D&D 4E When will 4E break?

[Blue]

I expect more over-powerful broken to be combination of 2+ characters. It's hard to test everything, and even harder to test everything in conjunction with everything else.

The next place I think it will break is when people do as they have done forever and run games that aren't the "standard D&D world". To pick an easy example in 3.x, if in a low-magic & wealth game some things lose balance, and in a high wealth/magic game other things become too weak or too strong, that's broken in terms of design, because you've already got players playing all sorts of world variations.

Along the same lines of broken (design broken, not over-powered broke), I'll also consider it broken if there are a lot of too-weak options, so that there are really only a few good choices for style of play X. If most people playing class X go route Y because it's so much better, that's broken. The flip side, if people wanting to play some role (say, an archer) all end up being clones of each other because there are few options to be different but equal, that's also broken.

I love to play with character builds, but I've retired characters because they weren't at the same level as others in the group and it was less fun. If one player carefully picking legal, core options makes a character that is much more powerful then other players picking flavorful, thematic, but sub-optimal options, that's doesn't work out well.

All that said, I'm still looking forward to it - I think there will be a lot good. Those are just predictions of if there is something wrong what it could be, not a sour certainty that there is things wrong.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

 

[A'koss]

Before the days of the Internet I'd have agreed. However, with information so quickly spread-able one has to take the dedicated abusers into consideration during design and cut 'em off at the pass, because their tricks will soon be everyone's tricks.Fair enough, though not allowing things as a DM doesn't always go over so well...

Lanefan

Co-signed.

I can't believe anyone would argue against WotC making every effort to make the game as un-abusable as possible.

 

[Terramotus]

- Someone find a killer tactic which works against most enemies (think Harm)

Just a nitpick, but Harm in 3.0 isn't really "broken". Its effectiveness doesn't come through some sort of loophole or strange combination - you cast a single spell. It works exactly as designed.

You can argue about the wisdom of that design decision, or how fun it was in practice, but I don't think it's broken. Broken implies, to me, the game being taken in a direction that the designers didn't anticipate, allowing consequences that they probably would have disallowed, had they been aware.

The designers were clearly aware of that the Harm spell description said in 3.0, and let it stand as it was.

 

[Imaro]

Personally I have a strange sinking feeling that the new multi-classing rules are where teh "brokeness" (is that even a word?) will come from. Especially since there's the whole mix and match of different class's abilities. For this to work out, here are just a few of the things WotC would have to consider...

1. Make sure whatever is sacrificed to get another class's ability is of equal value. I mean if I play a fighter and have a choice in 3e of the toughness feat or the wizards first level of casting...it's a no brainer and not balanced.

2. Test all combinations and interactions of class abilities that could possibly be combined. This is the one I think they'll drop the ball on, and it's one of those situations where it will only get harder to test as more and more classes are released.

3. Find a way to keep it in check, where one player can't focus on the abilities of another class thus increasing their effectiveness in that class's role while still being competent in their own role...we have the stepping on toes syndrome here. If I'm a striker who invests in enough class abilities of the fighter to be an average to above average defender...well now I hit harder than a fighter and can take slightly less to as much damage as the fighter...at a certain point, I make the pure fighter irrelevant.

 

[bgaesop]

Just a nitpick, but Harm in 3.0 isn't really "broken". Its effectiveness doesn't come through some sort of loophole or strange combination - you cast a single spell. It works exactly as designed.

You can argue about the wisdom of that design decision, or how fun it was in practice, but I don't think it's broken. Broken implies, to me, the game being taken in a direction that the designers didn't anticipate, allowing consequences that they probably would have disallowed, had they been aware.

The designers were clearly aware of that the Harm spell description said in 3.0, and let it stand as it was.

I don't think a spell or item or whatever has to be misused to be broken. Imagine if a third party publisher came out with a 1st level spell that was "kill one target no saving throw." Would that be broken? I imagine pretty much everyone would agree it would. Or to use an actual example, from the old Living Arcanis phb before errata (I might be misremembering slightly here but bear with me) there was a two-handed weapon that did your choice of piercing or bludgeoning damage, 2d8, crit on an 18-20 and did *4 damage on a crit. Would you consider that broken? I would, because it is objectively better than every other weapon in the game, despite the fact that using it as your main weapon was quite obviously what the designers intended.

 

[Jhulae]

Just a nitpick, but Harm in 3.0 isn't really "broken". Its effectiveness doesn't come through some sort of loophole or strange combination - you cast a single spell. It works exactly as designed.

You can argue about the wisdom of that design decision, or how fun it was in practice, but I don't think it's broken. Broken implies, to me, the game being taken in a direction that the designers didn't anticipate, allowing consequences that they probably would have disallowed, had they been aware.

The designers were clearly aware of that the Harm spell description said in 3.0, and let it stand as it was.

While the designers knew what it was (and were keeping Harm similar to its AD&D and 2nd Ed versions), the spell was most definitely broken.

A 6th level spell that could potentially eliminate 500+ HP from its target, yet can't kill a 1st level commoner ever? Sorry, but that's just not working as intended.

 

[Sitara]

Actually, yes it is.

Harm's intenstion is to bring its recipient to the brink of death, so be it a 10hp commoner who loses 9hp or a 600 hp dragon who loses 550hp, its all subjective and the spell does its job.

After all, hitpoints ar a game mechanic, the people in the game do not know they have hitpoints. (else no one would ever take the commoner class...)

 

[Steely Dan]

When the 4th Ed sarrukh is released.