Talk:Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

EDIT WAR LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

The first Edit War[edit]

Amusingly enough, the very act of reverting to more accurate version has made the version reverted to less accurate. Pime taradox? --Carcer 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

God I wish someone who actually gives a shit about 4th edition comes and aspergers this page into sensibility sometime soon so these shitty edit wars end.--Carcer 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Same here. I'm almost at the point of actually reading the 4E PHB. Yet I still hope that sacrifice would be unnecessary, I value my SAN score high. Fatum 20:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Your SAN score doesn't matter. You're just going to die a horrible death soon anyways. ManWithNoName
FINAL DESTINATION - Ahri 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
But reading this heretical book will be like a thousand slow horrible deaths! Fatum 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
You guys haven't even read the fucking books? Jesus fucking Christ man, how do you even know if any of this is accurate and how can you dispute those that claim you're mistaken?
First, are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm? Second, articles are not places for discussion, they are sources of academic information. You want to discuss shit - you go to the talk page. You want to correct a factual error - you are welcome. You want to erase info on the criticism the system has met just cause you don't agree subjectively - you go and fuck yourself. Fatum 23:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about aspergers but I can manage some OCD. I've given it the same treatment as I've been giving all the other RPGs I've been making pages for. I'll let you get back to fagging it up again. At least it will hopefully have some structure now. -Destro
  • Shows gratitude* Great job!--Hanyufag 18:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvin'?[edit]

Two main complaints: 1. Wtf do the "4e setting" (Points of light, anyone?) and "4e gods" (which are a part of a setting) do in a main article? I'd put them in a separate one. (like Points of Light, lol)
2. Shitty shopped covers by this one in article's gallery are FAIL. I suggest removing these examples of ">9000 hours in MS Paint with one's ass" for the Great Justice.

Do it faggot.jpg, and Lrn2line break
I'm on it. Also I always forget either to break lines or to sign or something else.--Hanyufag 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this article has seen a lot of improvement recently, huzzah! --Myomoto 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

I don't know why, but I loled when I saw this. -Destro

I've been putting them on most of the pages. Adds a bit of color to it.Björn_Freigh 19:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It actually looks nice, If our 40k article was anything I would've suggested putting the logo there. --ManWithNoName 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As I discussed with Björn earlier, I think they would look really good in a infobox, but hell if I can get them to work. --Myomoto 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It'll take me a while to find a good WH40K logo to edit into a .gif for the page. But I'll probably do something tonight when I get home from work. Björn_Freigh 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh, found it quicker than expected. There have some pretty pics. Björn_Freigh 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ATTN[edit]

What the fuck are you guys doing stop randomly deleting sections of the criticisms when they are in fact criticisms that have been levelled against 4e, even if you personally don't feel those criticisms are accurate. Refute them, don't delete them.

You fags also deleted the link to the OTHER Tohou material, and it was very on topic.

Also, the Touhou Power Cards are obviously related to 4e and they should be in the See Also section. On top of this, STOP USING =PAGE TITLE HEADERS= for within-article sections you fucking gimps. ==This== is for higher-level headers with an article. This is like in the official wiki page formatting guidelines, both on here AND mediawiki in general. Ffffff. --Carcer 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Carcer, what are you, stupid? Those are called hierarchic headers, and when you write a complex article, you need those.

You start with

=Header=
and proceed with
==chapter1==
and 
===section1===
===section2===
and so forth
==chapter2==

It's easy, really. Fatum 21:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: feel free to remove the shit when you understand it.
LEARN TO READ PLZ.
  • the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title;
  • primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on.
primary headings are then ==H2==
I never said don't use headers within the article, I said don't use PAGE TITLE HEADERS within an article. --Carcer 22:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What does that shitty link to the lair of furfaggots, nerds, dorks and all types of dark forces have to do with the topic discussed? Fatum 02:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My God trolls love to editwar this article[edit]

Refute them, don't delete them.

No, don't refute them. You want to say what's good about 4e, make a "pros to 4e" section or something. Stop deleting the legitimate complaints (read: ALL COMPLAINTS) in the criticisms section, and don't raise a shitstorm inside the section itself. --Dunefag 19:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

* Power-based combat is too similar to MMOGs, in particular World of Warcraft. I removed this, because it isn't based on an actual criticism of 4e, it's just a troll meme, and I don't think baseless flamebait belongs here. ~ vesu --98.193.171.15 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It started as a troll, but it's become a full-blown meme, and people are taking it seriously. Better to identify it as a troll or an invalid criticism than to omit it. God knows I disagree with the sentiment (the power-cards are imitating BOARD GAMES, not vidya games for fuck's sakes), but as Voltaire said "I cannot agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --NotBrandX
The section is a list of criticisms, not a debate forum. Including chains of opinions not only defeats the purpose of detached documentation of the controversy, but it also bloats the page with what amounts to be non-information. If the WoW troll belongs anywhere, it could be listed explicitly as a method commonly used to troll, but otherwise, it is not informative, reflective of consensus, or useful for understanding other ideas. --98.193.171.15 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. Bloat and bias removed. --NotBrandX

WIKI IZ SRS BZNESS[edit]

When adding to the criticism section, make sure that if the point fits the criteria described in this page for a troll statement, include it only in the troll section, or do not include it at all.

Large revision on the criticism section. Please note that the criticisms will be judged by if they are appropriate for a wiki, not the quality or validity I perceive of the points.

"*Power-based class abilities is too similar to MMOGs, in particular World of Warcraft."

The "too" word introduces bias. When that word is removed, the statement becomes completely vapid "now it's taken seriously" does not help the integrity of this criticism. Moved to the troll section.

"*Characters are too durable," Biased. Changed to "*Characters are more durable,"

"*Lack of content and rules to cover various situations are rationalized with "OH YOU JUST LET THE DM COME UP WITH AN AD-HOC SOLUTION AND WING IT." This wasn't any less viable in any other edition, but now this is somehow played off as a strength."

This is clearly biased. More on this later.

"*Some feel that the decrease in rules, while welcomed, didn't go far enough. Some people wanted to open up the DMG and see "BULLSHIT IT." Many people want to pay hundreds of dollars for books with no content. Afterall, that's what "streamlined" is, right?"

Only the first sentence is necessary. The rest is extraneous flame bait.

"*Lack of non-combat content such as crafting. This criticism partially refers to the reduced skill list and partially to the fact that the greatest focus of the game are obviously the Powers which are largely combat-oriented. The "Adventurer's Vault" item supplement that came out adds to the strength of this argument; it reads like a WoW item encyclopedia." Where do I begin with this mess? It's redundant with the above point regarding lack of content, it's actually two criticisms in one bullet, and the second criticism is an extension of the WoW troll. Without the second point, this bullet is higher quality than the previous similar criticism, so it is preserved while the other is removed.

"*Blatantly obvious RNG-sodomizing powers that were somehow overlooked.

  • Various broken abilities that demonstrate a lack of playtesting and/or willful disregard for legitimate concerns (Orbizard, Demigod epic destiny, rangers soloing Orcus, and so on)."

The first point is redundant, removed.

"*Shoehorning the game into hackan 'n' slashan mode." Redundant, removed.

"*Elimination of iconic spells, class features, and whole classes in the name of balance--try playing an enchanter, summoner, or necromancer in Core 4e. Try playing a druid in Core 4e. Or a ranger with an animal companion. Or a witch with a familiar. Or a bard. Or a monk. (EDIT: Actually most of these classes have been deferred to other books [sold separately] rather than outright eliminated. Good news is they're all considered 'core,' as though the term still had meaning.)" Modified for coherence, reworded to remove bias.

"*Exception-based design wanking, plus shit like the four different "evil eye" variations. Includes ability interaction and "How the hell do I adjudicate this?"" In the time it would take me to work this into a coherent thought, the the criticisms it contains could be rewritten, left as-is because I may not understand it's meaning. Please address this.

"*Solo encounters suck--they're boring grindfests.

  • Ritual system is retarded."

These bullets do not contain any actual criticisms. Since they do not meet the criteria of the section, and do not contain any salvageable information, removed.

Trolling section added to give a proper home to the World of Warcraft comment. ~Vesu --98.193.171.15 22:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seperating trolls from legitimate criticisms. BRILLIANT! trollfags are still going to deface the criticism section, since it looks like the diff between legit crit and loltroll is just consensus. How about a dozen words to define how one differentiates a troll from a legitimate statement of a system's shortcomings? --NotBrandX 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Which are core rulebooks, and which are splatbooks?[edit]

Try playing a druid in Core 4e. Or a ranger with an animal companion. Or a witch with a familiar. Or a bard. Or a monk.

(EDIT: Actually most of these classes have been deferred to other books [sold separately] rather than outright eliminated. Good news is they're all considered 'core,' as though the term still had meaning.)

... the [animal] companion is basically a lobotomized bag of hit points), these classes are not available in core rulebooks.

druids, and monks are not present in the first player's handbook, considered to be the only player's handbook to be a "core" rulebook.

[re-undo] What is "considered" core is irrelevant. If /tg/ does not agree with WotC on the meaning of "core" they should create a new term.

Vesu, I got a lotta respect for your desire to keep the trolling shit off this article's page, but even as a 4e apologist I can't honestly say the PH2 is a "core rulebook." It didn't come in the first wave of hardcovers. If you buy a boxed set of 4e D&D books, it won't include PH2 nor PH3 and not even Martial Heroes. Hell, even the fags at Wikipedia the first three 4e books as "core" rulebooks from the rest. The closest you could come is calling a "Bard" a core that was left out, since "Arcane" + "Leader" (or Invoker with "Divine" + "Controller") is an obvious hole in the concepts introduced in the first Player's Handbook. Primal power source and Psi power source aren't even hinted at in the first Player's Handjob... and neither PH2 nor PH3 are replacements for the first PH... they're supplements, dude. --NotBrandX 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC) The Player's handbook two is core simply because it says "core" on the cover. What "core" means is not technically defined, but in the case of ambiguity, you use data to form a conclusion. Supplemental books have been given the property of "core", therefore the dichotomy of "core" and supplemental is false. You may very well call the PHB, DMG, and MM constructable set properties such as "non-supplemental" or something completely arbitrary, like "The big three", but to say that that any books after the third are not core is as vacuous and tautological as saying that books that came after the third came after the third.

If you want to avoid WotC's definition of the word "core", be my guest. While you are working on that, try convincing everybody that the cover of the PHB2 is untruthful because you have defined "primal" to mean "motorcycle riding", and there are no biker classes inside. --Vesu 02:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell, WotC calls the PH2 a "Rules Supplement" right there in the catalog! It's not like I'm twisting their... waaaait a minute. The book's cover illustration says "Roleplaying Game Core Rules," but their product catalog says "Rules Supplement." Shit.

