The tragedy of 4th edition.

[Andor]

That's exactly how it works.

General Rule: Powers that allow you to choose a damage type add the keyword of that damage type to the power.

Specific Rule: There is none under Lifedrinking weapon, thus the general rule applies.

Except that as I see it the rule in question is the specific rule. The general case is that if you have the keyword you have the damage and vice/versa. The 'if you choose rule' is there to state that that other keywords/damage types go away once you make that choice. The general rule is that they stick around.

And according to page 55: "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."

So if due to the Lifedrinker sword's crit your radiant strike deals necrotic damage then it is a necrotic effect and thus has the necrotic keyword. RAW. The only specific rule overriding a general one in this case is that the damage is 2[w] + str mod + chr mod radiant and xd6 necrotic rather than being 1/2 and 1/2.

 

[Kraydak]

NPCs and PCs don't use the same rules, so I don't really see the problem. The system for NPCs is built for you to adjust them above and beyond the base design characteristics.

The system, as used in the MM, results in lvl 30 PCs treating lvl 30 NPCs about the same as lvl 1 PCs treated lvl 5 NPCs as far as AC/to-hits go. Enjoy bad scaling. (the hp scaling is also bad, because various mechanisms designed to influence behavior, such as divine challenge, simply stop working due to hp inflation)

Theorycraft is often wrong. It's funny you bring up WoW, since it's community has one of the worst records for being correct when it comes to theorycraft (especially since they lack a lot of the fundamental math, since Blizzard doesn't reveal all).

Inept people whining on the blizzard forums =/= the Elitest Jerks forums, say. Take a trip there and study the analysis of the Hunter class. WoW has raised theorycrafting to an artform.

4e: "Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

3e: "Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."

I fail to see a fundamental difference.

Because you weren't paying attention to what I wrote: *mechanically* there are differences. I don't care about fluff (because hp fluff has never made any sense, regardless of edition). Mechanically, 4e fits better with the superhero genre than the fantasy genre.

Two attacks that miss are not better than one attack that hits. My group's ranger thought much as you do, until her damage output dropped due to lack of successful attacks.

Twin attacks *can* be worse than a basic attack. There is a range of ACs (around needing a natural 20 to hit, i.e. when you should be fleeing) where Careful Strike is better than Twin. Otherwise, TA is better than CS. The math has been done SO many times on these boards that the above statement is... very unflattering to you. Please brush up on the math.

I'll agree there. That was a WTF moment for me. However, it's something more easily fixed (just a change or two would do it) than, say, Polymorph (which has had complete rewrites multiple times).

Yes and no. 4e has the problem that there is a distinct lack of redundancy. In 3e, you could fix problematic spells by removing them without leaving massive gaps. In 4e (with, at best, 4 choices/level category, and frequently less based on build and needed tactical niche) ANY flat out removal is a serious problem because there won't be other, similar but balanced, options. 3e was more resilient because it was designed with fewer, deeper silos. Basically, the underlying design of 4e requires more precision in the design work. Unfortunately, 4e didn't get that precision.

Remember, read-through theorycraft is meaningless in the face of actual play.

Bull. Broken math stays broken math without house-ruling/errata.

 

[Andor]

This was an edition war the moment he pointed out something bad about 4.0 that didn't exist in 3.0.

Just because I pointed it out doesn't mean I made it into one.

EDIT: Actually, let me clarify.

THis became an edition war the second he used the topic title:

"The Tragedy of 4th Edition."

So you don't agree that 4e would be a better product if it was better edited and more consistantly written?

 

[noretoc]

This was an edition war the moment he pointed out something bad about 4.0 that didn't exist in 3.0.

Just because I pointed it out doesn't mean I made it into one.

EDIT: Actually, let me clarify.

THis became an edition war the second he used the topic title:

"The Tragedy of 4th Edition."

I don't recall in his original post comparing anything to 3rd. Also what would you rather have him title it. The tragedy of the current version of D&D that I can't give a number to cause Recard will turn it into an edition war?

 

[hectorse]

So you don't agree that 4e would be a better product if it was better edited and more consistantly written?

What I don't think he agrees is the inflammatory title thread!

There are editing errors, but they hardly spell TRAGEDY on the edition

 

[noretoc]

What I don't think he agrees is the inflammatory title thread!

There are editing errors, but they hardly spell TRAGEDY on the edition

Maybe he is refering to the fact that is a tragedy of good quality. Redcar'd post said nothing about the title. Is instead compared the OP comment with the work of a previous edition that was completley unrelated.

 

[redcard]

What I don't think he agrees is the inflammatory title thread!

There are editing errors, but they hardly spell TRAGEDY on the edition

That thread title was what did it for me. It's only meant to encourage an inflammatory discussion.

If this is a "tragedy", I do NOT encourage people to compare them to ANY of the previous editions. Because as you do, if you rate this a tragedy, you'll rate the previous editions as:

"A catastrophe"
"A calamity"
"A Disaster."

Let's just tone down the rhetoric. This "Tragedy" is more edited than the other D&D first printing Core books I have on my shelf.

 

[Derren]

There are editing errors, but they hardly spell TRAGEDY on the edition

So? You forget that those books are not "just some splatbooks" but the flagship of the new edition. And when those flagships, which are the core of the new edition, include such errors, how do you think the rest of the books will look? Its not as if WotC has a good history with editing books or publishing errata.

Also, if the release was really rushed then there will be errors in the books. Skill Challenges, a major part of the game, are broken and just days or even hours after the release people found broken combos. And the books are not even out for a month.
You can be sure that in the next half year many more broken rules will be found. And when the core of the game contains such errors, then no amount of splatbooks can fix them.
In the worst case 4.5 will be necessary.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

That thread title was what did it for me. It's only meant to encourage an inflammatory discussion.

If this is a "tragedy", I do NOT encourage people to compare them to ANY of the previous editions. Because as you do, if you rate this a tragedy, you'll rate the previous editions as:

"A catastrophe"
"A calamity"
"A Disaster."

Let's just tone down the rhetoric. This "Tragedy" is more edited than the other D&D first printing Core books I have on my shelf.

:reviews thread:

Clearly the OP was a critique of 4E, but YOU first brought mention of another edition. Maybe YOU should take your own advice about toning things down?

 

[cangrejoide]

IBtL

I want to add a couple of things to this thread:

1) Regarding the title, I dont see 4E as a tragedy. Actually it is a wonderful game, that has already brougth 5 full happy sessions to my gaming group. And the best part of those 5 sessions we have only stopped to re-check the rules just once. Once.

2) As for the errata/playtesting. Well you have to consider that WOTC playtesting group could had been 5 guys or 10 guys or maybe a 100 guys, but weigth that against 1000's of gamers reading and re-reading rule upon rule just to find the loop hole or exploit. I put my money on the gamers to find an bloop faster than the playtest group. No game ever published has come out perfect, there are bound to be errors, typos and simple outdated documents that made it in the printing run. The mere notion that we got errata like 5 days after the game was publish, its a good sign that WOTC is very aware and active about this.

3)So will we see at least 1 edition war thread every day now?

Edit: Heck if Scion or any other White Wolf game can be a success with such ghastly editing, I can compare with much confidence 4E to an Epic Poem instead of a Tragedy!