this conclusion is based on actually playing the game 1-30 in a real campaign? Or just theorycraft?

(2) The "economy" of 4e. DnD is about killing things and taking their stuff. This requires a half-decent economic model (to give you a use for the stuff). 4e doesn't want you to loot things really (because it messes up their wealth system). So why not move to a genre where "stuff" is unimportant?

This is incorrect. 4e wants you to loot stuff aplenty. They just don't want you to loot unnecessary crap, like stripping all the goblins of their boots and such. This is a game about heroics, not penny-pinching.

(3) HP as morale based/lack of crippling injury. This isn't an horrific stretch in fantasy, but fits superhero campaigns a whole lot better.

Better hit the Wayback Machine and let Gygax know that his concept of hit points is inappropriate for the fantasy genre.

4e: We forgot what genre we were designing for, and we forgot to/didn't know how to playtest the game, too.

Or maybe your theorycraft is meaningless in the face of actual play.

 

[Alratan]

...

Or maybe your theorycraft is meaningless in the face of actual play.

I'd say the Skill Challenge debacle would tend to play against this line of argument.

 

[Nifft]

I'd say the Skill Challenge debacle would tend to play against this line of argument.

Yeah. I recall people discussing how hard Skill Challenges were in play first, which is presumably why smart guys like Stalker0 took a look at the math in the first place.

Cheers, -- N

 

[The Little Raven]

Except those weren't problems.

Uh, yeah they are. If they weren't, then why did they change the Monk and Ranger both in 3.5? Why did Polymorph get changed so many times?

Hint: You don't change something that isn't broken.

And polymorph did not start out as an enormous problem, it became one as more and more monster books were added to the mix.

No, it was a problem from the outset, because MM monsters alone were enough to break it wide open.

Agreed. Ahh. Except that according to CustServ any blow struck by a flaming or Frost weapon had those keywords, what the powers do when active is convert all damage delt to fire or frost, thus stripping out any other keywords.

And according to the book's example (a paladin with a flaming longsword), it adds the keyword for the appropriate type, but does not remove the original keywords. Since it specifies that the power would deal both radiant and fire, I'm going to take what the book says over some custserv guy.

But on page 55 it say "The other keywords define the fundamental effects of a power. For instance, a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword."

Further down that page...

"If a power allows you to choose the damage type, the power then has that keyword for feats, resistances, and any other information that applies."

So, as a Lifedrinking weapon does not allow you to choose the damage type (no swapping between weapon and necrotic), then it does not apply the Necrotic keyword.

That seems to state that the keywords follow the damage type and not the other way around. Something cust serve has directly contradicted when discussing the Illusion powers from the Wizard web enhancement.

Keywords and damage are related, but do not always go hand-in-hand. On that same page, they talk about powers that have the Poison keyword, but do not deal poison damage at all.

So CustServ and the RAW seem to disagree (nothing new to 4e.)

Nothing new to 3e, either, as Sage Advice and Custserv would often disagree on interpretations, while also disagreeing with what the published books said. Constant digs at 4th like this are going to turn this thread into an edition war, and it will be locked.

At worst you're going to have upset players as you try to tell them that no their feats don't work the way they thought they did after all.

You'll always have problems when a DM has a different interpretation than a player. That's what communication is all about. This is not exclusive to any edition.

I'd say the Skill Challenge debacle would tend to play against this line of argument.

You mean the debacle where people claimed it was too hard, and Stalker0 provided a thread with math about it... then, the next day, he posted a new thread that basically said the exact opposite?

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I'd say the Skill Challenge debacle would tend to play against this line of argument.

The WotC people have been saying that they goofed on that, and that the final result doesn't deliver what they intended.

To argue that this means that the rest of 4e is broken is, to take it mildly, premature and excessive.

 

[Shadeydm]

The WotC people have been saying that they goofed on that, and that the final result doesn't deliver what they intended.

To argue that this means that the rest of 4e is broken is, to take it mildly, premature and excessive.

It would seem to cast the quality of playtesting in a rather negative light that this was "missed".

 

[Scribble]

Nothing new to 3e, either, as Sage Advice and Custserv would often disagree on interpretations, while also disagreeing with what the published books said. Constant digs at 4th like this are going to turn this thread into an edition war, and it will be locked.

Nothing new to customer service in general. This just proves to me, that WoTC customer service, is a typical customer service line, and not somehow staffed by magical perfect fairy beings that can do no wrong.

For the most part customer service has one goal:

Get you off the phone so they can serve the next customer.

 

[pogminky]

*gettin in before the lock*

Like the feel and structure of 4e.
Agree with OP that the editing and fine-tuning of the books was sub-par.

 

[Turjan]

Just to come back to the original post, that's nothing new. The Star Wars Saga Edition book also contained examples of play that were based on old rules that had long been replaced by something else. Editing of WotC books went downhill a couple of years ago.