I was going to say "books that don't build on other books are 'core'," but then I realized that there's terms and concepts in the Monster Manual that depend on the Player's Handbook, and calling the MM1 a splatbook just feels wrong. And then there's crap like the Ebberon Players Guide that was supposed to be a drop-in replacement for the PH in earlier editions. Shit shit shit.

It's almost as if they care more about selling books than building a simple functioning product.

I'll have to concede this point -- if the canonical publisher put "Core Rules" on the container, then that's what's inside. I guess I'll just have to add one more criticism to the list: too damn many core rulebooks. --NotBrandX 15:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, do you notice that there's a commonly used meaning of the term? The one we use for all systems? You know, like "the books printed and offered when the system was first out"? Publisher's opinion doesn't quite change a splat into a core book, now does it? Fatum 09:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm with you, Fatum, but "common use" of terms is subjective, which means we'll be arguing semantics, and that way lies edit wars. I'm willing to accept the text written on the covers as cannon... even I think it's stupid to call the third Player's Handbook a "core" rulebook, there's no denying that the publisher called it a "core rulebook." So it's the publisher being stupid, making the stupidity part of the canon for the game. --NotBrandX 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I insist we refer to them as splats in the article at least. "Splats the publisher believes to be core", if you wish :3 Fatum 06:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I can insist that the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it a true statement. Defend your position with facts or leave and take your edit-skirmishing with you. Reverted. --Vesu 23:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you have problems with eyesight or reading comprehension? I believe "commonly used meaning of the term core is the set of books printed and offered when the system is first out" is clear enough to require an equally logical counter-argument, at least. Oh wait, you must be trolling, isn't it what the cool kids call it nowadays? Fatum 10:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if you had a valid point, (You don't) your edit uses strongly biased language, and is therefore unfit for the article. You have not even supplied a technical definition of the word "core" that is not purely tautological. If you arbitrarily define it to mean "books printed after the DMG, PHB, and MM", then saying a book is core becomes an extraneous bit of jargon that is not needed to explain the time line of the printed sourcebooks, and does not even aid in the understanding of that sequence. This should sufficiently demonstrate that your argument is at best, completely arbitrary, and at worst, mischievously pedantic.
In sharp contrast with your suggested definition, WotC offers an alternative that is canon, explicit, and verifiable by anybody who owns a "core" book.
I don't want to be purely destructive of your point of view, so I suggest some alternative set definitions that may be useful while discussing sourcebooks.
  • Series X: Refers to series X or less of the DMG, PHB, and MM. The power source-based rulebooks do not synchronize properly with this method, so they are excluded. For example, Divine power 1 contains avenger powers, a class from series 2 of the PHB. This may be made explicit by saying "core series 1", for example.
  • Minimalist: The minimum required books to play the game are the PHB, and DMG. The MM may be included because the DMG refers to it, so it may be interpreted as required materials for the DMG, despite the fact that the DMG contains monsters.
I hope these are satisfactory for describing the sets as you intend. I am perfectly willing to admit that the PHB2 is not "minimalist", because a player can make a fully functioning character without it.
To answer your unrelated questions, my vision is correctable, and my reading comprehension is regularly tested by my task of technically editing papers at the school in which I am currently studying. Thank you for your concern, Sir. Vesu --24.180.182.7 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary for those of you just joining us:

notBrandX said
"core rulebooks are the first wave of hardcovers, or that first boxed starter set, the rest are supplements." Then he recanted; what a wuss. Then he said "core books don't have other books as pre-requisites," but he recanted again because PH depends on DMG and vice-versa. What a moron.
Vesu said
"the publisher wrote 'core rulebook' on the cover, it's a core rulebook, not a splatbook." And he keeps using "naming X a Y doesn't make it a Y" in his supporting arguments.
Fatum said
"core rulebooks are the set of books printed and offered when the system is first out," says that this is the more common definition of the term "core rulebook," and if the publisher writes "core" on it, they're just being misleading others (intentionally or out of ignorance).

Ironically, Vesu keeps saying "calling a core rulebook splat doesn't make it splat," and Fatum keeps saying "writing 'core' on the cover of a splat doesn't make it core," so they're each using the same argument to support a contrary position. This is a perfect setting for a flamewar, I'm just waiting for the first ad hominem attack and a Nazis comparison. --NotBrandX 00:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

NotBrandX, you misrepresent my position.

Suppose somebody opened up the PHB2 and said "Druids are proficient with military ranged weapons, the printed lettering is wrong." The first thing you would ask this person is if there is any errata. The moment they say no, you immediately know that this person is not discussing the actual game of D&D:4e, he is discussing a theoretical version in which a rule has been changed, or "homebrew". Outside of this person's little homebrew world, he is incorrect.

Fatum may not decide that the use of the word "core" is erroneous for the same reason he cannot insist that the move speed of a dwarf is seven squares. The DM may very well rule to this effect, but to tell people outside of your homebrew world this is to lie.

I already suggested some alternatives to the not appropriately contextualized definition of the word "core" that would be more useful in conversation. If Fatum said that the bard was not present in the first series of the core books, he would be intellectually honest in doing so. You would not tell a GURPS player that a bastard sword deals 1d10 damage, and you would not tell a Dark Heresy player that there are only six main attributes, so why tell a D&D:4e player that his PHB2 is not core? Imposing an external definition of a word regardless of context or application is nothing but hubris. --Vesu 03:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1) Please use spacing; the discussion is turning into a mess.
2) "Core" is not a system-specific term. Any system has core books, and most also have books printed later on, containing additional options. Those books are called splats. That's how each and every system works, that's the generally accepted terminology, and WotC is not in position to change it. If they decide to print "roleplaying system box" on the cover of their books, will their books become boxes?
3) The whole argument is, in fact, easily avoidable. Just rephrasing it to "were not available in the originally released books/when the system was first out, but were added later on/in the additional/supplemental books" eliminates the concern altogether. Just avoid the term "core" altogether, if calling WotC on their bullshit hurts you so much. Fatum 04:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
"If they decide to print "roleplaying system box" on the cover of their books, will their books become boxes? "
Yes.
You are confusing names with data. It is trivial to assign the variable named "truth" the value of false. This is because data is used to perform operations, while names are used to perform references. In this case, the rulebook is a box, but the meaning of that word contains data relevant to the game, and nothing else.
""Core" is not a system-specific term."
Read the player's handbook. There is very clearly a section on the "core mechanic". This phrase, of course has nothing to do with the release sequence of the rulebooks, just like the word "core" on the front has nothing to do with it. I have demonstrated two examples of it being a system-specific term.
"Any system has core books, and most also have books printed later on, containing additional options. Those books are called splats. That's how each and every system works,"
"later on" and "additional options" are vague terms. Create a technical definition of the word "core" or don't even attempt to impose it on a system that has it's own canon meaning.
"The whole argument is, in fact, easily avoidable."
That doesn't mean it should be avoided. There is an important issue of if the terminology printed within a book of rules is canon within its own context. The class is named "fighter", not "An OCC Wizards alleges to be a fighter". I hope it's immediately obvious why adopting that paradigm is a bad idea. Vesu --24.180.182.7 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The more I read you, the more I get an impression you are just a troll. But ok, I'll feed, no problems.
>books will become boxes if called so on the cover.
I've said already, and I'll repeat: words have commonly used meanings. You can't redefine what words mean in roleplaying sourcebooks, unless those are system-specific terms. Meaning of a word is not a value of a variable, it's its essence, preset and generally agreed upon.
>"core rulebook is a system-specific term in 4E"
It would have been if it weren't a generally used term. Also, your example is plainly irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with gradation of core and non-core books.
>"later on" and "additional options" are vague terms.
Yes, sure, those are extremely vague.Because time continuity is ambiguous. Can't possibly understand what does "was not included in the initial release" mean, no way. Draw yourself a diagram or something, it'll be a single circle: "Core rulebooks, offered when the system was first out". Everything outside it is splats.
>Create a technical definition of the word "core"
I'll repeat, for those unable to read things when they are encountered first: "core rulebooks are a set of rulebooks printed and offered when the system is first out". I can't see how the initial set of books available for a game system is not an extremely clear and unambiguous list, unlike the constantly updated list of books the publisher wants to call core for some reason.
>That doesn't mean it should be avoided.
As a matter of fact, it does. The reason why we are discussing it is making an article as non-argument provoking as possible. Removing the term "core" from a single line in a single point in a single section does the trick. Discussing for the sake of discussing is pointless bickering I am not interested in.
Fatum 08:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"core rulebooks are a set of rulebooks printed and offered when the system is first out"
When the system was first released, the only book available was the player's handbook. Therefore, the DMG and MM are not core, according to your definition.
Here is your task, create a definition of "core" that strictly includes only the PHB, DMG, and MM, while excluding the PHB2. The definition must be the following.
  • The definition may not depend on a particular interpretation in order to support your position. The definition you already supplied breaks this rule because the interpretation of the PHB being the only core book is no less defensible than the core set being the DMG, PHB, and MM.
  • The definition must not be vacuous. For example, an inappropriate definition would be "Core: The PHB, MM, and DMG".
  • The definition may not employ special pleading.
  • The definition must not contradict the commonly accepted use of the word "core" to refer to rulebooks within the context of any game system ever published, printed, or recorded.
Until these conditions are met, I will not budge. If you do succeed, I will not obstruct the representation of the view that the PHB2 is not core as if it were not of less credibility than the contrary position. Vesu --24.180.182.7 21:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
1) Open WotC site.
2) Read release dates: Player’s Handbook [June 6th, 2008], Dungeon Master’s Guide [June 6th, 2008], Monster Manual [June 6th, 2008], 4th Edition Core Rulebook Gift Set [June 6th, 2008] (including the Player’s Handbook rulebook, the Monster Manual rulebook, and the Dungeon Master’s Guide rulebook).
3) Make sure you understand that this makes "When the system was first released, the only book available was the player's handbook. Therefore, the DMG and MM are not core, according to your definition" false, renders your argumentation void, and my initial definition correct or at least useable.
On a side note, I don't believe you quite understand your standing here, schoolchild. You are not in position to give tasks, impose rules, make demands or obstruct anything, as are none of us except for Wikifag.
Fatum 02:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What's can we say about what's GOOD about D&D 4e?[edit]

Seen on /tg/:

Reasons why 4E sucks:

  • Paladins can't fall, and can be of any alignment.
  • Wizards can't kick as much ass as they used to.
  • Bear Lore I really need a nature check to know about bears?
  • LOL WoW CLONE
  • Classes 'appear' to be the same.
  • More devotion to crunch than fluff, which means everything sounds the same.
  • Bloody Path
  • Dungeon Master's Guide, page 42.

Reasons why 4E is better:

  • Paladins can't fall, and can be of any alignment.
  • Wizards can't kick as much ass as they used to.
  • Crunch is much simpler (IE: the rules come from the rulebook, not the spells)
  • Rolling a character is MUCH faster
  • Tactics are reliant on strategy, build choice, and location rather than who has the better equipment and wizards
  • Harder to die.
  • No more extended CL bullshit when dealing with races not normally used by PCs.
  • Character classes are balanced so that no one class 'hogs the spotlight'.
  • Skill challenges allow for more than just the one or two roleplayers to hog the spotlight.
  • No more 'against Alignment' bullshit, or at least not as much.
  • No more 'Detect X' bullshit that tends to ruin DM's campaigns.
  • Less complicated, but still not over simplified.
  • LOTS of options, even without the splat books.
  • Powers mean you won't be running out of spells/fighters can do more than just power attacks and full attacks.

Anything salvageable from this we can put into the article? Or are we going to ditch any attempts at being impartial and just more "LAWL 4e SUX UR A FAGGERT IF U LIEK THIS" ? --NotBrandX 04:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This list has a problem of being written from a point of view of "LAWL 4e ROX UR A FAGGERT IF U DON'T LIEK THIS". Most of the points are highly controversial or subjective, and putting them in the article will only spur the discussion and the edit war. Fatum 09:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the whole thing for the sake of citing sources, but not everything posted to /tg/ is mature and adult material. Some of these points are clearly true, although not everyone will believe they're positive:

  • Magic-Users no longer increase in power geometrically as they level up, starting as once-a-day wonders and ending as game-breakers.
  • Spell effects have a clear terminology of what they can and cannot do, and what they require.
  • Player characters are harder to kill, so nobody gets taken out by a lucky blow and has to sit on their hands while the rest of the table is having fun.
  • Melee combat characters have more options than just "hit them with my 1d8 stick again."

Then there's the points that could be used by either side:

  • Paladins can be of any alignment, and aren't penalized for adhering to strictures.
    • yay: Paladins aren't limited to lawful stupid or chaotic dumb.
    • boo: Paladins aren't limited to lawful gullible or chaotic gullible.
  • Combat always takes place on a battle-map, so tactics become very important
    • yay: things like flanking and dodging and features of the room are important now.
    • boo: I have to drag minifigs and cutouts everywhere and keep track of powers that are ONLY used for moving minifigs on a map.
  • Crunch is much simpler
    • yay: no more spells that make exceptions to the rules, surprising the DM with loopholes.
    • boo: limits your options for creative tactics or unique effects.

--NotBrandX 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

>Magic-Users no longer increase in power geometrically as they level up, starting as once-a-day wonders and ending as game-breakers.
We've been over this point numerous times on the board already, and it is, as I said, highly controversial. For example, if you progress your melee character smart, and don't use game-breaking shit when picking spells, it was all pretty ok in 3.5. At least as much as I've played, everyone had fun no matter whether they were magic users or not.
>Spell effects have a clear terminology of what they can and cannot do, and what they require.
Aha, since they all operate in a very limited framework. Again, controversial and argument-inducing.
>Player characters are harder to kill, so nobody gets taken out by a lucky blow and has to sit on their hands while the rest of the table is having fun.
Let me rephrase that for you: "PCs are harder to kill, so there's no thrill to combat". Controversial and argument-inducing.
>Melee combat characters have more options than just "hit them with my 1d8 stick again."
I actually facepalm each time this one gets mentioned. Have you actually charopted meleers in 3.5, seriously? It has nothing to very little with "hitting for 1d8 stick". Could be rephrased into "Melee characters now has as many options as magical ones", but even this will ask for a counter "Since the magic users now have less".
Fatum 07:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess there's no point in trying to defend 4e[edit]

I tried, but someone who doesn't even have any prior contributions came in and manually erased them with a long chain of 7 or 8 edit spams. Coulda just used the revert feature. If any attempt to defend 4e with counter-arguments (rather than blankings) is just gonna get erased (see: blanked) then I guess /tg/ has spoken. I could just undo their pile of edits, but what's the point, it'd just become an edit war and I don't want that.

Do what you will, I'm done dealing with it. -Zabasaz April 06, 2010

I can see why people were undoing or blanking out your edits... the article is NOT the place to rebutt arguments. You were adding text to the "Criticisms" section that undermined the content; what you should've done instead was created at "Defenses" or "Counter-arguments" or "Reasons to like" section. Look at it this way: D&D4e apologists (like yourself) need to know to prepare for debate what the talking points are for the HATEfags that will be trashing 4e, or what factoids the sheeple will be waving around. Also, *chan boards aren't exactly known for being happy friendly places, so just roll with the raeg, play the gaem, surf the haet. It's like Yoda said: your hate will make you strong. No, wait, he didn't say that at all. -NotBrandX 14:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't really want to have to deal with editing out / fix any changes they make to a section I put in, I think this was attempted before to no avail. I'll let them live with their hollow arguments and unjustified hate for now, and deal with it later.
-Zabasaz April 06, 2010

4e Fandom Section Installed[edit]

In before it gets edited/wrecked/blanked/etc because we can't have nice things.
-Zabasaz April 14, 2010

You have my axe. --NotBrandX 21:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
And my Longsword of Thundering +3

Unsurprisingly, 76.165.121.130 has begun his usual antics, editing the Benefits section to pump it with angry, long-winded, dubious arguments when the Criticism section is just a mouse-wheel scroll up. Never mind that editing this page relentlessly is the only contribution he has made, or at least so says his contributions page. In any case I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it is treated as it properly should be.

Wiki Policing. Serious business.

-Zabasaz April 14, 2010

Holy shit, Zabasaz, you must've added like 50kb of data. I'm all for making sure both sides of the fight get poo to fling at each other, but could you be more succinct? You don't want people to zone out while they're reading your points. --NotBrandX 02:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe but I'd have to do it later. Not my fault the poo I throw is more consistent. It's my diet.
-Zabasaz April 14, 2010

Jeebus, that 'benefits' sections reads like something straight out of WoTC propaganda, from day 1. Even the most zealous 4rrie that's actually played the game knows minions don't work as written, and yet what's provided is basically a cut-and-paste from the early release days hype. Can whoever is doing this just link to the WoTC official page, where schilling makes sense, instead of smear their angry, long-winded poo here? --Doom 17:36, 15 April 2010

I tried to repair the damage that 76.165.121.130 did. --NotBrandX 17:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The damage is still pretty heavy, plenty of factual errors there. I guess you'll just leave in glaring mistakes, like getting the chance of making a saving throw wrong, in, as examples of how fans don't really know their own game. There's still lots of damage in the form of puffery--it may be the bestest game EVAH, like the fanboy says, but so much is misrepresentative that this belongs on a Derp page. Oh wait, you mean the guy who tried to fix the errors did damage? Eh, he's basically toilet paper, the shit is still shit no matter how much he, or anyone else, wipes. -76.165.121.130

How did I get saving throws wrong? It's 10 on a d20.. OH. 10 or better, 55% chance. Whoops. Did my typo just ruin Christmas forever? Calm down. --NotBrandX

Thanks for keeping an eye open and shortening it for me, NotBrandX. I appreciate the help when dealing with butthurt 4e haters, like the one above this post. I see the same guy is still going at it, too, don't know what put him in such a foul mood. I'll keep my eyes open. Either way, thanks for the help.
-Zabasaz April 15, 2010

Added a new description of the Fandom. What do you guys think? Any good? Accurate? Funny?--Otogi

You misspelled "wary." :D --NotBrandX 22:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!...I'll edit it.
Nice.
-Zabasaz April 15, 2010
Hey, as long as you guys think it's alright! Otogi

Still loaded down with factual errors, like the implication that 10 minions are equivalent to 2 same level monsters (that's not true in the rules, and totally not true as the game is played). Thanks for cleaning up the schilling a bit (still got lots to do, I know, but I appreciate you don't have all day to deal with it), hopefully the butthurting whiner will chill out a bit now. --64.56.25.15

It's a wiki. We may not get it right the first time, but we get there eventually. Also, this is a *chan site, an internet hate machine, so our haet makes us strong. --NotBrandX 13:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No prob, I understand. Next, you need to fix the error with skills--level and training aren't the only factors, skills are also improved by ability scores (a major factor below level 10, and critical past that). Really, after days of this and dozens of edits removing like 70% of the material, we still have something so loaded down with misrepresentations and outright errors as to be laughable. You'd think WotC could get someone at least familiar with the game to do this; I'm currently running to DnD4.0 campaigns (one from 1-17), and am no expert, but could easily do better than this without effort.

Is the 'monster comparison' supposed to be more schilling, also? I note that mentioning 3.5 goblins could do more than use a melee weapon seems to not be allowed.

"DMs can houserule it in..."[edit]

This is a tactic used by trolls on both sides of the fence, and I want to put a stop to it. "House-rule it in" means the rules are broken and you're fixing it by hand. Goblins in 3.5e can have extra abilities/feats sure, but the rules in the Monster Manual only mention monster templates, monsters-as-PCs, with all the arduous paperwork, or just more hit dice with "advancement."
Cite official sources, or GTFO. --NotBrandX 14:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(SO sorry about editing your post, was an accident, but here's the relevant part I want to address)

Here's the SRD for goblins: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm

It's very clear from that that monsters can have PC class (and even NPC class) levels, it even specifically gives them a favored class of Rogue. The stat block given is for a sample 1st level warrior (hey, look, a class level!), and the rules specifically mention changing the Alertness feat to Mounted Combat for riders. So, yeah, it's not a 'can have feats with houseruling' thing at all...they're supposed to have feats.

It's NOT a houserule to use the rules as written. The whole *design* of 3.5 is monsters can use the same rules as players. Nearly every monster of any significance in the printed modules has some sort of class levels...WotC sure thinks it's not a house rule. So, yes, goblins can quite possibly backstab or cast a spell, or do a host of other effects.

In AD&D, you have a point, since it's certainly implied, via racial level limits, that certain races couldn't be certain classes (even then, however, the MM often said groups of goblins or whatever might have a 'shaman' with low level cleric powers). If you want to say it can be complicated in 3.5, sure...but it's not a house rule, it's fully supported in the rulebooks with examples, even. But I digress.

4.0 does this for you, instead of 3.5 where you sometimes have to blow a few seconds and do it yourself, I'm certainly not arguing that point. (Although, seriously, 'add 3 hit points, let it cast Bless', is 'arduous'?) A case could well be made that each 'goblin' type represented is a different species in 4.0 (not that such creatures mate or anything), but that's for another time. Back to the point:

It's not a 'houserule' to use the rules as written. 3.5 explicitly gives rules for creatures having classes, the creatures explicitly have the feats characters have, and thus they CAN have powers comparable to characters.

As an aside, if you go to therpgsite, you can find people that, absolutely, did use the 'to hit modifiers for AC'. I didn't either, but certainly some folks did (it went a good way to offsetting the 'imbalance' between classes, since only fighters could really exploit that chart).

--76.165.121.130

Huh. My paper copy of the MM doesn't have the Goblins as PCs... but there it is in the d20 SRD. Right you are. Hooray for citing sources! --NotBrandX 22:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of the monster comparisons section is to show what the creatures are capable of AS WRITTEN. You can say "but the DM can give class levels to the goblins!" all you want, but everyone sees through your shit when you completely neglect to the mention that the 4e DM can do the same shit, and probably with relative ease compared to most races in 3.5e since the LA system won't complicate things. The point is, the section shows what the MM gives a DM who doesn't want to spend an hour rolling a bunch of characters as goblins, not what you CAN do with goblins, but what is ALREADY done with them. Take your heads out of your asses for a second, catch a whiff of fresh air, and stop adding that stupid crap where it isn't due. If you wanna bitch that 4e doesn't allow you to alter its monsters, do it in the criticism section so I can gleefully erase your entry for being an utter fabrication.

That said, I think we should consider removing this section. Originally it featured multiple examples but since we've decided to shrink the page (reducing the size of the benefits and criticisms) I figure we may as well remove the section that is now essentially useless and causing many butthurt neckbeards to burst into flames. We can instead just add it as a benefit. In fact, I'm going to do that now. -Zabasaz April 17, 2010

Absolutely, comparing monsters between D&D and 4e is so indefensible that it's best just to leave it out, glad to see you've finally extracted your face far enough to see that, rather than see you burst into flames repeatedly, leading to so much butthurt -- Doom

May be worth it to write an article with side-by-side comparisons of stats in the different editions. I wrote a comparison of the workday of a OD&D and a 4eD&D fighter, showing all my work with the math. It wasn't troll-bait, but lots of chewy facts. Maybe have a page for it and then sub-articles... hmm. 3.0e and 3.5e are the only ones under Open Gaming License, so copying the stats from other editions might be a copyright problem... what? why are you laughing? --NotBrandX 15:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


As far as side-by-side comparisons of stats between editions, you can do it well enough for AD&D, 2nd, 3e or whatever , but you really shouldn't for 4e. It's a completely different game with the D&D license slathered on it. The best explanation I can find is Hasbro had made a RPG, "Magic Sword", but never released it since they was no reason to compete with D&D. Once they bought out WoTC, they owned the D&D license, and so just went and retconned Magic Sword to make it sort of look like D&D. Anyway, comparing 4e to D&D in any quantitative sense is about as reasonable as comparing Call of Cthulhu to D&D...there're just not enough similarities in an objective sense.

That said, somewhere online there's a great comparison between "level 1 fighter versus goblin". There's a steady increase amongst all the editions of D&D (ending at a bit over "one fighter is worth 7 gobs"), but when you get to 4e, it shoots up over 20, an increase greater than all editions of D&D put together, if I recall correctly. -- Doom

Having run a 4e game with a level 1 party fighting four goblins and two fire beetles yesterday, I can honestly say that what I am presently replying to is one of the most retarded, laughable things I've heard in this discussion page. -Zabasaz April 19, 2010
Heh, if your own writing is the most retarded, laughable thing you've seen, that pretty much says it all. Anyway, the 'fighter vs goblin' thing is mathematics, sorry if you don't like it. Feel free to go seek out that article and challenge him, but it's been very well established as accurate over the year or more trolls and the clueless have tried to discredit it. Of course, a dwarven battlerager (using the books as written) can singlehandedly kill an infinite such monsters right out the gate; a level 2 fighter using 'boundless endurance' will likewise win endlessly, but I digress. Anyway, I think that's (one of) your many problems here. You're only familiar with level 1 play at best, the only level where 4e was playtested. It works well enough there, at least the first campaign or two (before you realize the flaws in chargen). Stop vandalizing the page, and come back next year, after you've actually run a campaign well into paragon. Thanks. -- Doom
I have run a game into Paragon, and you're talking out your ass, so I pity you for living a life of uneducated hate, going on hearsay and oblivious pride. Anyways, every time this bullshit about liches and orcs gets added in, I will erase it every time. It's an outright lie, I have consulted the MM and he's bullshitting on numerous counts. If I have to upload files to prove it I will.-Zabasaz April 20, 2010

You've indicated deep ignorance multiple times, which led me to believe that you haven't played past first level. Since now you're saying you've run a game into paragon, you're now either a liar or very stupid not to have noticed the problems inherent in high level play. In any event, I did clarify the orc and lich thing (I was wrong in that I was misleading in saying the lich had 2 powers, it's more like 1.5, and I confess I did exaggerate when I said the orc had 2 attack powers, really just 1), feel free to look them up in Monster Manual 1. Oh, can you please show me the official rules for adding 'Blade Cascade' to monsters, with appropriate level adjustment? Next, explain how I can give an adult black dragon's breath power to an orc, using the printed rules you reference so I can give the appropriate level adjustment. I appear to not have that in my books. Since you insist on claiming it's in the DMG or DMG2, let's just do that right here, right now. Otherwise, I will continue to note it's just a house rule you, and only you, are apparently using.

Please stop vandalizing the board. You've been warned several times, but still insist on putting counter-arguments in the 'criticism' section. Thanks. Doom

Dear Doom,

Please find enclosed herein a list of responses to your requisition for information as well as some details you should take notice of, in order to help you better enjoy the stunningly well designed RPG that is D&D: Fourth Edition.

  • (1)Liches, as you claim, have one and a half powers. While I'm not sure how a creature can have half a power, I thought it fit to clarify that have closer to three, maybe four. A level 14 Human Wizard Lich, one of multiple types of liches created without the use of the Lich template (page 175, DMG1) actually has the following powers: Frostburn, Shadow Ray, and Necrotic Aura. He also has regeneration, but it can be argued that this is a feature and not a power. The same could be said of Necrotic Aura, but this is a matter of opinion, not outright fact, but it can be said that fact is in my favor since this does illustrates more than two things the Lich can do to harm or hinder the players. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that one Lich type does indeed have a 2 HP difference from a lower level single type of orc, but this is because the Orc is an "Elite Brute" which, as specified in the DMG1 and MM1, have high hp, whereas the Lich is of the Controller type, not exactly frontline material due to their low HP. This is the rough equivalent of complaining a certain wizard has a 2 HP difference from a lower level fighter, and is just plain silly.
  • (2)You asked me to define where in the documentation of 4e there are enclosed rules for giving powers to creatures that players or other creatures possess. In page 182-183 of the DMG1, there are rules discussing not only how to give powers to monsters, but how to give classes to the monsters as well, using class templates. Page 182 even includes a chart discussing how many powers the monster should have (including utility powers) and states the powers should be of different levels. Additionally, step 7 of "Creating Monsters" (page 184, DMG1) states if you want to give a monster another one's power, you should consult the Monster Manual, specifically the "Monsters by Role/Level" list, to find an power appropriately balanced. So you could give an orc a breath attack, as per the rules stated in the book. You could also give the monster the "Ranger Template" on page 183, and the Blade Cascade power, though it is a high level power and most monsters would not have access to it unless you did, in fact, "house-rule" a lower-level version of it, as you so loosely and almost inappropriately use the term house-rule.
  • (3) I don't recall actually having been warned to stop editing this article, and in fact nobody has even told me I am vandalizing. Nobody has edited nor criticized my changes but you, and in fact some people have contributed to that which I have added. In fact, I've edited criticisms to add in facts AGAINST 4e because, like all rpgs, it does have flaws. Therefore, I will do as you request and not vandalize this page, but I haven't done it in the first place so this concern of yours is ill-placed and infact might better be directed inward. (For example, claiming sandstorms kill minions, when sandstorms are more likely to enforce an Endurance roll and take a healing surge. I think one of the books even states that minions are meant to be killed by attacks, not minor hazards or missed attacks, but I'll leave in your part about sandstorms since I can't confirm this.

I hope my responses can help you understand 4e better, since clearly you aren't quite up to the task of contributing to this page yet. Don't give up! You're almost there! You show passion, now you just need to show competence. Please keep reading those 4e books you insist you have (I thought you didn't like 4e, good to hear you contributed to Wizards by paying for them!) Also, I regret to inform you that it is difficult to verify I have run a 4e game into Paragon without any proof, but I can have some of my players come onto this wiki and add right here their testimonials. Merely ask and ye shall receive.
With love and appreciation for your efforts,
-Zabasaz April 21, 2010

P.S: DMG1 page 188 calls house-ruling a "patch" added to accomodate for differing playstyles. I wasn't aware adding/modifying creatures (with or even without the rules in the DMG) was considering house-ruling, I thought this was customary customization that all DMs do. Guess I've been mistaken all along!

I've taken the liberty of inserting parenthesized numbers into your replies.

(1) It's odd that you indicate lack of understanding of what is implied with 'half a power', but have no problem indicating you understand 'closer to three, maybe 4' powers. It's this kind of inconsistent thought that may be yet another issue for you. Obviously, the reference was to Monster Manual liches specifically the level 14 one, and not one randomly created by some GM, somewhere; there's no indication of level adjustment for DMG lich templates, so not sure how you could get confused here, but well done. Thank you for pointing out that both lich and orc have an aura 5 power that effectively does damage, yet another similarity between an orc and a lich. I'll be including that henceforth. Thank you for also pointing out that despite that one is a 'brute' and another is a 'controller', supposedly different things, they have the same hit points. Your argument goes even further to demonstrate how similar the monsters are, and I appreciate.

(2)Thank you for the referenced pages, demonstrating quite clearly how inadequate these rules are. There's no indication that giving a monster a level 1 class power would necessarily make the monster more powerful than giving it a level 29 power, much less any indication for how to determine the power change. As I note that you demonstrate you are incapable of answering the specific questions given, or citing any place where such a specific answer might be found, you've shown how this part of the "rules" would need to be houseruled, so yes, any ad hoc modification would have to be a house rule, as different GMs can easily give different ratings to identical monsters, with nothing in the rules to give a hint as to which would be 'official'. Thanks for clarifying that it is, indeed, a houserule with nothing more clear in the official rules than, basically, 'wing it'.

(3)Actually, if you look up a bit to the section you yourself started, you'll see someone explaining to you that adding 'counter arguments' in the criticisms section is inappropriate, and that's why your vandalism keeps getting cleaned up. Additionally, if you read the actual page you keep vandalizing, you'll see there are warnings there as well not to do what you have been doing. As one example of many, you keep vandalizing the complaint about minions. The issue is NOT that minions die to area effects. The issue is minions make absolutely no sense in the game world. A sandstorm (or any other natural effect, such as stubbing a toe) kills them, so minions should not exist except in a completely disassociated mechanical way. That's what the complaint is, not area effects. So, yeah, you don't understand what you're doing there, so please stop vandalizing the page. It's not even 'my' part about sandstorms...I just keep putting it back in response to your vandalism.

(4) You keep demonstrating repeatedly that you don't understand, but I hope my responses above indicate how your 'arguments' actually disprove your own claims and reveal your relative newness to this deeply flawed system. As you insist you've run a 4e game into paragon, that leaves only one possibility to explain your behavior here, and that possibility is, of course, heavily reinforced by your actions. Just as a retarded person who lives into his 60s can well have the life skills of a teenager, I'm optimistic that you can pick up, after many years of play, the concepts that other gamers have learned after a year of play. Please, keep at it!

I should note that p188 of my DMG does not indicate houseruling as a patch, instead giving a summary about NPCs. Perhaps you mean p189? Anyway, saying "house rules are official" is a bit of cop-out, eh?

So, to summarize: please stop vandalizing the page, and I encourage you to get many, many, years of playing 4e in before posting any further. Good luck! -- Doom

(1)Oops, you misread the Lich and Orc entries again! That's okay, I know it's complicated sometimes, let me explain. You see, the Orc you're comparing ot the Lich is eight levels below the Lich. So, like with the comparison I made, it's like a high-level caster and a low-level fighter, the fighter has similar HP while being significantly low level because that's how his class gets HP. So really having similar HP at significantly different levels is not a similarity at all, it's just a coincidence based on their class roles! Additionally, I can't help but notice you have misread the Orc Chieftain's Aura 5 power. It doesn't do necrotic damage to nearby enemies at the Lich aura does, it causes wounded allies in the aura to do additional damage. Well done WIzards, a truly interesting effect to give a monster. Additionally, the Lich template doesn't have a level adjustment because templates don't alter a creature's level, but rather the creature itself. It does however turn the creature in question "Elite," meaning it is double as strong and provides double XP when killed. I'm glad I could clarify.

2)Honestly I have no idea what you're talking about here, you're pretty much bumbling over your own blunder, but that's no big issue, everyone makes mistakes. Though I do recall showing you exactly how to give orcs a breath attack, or to give creatures class powers and templates just as you asked, so I answered your question. Remember, a house rule isn't customization of creatures in the D&D game, because that's what all DMs are expected to do without a house rule! House rules are rules put into place to appeal to different playstyles! Perhaps the word you're looking for is "Homebrew?"
3)Actually, my vandalism wasn't 'cleaned up,' it was altered to rants by you specifically. But it's an honest mistake. Remember, I edit the article to remove fiction (such as the claim of similarility between liches and orcs or that minions can die in a sandstorm) not to vandalize or truncate actual factual statements! In fact, I organize statements to be more presentable! I would ask that you respect my work as I have continually respected yours. :) 4)I'm sorry, but I can't offer you much help if you're going to yell insults at me, good sir. You need to keep your questions concise and polite so I can answer them to the best of my ability. Perhaps then we can get you to the point that you can run a good 4e game, and change your misconstrued opinions that are clearly derived solely from 4e hate threads and this article rather than an actual playtest.

In the future I ask that you keep your questions short so we don't flood this page up, and I will keep my answers just as short. Until then, happy editing! <3
-Zabasaz April 22, 2010

(1) Thank you for pointing that even though there's 8 levels of difference between the two creatures, they're still pretty much the same. You seem to be confused about how damage works. You are correct that the liches aura, being necrotic damage, might be resisted, whereas the orc's aura probably won't be...but, mathematically, damage is damage, and the (theoretically) less damage from the lich's aura is offset considerably, but explaining this in detail would involve mathematics, and so not much point in explaining it here. I'll try to include your additional point about the 8 level difference soon.
(2) You've already conceded this point completely, I'm sorry you're confusing yourself. Let's try another one:

Suppose I give a level 2 goblin "Blade Cascade". I claim this makes it a level 6 goblin. Prove that my assessment is correct, or incorrect, as per the rules that you've already shown don't exist. Be sure to cite clearly where these rules are, even though you've already admitted they don't exist.

(3) No, it's vandalism, your 'contributions' are little different than a child's crayon scrawlings on a wall. Removing such is equivalent to cleaning it up, honest, and this is why some 80% of your stuff has been removed by me, mods, and others. Glad to clear that up for you. Since you've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't know waht you're talking about, please respect the warnings you've been given and refrain from further harassment and vandalism. Thanks!
(4) Again, please heed my advice and play the game an appropriate amount of time for your intelligence level before posting again. I'm running two different campaigns right now, with a dozen different players, and they claim it's a good game. It still doesn't motivate me to nerdrage to the point of constantly vandalizing pages, however, and I recommend you stop doing so. Thanks!

Good luck! -- Doom

A level 2 goblin is too low level to have Blade Cascade, silly. It says on the page I cited to you that you should only give it powers up to its level. Also, implying Blade Cascade to a level 2 goblin constitutes raising it's level to 6. Also, if you reduce all sense of variety in an RPG to "what deals damage at what amount" and ignore how it is dealt entirely, what kind of damage it is, and the fact that whether or not the players take it is based on choices they make, well, you won't like any rpg on the market I'm afraid. And you still completely ignore my analogy of a low level fighter and a high level wizard's HP offset reasoning being the same as a lich and an orc, but there is no way to viably respond to that without conceding so I won't bother with that. Anyways, enjoy writing another big, long-winded insult letter! Lolumad -Zabasaz April 23, 2010

ZABEDIT: Haha, wait a minute, did you seriously add that a wizard could power-level with high level minions? HA! Good luck getting your DM to do that! So is Doom the name of your Night Elf Hunter? ZABEDIT2: There's something stunningly hypocritical about you demanding that I "stop vandalizing the Criticisms section" and then you go right ahead and do the exact same thing to the Benefits section. ZABEDIT3: Oh, actually, it's a six level difference. The Lich is level 14, the orc is level 8, I made a typo.

Fair enough, as you say, it's impossible without house-ruling to some powers to some level creatures (contradicting what you say in the benefits section), although the rules certainly aren't clear on this matter.

Let's take an even easier example: I give a level 3 goblin "Boundless Endurance", a level 2 power. I claim this makes it a level 6 goblin. Show where in the rules that I'm wrong, that, specifically, the goblin should be some other level, and exactly what that level should be. Note that encounter building rules are very specific, so this really needs to be in the rules, as you claim they are, somewhere in chapter 10. This is simply adding a single level 2 power to a level 3 creature, so that should be easy. Otherwise, I'll keep mentioning it's a house rule (please, please note the top of the page, specifically the part about citing sources or gtfo).

The only thing I'm changing in the so-called 'benefits' section is this one misleading line. I note that it's been days now, and you've yet to provide any actual rules, beyond indicating the rules don't exist. I'll give you another day to quote an actual source specifically answering the very simple question, and then fix it again. Fair enough?

(It occurs to me that I've just given you an impossible task, assuming you're right. If adding abilities raises a monster's level, then I could add abilities, hence levels, to the goblin to the point that it would be high enough level to have Blade Cascade. I await with baited breath your explanation of where the rules say it is both impossible, and easily possible, to do this)

And, please, stop vandalizing a section you don't understand. Thanks! -- Doom

Actually, the class templates that allow you to give them class powers turn the creatures into Elite creatures, meaning a monster gives double XP and is considered worth two monsters of its otherwise un-altered type. So technically, there is a rule for giving powers to creatures altering their XP/challenge rating. It'd probably not hurt to do things the same way with an already elite monster. Your logic that it makes it a level 6 goblin is really an estimate, and honestly I doubt a group of level 3 goblin with one level 2 power is gonna challenge a level 6 party very much. In my experience most parties can plow through any groups of enemies within the ballpark of their XP budget, which allows me to challenge them by adding factors like spikes coming out of the ground and stuff. So I doubt it'd hurt too much to give a power or two to a creature (as the book says) without altering its XP/challenge output, but I'd go with "it's elite now" either way. -Zabasaz May 03, 2010
At least you've finally given up trying to find any actual rules for this 'simple' process. Yes, there are some limited rules for a special circumstance. You're right, 'level 6' is an estimate, or you could just call it an elite, or you could just call it level 4, or you could not change the level at all. But, that's all houseruling. See, 4e has a very specific method for encounter building, very clearly outlined in the DMG. If you're going to make up your own monster, or even add just one ability, you need to know what level the monster is, to follow the rules as given in the DMG. As there are no rules given for determining the levels, 'just wing it', as you say, anything you do there is a house rule. Now, granted, there's nothing wrong with house ruling, but you're calling it a 'benefit' of 4e that you can just house rule whatever you want--you can do whatever you want in EVERY GAME if you're willing to make up your own rules. You may as well say it's a benefit of 4e that you can talk about it with other people. Get it, yet? --Doom
Nope, because even if it was houseruling, the game is arranged in such a glorious way that it's easy to do and doesn't require elaborate rewrites and extensive effort do it. Still would be a benefit. -Zabasaz May 07, 2010
Ah, the point is missed again. It is houseruling, but there's nothing wrong with that. Every game has very simple houseruling (at least, as simple as you want it to be). Yes, you can simply houserule in 4e, you're right. You can do it any other game, too. Honest.--Doom
Actually, you should check out therpgsite, where they're trying to houserule 'throwing sand in the eyes'. Pages of discussion to make something consistent and appropriate to the self-contradictory rules. Very glorious arrangement, indeed. Rofl. --Doom
Well I'm sure they'll figure it out one day, don't know what their incompetence has to do with this discussion though. -Zabasaz May 12, 2010
Gosh, a blanket condemnation of a whole group of people you know nothing about. How VERY un-trollish of you. Actually the site has quite a number of eloquent people there, many with proven success in the game industry. You're probably thinking of rpgnet. Anyway, the difficulties have to do with the design of the game. Once it was finally cleared up that the words have no meaning in 4e, things went better, but even after realizing this design paradigm, it took some effort to work something out that wouldn't break too much of the game.
Dexterity vs. Reflex, Hit: target is blinded until the end of its next turn. Only works if you have access to sand and if they have eyes to throw them in, and if it's too good limit it to an encounter power since most enemies probably wouldn't fall for it twice. They're incompetent. Or you're making this up. Either or. -Zabasaz May 13, 2010
Oopsie-doodles! You forgot to determine whether it's a Standard or Minor, Encounter or Daily (can't just say "if it's too good", need actual rules). Why can't it do damage? Why versus Reflex and not AC? Can Monsters use it? Why not save ends? Why not blinded until the end of the player's next turn? What level should this be? How does this compare to the level 7 Rogue power? Isn't this an infringement on what the class does? Much to consider, almost all of it over your head. So, yeah, you don't have a clue, and no 'either or' about it. Even an idiot would go to the actual site first and think a little rather than post the stupidity you just did.
I'll answer all your questions in order since it seems you want to use it.
  • Standard, obviously.
  • Encounter power, probably, enemies would seldom fall for it twice.
  • It can't do damage because having sand thrown in your face usually doesn't have the capacity to kill you. And no, minions don't die from it. Nice try luring me into that one.
  • Because Armor probably wouldn't stop sand from going in your eyes, if you had a helmet that offered eye protection than I'd let you use your AC.
  • Monsters can use it, if they have the hands to do it, but would probably sooner resort to actual lethal attacks.
  • Because a save implies it's a dangerous supernatural effect/major injury to get over, when it's simply a bit of sand in the eyes, easily gotten over.
  • You can do it whenever you want, it doesn't require class training to know how to throw sand in someone's eye. It's not like I'd outright give the power to my players, this is just the ruling I'd give if they asked to do it first.
  • Rogues can throw sand and attack at the same time because their rogue training gives them the ability. So their power is better.
  • Not really, plenty of classes have a blind effect. Rogue doesn't have a monopoly on sand-throwing.

You're not even trying anymore, are you? I think you're lying that anyone had trouble making this power. Please leave other communities out of this, if you yourself have competency issues. But seriously - this page is getting big. If you REALLY wanna keep going, we can do it on my talk page. -Zabasaz May 14, 2010

Not so obvious that it's standard--many minor actions don't deal damage, and almost all standard actions DO deal damage.

Encounter power? Does that mean magic items and abilities that let you re-use encounter powers work here? Note the level 7 rogue power DOES deal damage...so, turns out throwing sand can deal damage. "Armor probably wouldn't"...guess that means armor possibly can, oh well, so much for that, you're not consistent here. A helmet? So 4e uses piecemeal armor? I, and WotC, didn't know that; alternatively, you're confused. Um, saves are easier to get over than 'until end/beginning of turn' effects, thanks to the Heal skill...you really need more experience with the game before you can competently deal with issues like this. Also, there are quite a number of non-supernatural/dangerous effects that are save ends...again, this is just lack of experience on your part. Now you're saying rogues are throwing sand with their ability...so can they use it when inside a purple worm? So, you've about 2 in 9, not much better than a chimpanzee with a dart board, really, and we've used up a page trying to help you understand the issues here. We could go on, but you're not vulnerable to input, so not much point. You sure you can't just interract with human beings on forums to learn this stuff? I'm sorry you can't interract in other communities; just as a special teacher might deal with a single horribly brain-damaged student, so it appears it must be with you. I'm glad to help a little, of course, and I hope you understand better that the game requires thought. Please consider getting out more, ignore all the people that constantly call you a moron, and try, try, try to learn.

Your rant post is way too tl;dr. Didn't say it was a power. Made it a standard action because it'd take similar effort to one. There are helmet items in this game like the Helm of Battle, so this is consistent. Heal skill probably shouldn't be able to be used to remove sand from someone's eyes, so it actually is easier to get over. I doubt they could use it inside a worm unless they had someone in there to throw it at. You are resorting to long rants filled with personal insults. You very mad. -Zabasaz May 14, 2010
more like "too long, I'm too stupid to read". You just don't undertand, not much to say. The rogue level 7 power "sand in the eyes" CAN be used inside a purple worm, RAW...and the rest of what you wrote clearly indicates your lack of understanding. I'll just let this one stand as is. You clearly don't understand, and, most likely, can't understand.--Doom
Ooo, you BOTH mad. But seriously. If you wanna go into this crap, take it to YOUR talkpage, and I'll see you there. Otherwise, I won't be responding to any more cries for attention, here. -Zabasaz May 15, 2010
That's because you keep making a fool out of yourself, here. Take it to the forum and show how the rest of the world is wrong and you are right, already. Or continue to cringe here. Whatever.--Doom

Proposal for sub-pages[edit]

The criticism section is now 20kb of the article's 35kb. I believe it's large enough to separate from the main article and become an article all it's own. An editor could prune it down, but I feel we'd miss out on some of the emotional content (the HAET) if we aren't careful. I propose creating Dungeons_&_Dragons_4th_Edition/Is_Bad and transplanting the ranting, raving and foaming at the mouth there. In the interests of fairness, the Benefits section should move to Dungeons_&_Dragons_4th_Edition/Is_Good at the same time. Might cut down on the Pro-Skub/Anti-Skub fighting too. --NotBrandX 12:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do the gruntwork, and I promise to be fair and impartial. --NotBrandX
I'd be willing to transcribe it and maybe put down a summary or something. I'm getting the hang of this whole wiki formatting thing, but if you're on the job NotBrandX then I'm sure the work is in good hands. Though I think to truncate this for brevity we ought to cut down the rants that were thrown in to inflate the criticisms. For example, condensing all the criticisms about magic items down to one entry, and putting the arguments about paragon/epic paths/destinies in the same bullet as the complaint about a lack of difference between the level brackets respective to them. This I can do, too. Though I just fixed my computer (it's been down since Monday) so I'd rather take a bit of a break. I also don't see this cutting down on the fighting much, but who knows. -Zabasaz April 24, 2010 | PS: I'm Pro-Skub, fuck you!

We also should edit down the straight schilling in the benefits section, and take out the stuff that's only a benefit via the Oberoni Fallacy.

I am twelve year old and what is this. I glance away for a second, and you have a thousand-post edit war with pages of bickering? Great job! Fatum 22:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Where 3e Criticism belongs[edit]

[Post removed, put into 3e Criticisms)

Hey, if you want to trash 3E, trash 3E, that's perfectly fine, take it to a different page, though. Your argument seems to be "It sucks in 4e, but it also sucks in 3e". On a meta-level, that's part of what turns so many off about 4E--it fixes very few, if any, of the problems of 3E, while creating many more problems. I could address why it's not as bad in 3E as it is in 4E, since a cleric could keep up in 3E if the player chooses to do so, whereas it's impossible in 4e regardless of what the player wants. Back to the point, your argument is "It sucks in 4e, but it also sucks in 3e", and I'm not arguing that at all. Go to the 3e criticisms page and put that there...it's still a valid and common criticism of 4e.--Doom
Here's the problem, though: it's a criticism for 4e, even though it's worse in 3e. A point not to play or go into 4th edition is still present in the previous edition and has even bigger holes in it. It is a valid criticism, but when the thing before it is even worse, it just irks me to complain about it. Also, there are ways to improve it 4e and ways that are rather reasonable at that. But that doesn't mean you aren't right about where the criticisms belong, so I'll remove me post and put something in the 3e.
It's worse in 3e in the sense that a player that chooses to be ignorant can do so, while in 4e, he has absolutely no choice and must be ignorant. I guess if the removal of free will is a good thing, you've got a point, but that sounds like a philosophy thing. Do we have a page for that? ;) --Doom
You know, I can't help feeling you're on to something, like how it should be the player's choice to completely forgo an essential, but utterly simple to gain and use, part of their character, especially if they're new and got lost in the system or a DM (who might also be new) forgot to point it out. It could also break something, I've heard it about D&D alot, especially against 4th edition...verisimilitude, right? It might break verisimilitude?
If you want to discuss this, go make your page about it and do it there or use your own talk-page. This talk-page is for discussing the 4e page, specifically. Referring of course to your discussion above, not to the topic of keeping 3E criticisms out of the page. This is a talk page for 4e, not your own personal forum. Thank you very much.-Zabasaz May 02, 2010
Newsflash! We now get to decide who has a right to discuss what where! More at eleven, stay tuned! Fatum 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fanboi Karma[edit]

Is anyone else really amused by the irony that if the fanboys weren't so insistent on blathering apologetics for their game the criticism section for 4E wouldn't have blossomed to the ridiculously-large-but-painfully-accurate shitstopper it is right now? -- 75.228.150.67

No, I'm not amused. More text, more edits == more effort == more insistent, and that's the 4e critics, hands down; it's as easy as 2>1. I spend more time cleaning up 4e haters undermining or deleting the benefits section than I do weeding counter-arguments or defences out of the criticism section. I'm not saying this as some kind of 4e apologist, but a wiki editor who is getting tired of trying to keep things clean, amusing and useful. --NotBrandX 14:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, part of the reason for this is so many of the 'benefits' are just pure rubbish, or straight marketing from WoTC, from the early days of the release. After days of effort, the most egregious lies have been removed, I just gave up trying to fix it to something that's at least accurate, while still leaving in such puffery as "encourages out of the box thinking" (guess the 4rrie who wrote that didn't see the video of the Robot Chicken guys playing 4e, and didn't see what happened when one of them used out of the box thinking to open a door using one of his abilities--the GM, a WoTC dev for the game, shut him down, rather than house-rule how an at-will power could open a door.) There's still alot of the benefits section that's quite wrong--"no more half-orc wizards being shitty just because", for example. It's a terrible race/class combo in 4e, completely unworkable. But rather than correct the mistake, one has no choice but to refute it in the criticisms section, rather than risk more 4rrie wrath. And on and on and on it goes...which you have to figure, since it took over 2 years just to find someone who still buys into 4e being the Second Coming.--Doom
>1d4chan article about 4e
>clean, amusing and useful
Uh-huh. Fatum 03:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
We can dream, Fatum, we can dream. --NotBrandX 13:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it blossoming. The criticisms section is very poorly organized and large, I highly doubt anyone's going to take the time to read it much less take it seriously. I've tried to condense some of the arguments to make them more approachable but someone keeps adding the rants back in so I've about given up trying. Point is I'm content with the Benefits section and removing the abuse, and I'm also glad it makes Doom rage. But seriously, I'd get the section under control, I've sent curious newcomers here for info about 4e (more for laughs than to be serious) and for the most part the only thing they take seriously about the Criticisms is that the tarrasque doesn't regenerate - they don't even TRY to cut through the rest of that shitstorm to find something useful. Also, has anyone else noticed a lot of the criticisms are more DM criticisms than edition? (For example, that monsters don't come with predesignated personalities and retreat/surrender behavior.) --Zabasaz May 07, 2010
With that kind of laziness, sounds like 4E is right up their alley!
Indeed, if one sentence is their limit of reading ability, 4e makes alot of sense for them. And no, the benefits section doesn't make me rage...it's pretty funny reading stuff that's so patently wrong. I agree with Z, the benefits section needs to be put under control, perhaps one section of 'benefits WoTC claimed' (most of what we have there), and another section of 'actual benefits' (one or two lines, such as "buying books that become worthless due to errata a month after release really helps get rid of excess gamer cash").
"People who like 4E are stupid people! Haha, I sure told him!" --Zabasaz May 11, 2010
ah, typical cleverness from Z. As far as your DM criticisms, this really is why you need to stop vandalizing that section. It's not that monsters don't come with retreat behavior, it's that if monsters retreat, and come back with reinforcements, it breaks the game. -- Doom
Go to your talk page, I'd like some clarity. -Zabasaz May 12, 2010

Despite documented claims ...[edit]

Despite documented claims that conventions feature more tables for older D&D editions..

Christ. Z isn't gonna stop until you actually cite your "documented" source , you know that, right? --NotBrandX 17:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Source cited: the event list for Origins 2009, as per your discussion page, which he's read and posted on. What better documentation can I give for a convention, and a large one at that, where, a year after release, there were more tables for older editions of D&D than for 4e. He doesn't trust my (and I use that term loosely, it was others who noted it) numbers, fine. I've provided the link to the Origins 2009 event list. He doesn't trust my link, fine. I've provided instructions for him to independently find the link to the Origins 2009 event list and discover the data for himself. What more is necessary? With normal people, providing the data is usually enough to get someone to stfu already. Is there a particular format necessary? I've written Origins PR to see if they can provide something he can read. --Doom

You posted someone's blogged opinion on 4e and a broken link and called this documentation. That's why I don't consider it cited. Keep trying. --Zabasaz 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It's cited, you just don't trust any of it. It's not like we're talking hidden data here. --Doom
Out of the kindness of my motherfucking heart I took it upon myself to search the internets for these event lists. I didn't find the Origin 2009 events lists, as they don't appear to be on their site anymore, but I did find the 2010 ones, of which I had myself a gander at the roleplaying list. By my frustrating calculations, and based on guesswork about some people who are fucking idiots and incapable of correctly specifying the system they are running in, there are 225 D&D-based games at that convention, not including Pathfinder games. After removing all of the games that were definitely an older edition, 134 remained. 19 of these games were "d20/d20pro", I assume meant to advertise the d20pro program, which is designed for D&D but did not specify which edition they actually were.
This does assume that all the listings that were "WoTC d20 System", edition "2nd Edition Revised", were meant to be D&D. In any event, I can't actually tell whether or not there are more 4e games than older editions here. If you count Pathfinder, there are undoubtedly more games at least BASED on older editions of D&D running at that convention. It's also worth noting that practically every 4e game in the listings was sponsored by WotC and had the listed GM as "David Christ"; the older games are far more varied in their makeup, plenty with no sponsoring whatsoever.
Make of all that what you will. --94.195.31.69 16:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Now *this* is the sort of "No, fuck you" I was hoping for! 964 tables/events, lots of crunchy data. I can import the whole thing into the wiki if anyone likes (computers & data are my hoes) but I think I'll just pull out the 319 events that are D&D related that I think are relevant. I dropped the "d20Pro" events because they are just product demos for a "virtual tabletop". If someone wants to make sure I didn't leave anything out, you should load up the spreadsheet yourself. If you want to validate the summary, you're best off to load it into OpenOffice or Ms-Excel to sort by multiple columns. --NotBrandX 18:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you kind soul. I did have a problem with using 2010 data, since the convention hasn't actually occured. Additionally, Pathfinder, is basically D&D, modified around the SRD, fans call it 3.75. And, using these numbers, and even allowing for the fact that D&D has people actually playing it at cons, while 4e needs massive WoTC support to be played, we still have the situation as indicated. So, we've finally established this to the satisfaction all sane. As far as the last detail, the laughably unworkable 'half-orc wizard', we'll just leave that as is, since I do concede it's a matter of opinion whether a permanent 2 level/resurrection penalty is a bad thing or not. This still leaves the laughably unworkable halfing fighter, which, in addition to the same penalty, also gets a large/versatile weapon penalty, making it even more laughably unworkable, but too piffling to matter to me, I'll let him wallow in that stupidity unassisted.--Doom
Okay, so unless I'm mistaken, the 319 events that you put up for us displays 4e as having the most tables at 104 tables, followed by Pathfinder with 73, and 3.5e with 68. The rest are other games like Call of Cthulhu, at least one Star Wars game, AD&D, 2e, some modern/spycraft I believe, so 4e has the most games (of course, it's widely sponsored, but what company doesn't sponsor their own product.) So, I need to rewrite it, instead of saying "older editions feature more tables," I must state that 4e features the most of the editions tables, and that is a documented fact. Thanks a whole bunch you guys :3 we get shit done. --Zabasaz 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

ROFL, nice try. 141 for older editions and Pathfinder (go and read the rulebook, the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder aren't much), 104 for 4e. Worse than last year, even with the support. Sad situation, really, worse than what happened with 'New Coke'. If you really want to split hairs, we could go by distinct names running games (David Christ is doing it all), so 4e loses. That's silly, of course. It's probably better to go by payment. WoTC is PAYING people to run and play 4e, whereas the other games are played by fans. --Doom

I'd hesitate before I called Pathfinder == D&D v3.5. I've read too many opinion pieces saying there are plenty of gotchas if you try to cut-and-paste elements of v3.5 into Pathfinder. As for counting tables, I'd sort by "Event Start/Time" and see how many simultaneous events are going on for that "Game/Rules/System" + "Game Edition". Ugh, I'll just count what's going on [[Friday for now...
Start Time D&D 4e Pathfinder D&D 3.5e D&D 3.0e D&D 2nd & AD&D
& Hackmaster
d20 other Events / Total
FRI 08h00 9 7 2 2 2 22
FRI 09h00 1 1 1 4
FRI 13h00 10 7 3 3 23
FRI 13h30 1 2 1 4
FRI 14h00 1 1 3 1 6
FRI 18h00 1 1 2
FRI 19h00 12 6 4 4 4 40
FRI 20h00 1 1
If you lumped Pathfinder, D&D 3.5 and D&D 3.0 together and said it was all one game/system, then it works out to almost the same # of tables allocated on Friday at Origins. Pathfinder/3.5/3.0 gets 2 more tables for the 8am and 7pm time slots. --NotBrandX 22:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, a fair hesitation...but lots and lots of folks consider it the next edition. It's different, sure, but Pathfinder is closer to 3.5 than 3.5 is to 3.0. Arguable? Sure, I suppose, but there's no dispute that Pathfinder is closer to 3.5 than 4e is to 3.5. But there's still the issue of: WoTC has to send people to run 4e games, and Paizo doesn't have to send people for Pathfinder. That difference is not lightly dismissed, especially for a game 2 years old. You mean to tell me that there just hasn't been time for folks to learn how to play 4e, but there has been enough time to learn how to play Pathfinder?--Doom
WoTC doesn't have the send people to run them, but they do it because it's a promotional thing. I'm sure if there weren't numerous 4E events already available, we'd see more player-run events to make up for it. :3 -Zabasaz 01:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Guffaw! You made a funny! Good job. In more seriousness, pre-2007, the latest edition of D&D was far and away the leader, to argue otherwise would be as retarded as anything Z has to say. The #2 RPG would be far behind..now, one has to go through mental gymnastics and hair-splitting to do so, and still can easily come up short.--Doom

Jeesuz, Z....is there any hope for sanity from you? --Doom

Recent Editwar[edit]

So, Doom, what am I going to have to do to keep you from injecting criticisms in the Benefits section? I take issue with some of your comments, such as stating that I am "insane" and "an idiot" in above instances in this talk page. The point of this page is to provide information, not information that best serves our purpose; and the point of this talkpage is to discuss the page and work out disputes, not to quarrel and bicker like children. I've done my best not to interfere in the Criticisms section except where outright fabrications are concerned, but you've not shown me the same grace with regards to the Benefits section, not that I am entirely innocent by any means. That said, something needs to be done.

I'd also like anybody who's been observing this edit war (especially you, NotBrandX) to say your peace/piece (don't know which it is.) It might put things better in perspective to hear what a third party has to say. Quite frankly this is poor conduct for a wiki, even if it is a wiki meant more for fun than genuine fact, and I'm not interested in inciting anymore rage in you, Doom. Tell me what it is going to take for you to compromise, and we'll work it out from there. --Zabasaz 05:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

GUYS GUYS GUYS. It is, indeed, just the internet. Y'all need to chill the fuck out. Maybe you should both just leave the page well alone in future; it doesn't seem like you can reach a compromise with each other over this, and it's depressing how much of your lives are being consumed by an edit war on a comedy wiki on page that almost nobody ever reads anyway. --94.195.31.69 08:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no criticism injected, only clarification, as has been explained. '4' is not 'reasonably similar' to '4', it is IDENTICAL. Go to your math teacher and have him/her explain how that works. Your confusion with 'peace/piece' demonstrates why you should not be editing. I try to fix your 'compliment' typo, and you slobber along in 30 seconds and undo it, all night long if necessary. Seriously, it's 'complement'. With an 'e'. Rather than 'undo' anything anyone has to say, get a dictionary (or, again, consult a teacher) and learn something. Or hell, maybe you really intend to mean that the classes say nice things to each other. Same with the other 'injections'...you simply do not understand English well enough to be doing this. It's not a question of 'compromise', it's how the language works. I *tried* to get you to leave it at what NotBrandX had, but no dice. I *tried* to talk to you in a reasonable manner, but no dice. So, if 'undo' is the limit of your capacity, so be it. Yes, I know it's silly to spend time on a fool on a fool's page...but I do feel it's possible to educate this little scamp, and feel like trying, although I concede it looks like he's invulnerable to input.-- Doom

So it sounds like we've got no progress here. I wasn't undoing your typo fix (that was an accident), I was undoing your removal of information from the "Feats" benefit, and also your injection of "character generation" benefit. That isn't a benefit, plain and simple, you must understand. Whether or not players prefer to roll for their character's abilities or to use point buy is up to them. Just because the system seems more "adjusted" to accommodate point-buy doesn't mean point-buy has at all been upgraded or changed. The fact is, DMs can still go for arrays or rolls. I don't understand how you can say one of the good features of the system is that you're allowed to choose to do something that you can do in just about any system. That's just a feature, the description says the section is for the "most important benefits," not all the little, trivial, debatable things like that.
As for your statement about "4" being "identical to 4," that's not the subject matter, we're discussing that the classes have similar options where powers are concerned. Whether or not they have the same amount isn't the question, it's whether they have the same KIND of options. That is why I put "similar," not identical, because putting identical sounds like a criticism, like you're saying the game lacks variety when in fact it is quite full of variety.
The point is, don't change the subject or we'll get nothing done. We're trying to compromise over the content, not the spelling. Don't beat your chest over irrelevant issues, it just wastes time. Please, just stay on topic and don't do this like you always do, it makes it difficult. --Zabasaz 17:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Man, look at you weasel here...'only the most important benefits'. Do I take it, then, I have permission to delete the other unimportant ones? Do you even realize almost every benefit listed is something you can do in every system, or not as you so choose? You do realize that 'artwork' a benefit you allow, is up to the person's opinion, too, right? And we could go on down the line. The simple fact is, point buy is a benefit to alot of people, and alot of people play it that way. In fact, your way, random rolling, generates characters that are not legal for RPGA events, as per PHB, p18. Yes, you can roll, but you can't use them except in your own house-ruled games. They're no more legal than hill giant characters, characters with save or die abilities, or any other house rule you'd like. Yes, you can generate illegal characters your way, or you can do it the way that people do it, which is the way most (all, actually, except you) consider a benefit. Can you link to one forum, somewhere, where someone, somewhere, in the past, complained that point buy is a bad idea? Back up this claim, just a little? Do you, can you, even understand that whoever posted that benefit was trying to *help* you, or are you simply too dense to understand even that much? Repetition is key for learning, so let's go over that again: your way: not legal, no support given. The way given as a benefit: legal, supported by the RPGA. Skipping the wordy bits that confuse you so, can you tell there's a difference between 'legal' and 'not legal'? The latter has the word 'not' in it, and, in the English language, indicates an opposite change in meaning. But, again, I'll give you a chance to back up something of what you say with actual evidence.

  • On to your next point of confusion. I'm sorry that clarity, by you, is perceived, by you, as a criticism. But some folks, many, even think it's GREAT that wizards and fighters have the exact same number of options to choose from at each level. They don't have a 'similar' number of options, as you say. Do you see how you use that word 'number', that indicates a quantity of some sort (go look in a dictionary). Having established now, in your own words, that we're talking about a quantity, are the quantities 'similar' (a word used for proportions and ratios, in geometric figures) or 'identical' (a word used for numbers or tautoligical relationships)? Seeing as we're talking about a 'number' of options, that means we're talking about a 'number', so, yeah, 'identical' is the appropraite word. You write English fairly well, but I do have to ask, what is your first language? Maybe you should just stick to posting to wikis in that language. Anyway, glad to help with another English lesson, and, back to the point, they have the exact same number of options, 'identical' is the word in the English language we use to express that concept, not 'similar', which has a different meaning. You may not like it, you almost certainly are incapable of understanding that this is what you are saying...but it's still the simple truth of the matter.--Doom
It's hard to read through your responses when it's a wall of text half full of bashing. Can you just stick to the points and stop with the repetition and the insults? It isn't helping at all.
Look, what I'm arguing here is that putting that as a benefit is just bogging down an already too-big page that is difficult to load and contains too much data. You are literally saying "You can point-buy." So what? That's not a benefit, that's basically a prerequisite for being a role playing game in the first place, I would think. I also like how you jump to the conclusion and outright accuse me of using dice-rolling, when I never said anywhere that I condone it in my games. This is what you do, Doom, you take what people say, you twist it around, and you accuse them of things that only make sense in your own mind. I ask you one final time: Explain how we will compromise. No more long-winded rants, no more insults, no more "YOU ARE WRONG, I AM RIGHT, NO LOGIC NECESSARY." Enough Strawman arguments - this is about the point that I think shouldn't be in the benefit section, not about the other benefits that nobody else takes any issue with.
  • Tell me WHY you think we should not be allowed to say that feats are interestingly done in 4E. (And don't say it's a matter of opinion, or else most of the criticisms go out the door, too. For example, Skill Challenges are broken? They worked fine for my game. If feats being interesting is an opinion and it has to go, that argument goes out, too. And you will NEVER let that fly, I know you too well.)
  • Tell me WHY you think instead of saying that classes have similar options for character generation, we are required to say that classes have the same exact number of choices. That's a different point altogether.
  • Tell me WHY you think that we should completely ostracize dice-rolling/array usage and say that Point-buy is the only good ability generation about 4E, and that this should be a point.
  • Tell me WHY you think that Alignment being abridged is unreasonable, and that we shouldn't be allowed to say otherwise.
  • Tell me WHY points in the benefits section about this game cannot be verified by actually trying the game.
  • Tell me WHY you don't need to verify that in the past years most 4E tables are empty, when such a big claim seems warranting of citation/proof.
  • Don't just tell me I'm wrong and you're right, EXPLAIN so we can compromise, and don't expect me to even read and take seriously what you say if you throw even ONE insult at ANYONE in there.
To anyone reading this, here's the recent edit that I'm telling him to justify: Difference between 60361 and 660357

--Zabasaz 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I've already answered every single one of these questions for you, and you don't understand, cannot understand. You complain about repetition, and then ask me to repeat myself. Again, and again, and again.

  • 'interesting' is troll bait. Back it up with something, or let me put 'interesting' in front of every other benefit until the stupidity of it is clear to you. As explained before, WoTC ADMITTED skill challenges are broken, that's why they have 4 different sets of errata for it, not counting the 10 different versions by Mearls in Dragon.
  • Already explained, above. "Similar" is used for proportions in geometric figures, "Identical" is used for quantities. I respect that you don't know English, and so this is forgiveable, and with your medication so screwed up you're too paranoid to believe me. Can you PLEASE get a dictionary and look it up yourself?
  • I'm not ostraciseing anything. Some idiot who thought you could be helped tried to help you, and I've made the mistake of trying to help you understand how to properly edit, also. Anyway, explanation already given why point buy is considered a legitimate benefit, and how rolling dice, which is not RPGA legal in no way negates that benefit. But, you're beyond help, I concede that point.
  • Again, you don't understand English. "Abridged" is accurate, and explains the situation, while "reasonably abridged" adds nothing, merely wasting time on weasel words. How can you complain about the section being too long, and complain when meaningless words are removed at the same time?
  • Verification provided already, as you well know. How's your GenCon evidence coming along?

I've explained many of these things repeatedly to you. I've explained them again, and again, and again. Can you please get someone to read them to you in your native language so you can understand? Thanks. -- Doom

You couldn't even go half way through your post without an insult. Alright, Doom. I'll let you cool off and try again tomorrow. --Zabasaz 18:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Righto, go cool off as much as you need to, you're nearing another psychotic episode, after all. Maybe a trip to the mall would help. They sell dictionaries there, too.--Doom


imokaywiththis.jpeg that whole section was just trolling anyways.

Removal of Benefits/Criticisms Section[edit]

imokaywiththis.jpeg --Zabasaz 21:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, it was a bit of a shame. Now the only place on the internet with nice things to say about 4e is the official WoTC forums. --Doom

It's almost as if the people who are satisfied with 4e are content to just play.
Yeah, I'm alright with this, too. Although, I think to be fair, there should AT LEAST be a criticism or "Critics" blurb around the Fandom. No arguements, no bashing, just something that says "There are some people who just don't like the game, and it's for mostly legitimate reasons." Also, we should probably warn against making lists, since, well, last time. We should probably erase the 3rd edition criticism list and do the same, in fairness, too. -- Otogi 01:30, 02 June 2010.
I concur. - Jaimas 23:18, 23 June 2010
Looks like a single troll and his family of sockpuppets actually managed to pull this off, although perhaps with escalation beyond a level any decent human being would consider. Pity Zabasaz.

'Scuze me.[edit]

I know that since this page is often EDITWAR'd it's locked, so I thought I'd appeal here. The new Book of Shadows supplement gave us some new things, which I think are pretty dumb but I think should be reflected on the page itself.

New Races: Revenant (Originally on D&DI, now published), Shade (Shadowy humans), Vryloka (A vampiric race of not-quite vampires)

New Classes: Some new builds for existing classes, so maybe not worth mentioning, but then this: Vampire. Vampires are a class now, Shadow power source, Striker role (Just like assassin).

Just thought I'd bring it all up. I also added a new section on the vampire page itself explaining how stupid it sounds to have a class called Vampire either way. --Nave Ninja 09:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

To add[edit]

Since it IS entirely relevant, would someone who has the permission to edit this page add "Page 42" to the "See also" section? Thanks/--Loltau 16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add a link to the "Book of Broken," a list of stuff that CharOp members use to optimize their 4e characters. -- NotBrandX 23:17, 15 October 2011 (BST)

Fandom Section a Complete Mess?[edit]

Seriously, it seems that the only purpose of the Fandom section is to make proponents of 4e seem like some sort of rarity (although sales figures would dispute that). In fact, even the part that compliments 4e fans seems unnaturally biased for a wiki. Consider editing, maybe?

Seconded. Compare the criticism and discussion section to that of 3.5, and lol. Also for the pro 4E perspective: -Greatly narrower class power variance. Wizards are not gods. There is no CoDzilla. -Races are also far more balanced. No more DC: 20 1st level spells because somebody fucked and allowed a +Int casting race. -No Gnome Bard iconics. -Gear dependence is far lessened. -Stats are as near to equal as they ever been. Strength is no longer worth two stats. Charisma is also no longer a pathetic dump stat. -Combat is faster. High level caster turns are no longer a half-hour long. -Planescape is back. I never missed it, but apparently this is a big deal to some fa/tg/uys. -So is Darksun. -Prestige Classes are out, and easily qualified for and broadly varying Paragon Paths are in. -Epic Destinies are thematically awesome. Balance varies, but it still doesn't vary as wildly as some classes getting Lich-hood and others getting yet another useless iterative attack. -Hate Drow? Hate angsty Spesshul Snowflakes? kill Lolth. -Kill Orcus. -Kill Angels. -Balanced Undead PC's. Play a Vampire. Play a Revenant. And do it as any race you want. -The addition of Shaddar-Kai, Shifters, and Genasi to the standard non-setting. -No more ECL's. Fluff it, or forget it. -Minions. Need cannon fodder? Need sometimes incredibly effective harassment? Don't want to track more HP stats? Get minions, and start being a pain in the ass. -Simplified stat blocks. Memorization of dozens of pages of effects, qualities, feats, and spells no longer required.

You're not fooling anyone[edit]

Just from reading the article I knew there were 4e fags protecting it from any criticism. Then I check out discussion and lo and behold that's what you're up to. Pretending criticisms don't exist won't make them go away.

Character Themes article?[edit]

So, we've got a page on Paragon Paths and another one on Epic Destinies. Should we go the whole hog and have a page talking about 4e's character themes as well?--QuietBrowser (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Biased in favour of...?[edit]

Seems like fanboys got to the article - whilst I'll agree that the previous versions of the 4E article might have bashed a bit too hard, I'll have to agree with the previous commentators saying that fanboys got to it, and are outright protecting it, and censoring criticism - e.g., where is the part about some classes - looking at you, vryloka and vampire (and yes - they have an entry on the independent Vampire-page - but they deserve a mention here) - are incredibly badly designed, or more discussion of the healing-surge mechanic, or how - even if Planescape was back - the removal of the old meta-cosmology, and the insertion of the new one, was actually *not* very well-recieved, by those already familiar with the game (to new players, this would, of course, not matter)? It's even worded so as to make the new cosmology seem better ("follows a more organic,mythology-based approach), in spite of it mentioning that WotC eventually, in Manual of the planes, gave directions for going back, and even mostly went back, with 5E. Which is a general point - 5E went back to the pre-4E days, for the most part (keeping some of the good stuff from 4E, as one would expect); this was not because people loved 4E. It should also be noted, however - people, sign your additions. Don't just comment, and leave (looking at the previous fa/tg/uy who posted complaints of fanboyism). incassum (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)