4E Sacred Cows?

Recently Mike Mearls responded to a list of 4scared cows I find somewhat ridiculous. Here would be mine:




1. Cool Powers: being able to doing something different and interesting most every turn

2. Relative balance between classes

3. System transparency

4. Game design that supports the game's philosophy(aka good design)

5. Deep, option rich, character creation and advancement

6. HP and Healing where PCs don't feel like glass

7. Starting as a fully capable member of your class from level 1

8. Magic not being the best answer to everything, particularly outside of combat

9. Tactical depth to enable combat to tell a story

10. Easy to DM 
11. Warlord as a stand alone healer class 



Any other ideas?
...whatever
Is there a link to where MM talked about 4E sacred cows? But I agree with your list.
Nevermind, just read his list on his Twitter. So, confirmation that they're pretty much abandoning 4E elements as a whole. Thats nothing new.
Your number 9 seems odd to me.  I loved playing 4e, but the tactical combat was where the narrative got lost.  Combats were too long to sustain narrative.  We have used tactical combat in D&D since 1st Edition AD&D (so I am not arguing for TotM) and never before did we notice it was so hard to maintain a narrative through combat as in 4e (and to a lesser extent 3e).  Am I understanding what you mean by number 9?

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Yeah I can actually. If they were trying to make the game better than 4e that would be one thing, but so far they've just been making things worse than the initial 3.0 release which at least had the excuse of not knowing any better.
4e was all about killing sacred cows for the sake of a better game. So I'd say 4e really doesn't have sacred cows at all. I mean I don't think it's possible to have something be a sacred cow until it's appeared in a couple different editions of the game.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
I don't think +1/2 is on anyone's list of 4e cows.

Unified power stucture was abandoned durring PHB3 with little complaint. (Though "psions only spam" and "runepriest are to complicated" where complaints). Even essentials didn't really hurt it (though again, slayers only spam was a big complaint)

Combat length was usually a complaint as well. Though that also removed rocket tag and gave time for tactics, which is somewhat of a real sacred cow of 4e.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Ok how is the 5e packet a better game than 4e? 

Oh and I hate rocket tag. 
What I see so far is a vast improvement over 3rd and 4th Ed.



QFT!

I agree.  4e wasn't a wholly objective reaction to correcting the course of D&D post-3.5.  It was a wild, reactionary over-correction that while fun, had it's own set of extreme issues. 

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Sacred Cow...

My two copper.
MAges weren't gods and the multi-classing sucked, oh boo hoo.
From wiki: "A figurative sacred cow is something else that is considered immune from question or criticism, especially unreasonably so."

How is this used in gaming lingo though?

A sacred cow is an aspect of the game that may not even be good at all, but is kept for the sake of tradition or nostalgia. Given that 4e was about good game design, the "sacred cows" in 4e are all good design aspects that do not need to be defended as "sacred cows" - they easily stand on their own as good design principles.

Except D&DN basically has to side-step and say "this isn't a 4e mechanic! don't get mad!" before they do anything even remotely similar to 4e, in order to prevent ridiculous edition warring and ultimatums (if so-and-so mechanic is in, I'm out!).

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Well actually one sacred cow remains in 4e, the Armor as a miss mechanic thing.
On TCO's list:

1.) Almost there. Need to iron out maneuvers, skill tricks, feats.
2.) Almost there. They need work but feel pretty balanced so far in play.
3.) System transparency - seems transparent to me.
4.) Good game design is subjective. While this game is still boring, the nuts and bolts are working. The design works.
5.) Advancement and options need lots of work. Totally agree.
6.) HP & healing is good. What HP means and healing rate are set by DM. No problems here.
7.) fully capable by level 3. Fine. Whatever.
8.) Magic isn't the best answer to everything.
9.) tactical depth is lacking but they're working on it.
10.) Easy to DM. Check. Encounters have XP budgets and guidelines are pretty good so far. I haven't had problems DMing this and I suck.
11.) Warlord! Yeah. I need this.

Otherwise, these 4E sacred cows are either almost there or already there. Except tactics & warlord.
Your number 9 seems odd to me.  I loved playing 4e, but the tactical combat was where the narrative got lost.  Combats were too long to sustain narrative.  We have used tactical combat in D&D since 1st Edition AD&D (so I am not arguing for TotM) and never before did we notice it was so hard to maintain a narrative through combat as in 4e (and to a lesser extent 3e).  Am I understanding what you mean by number 9?



What I was referring to is the ability for combat to ebb and flow.
...whatever
The 3e game, especially the end game and post game (levels 10+) rendered anyone without near infinite cosmic power largely replaceable. In fact the construct creation and customization rules allowed exactly that, even without artificers. IT was a simple result of the way casting and item creation worked that rendered anyone who couldn't obsolete.

Anyway 4e is a much better designed and entirely more coherent game. The much vaunted quick combats of 5e simply means nothing matters except total DPS or one-hit lock downs. THe combats need to last long enough for things like ongoing damage, tactical positioning, and defensive plays to matter.
3.) System transparency - seems transparent to me.

How does the math for scaling monsters work?

4e's transparency came from a logical and structured approach that was spelled out in almost every mechanic in the game. You easily could see how much damage was appropriate for a level, how many hit points, what sort of defenses the monsters would have, what sort of attack values were expected of the players, how quickly (statistically speaking) fights should end, and what sort of powers monsters could have (although I can admit this one is kind of squishy).

D&DN has none of that; it's all just "well the designers put it in this way, they must have some reason but I cannot see it".
4.) Good game design is subjective.

A lot of aspects of good game design are subjective - especially dependant upon the style of game played. However, there are sound principles of good game design that are always present (save for those few outliers that don't like fun, don't like other people having fun, etc).
While this game is still boring, the nuts and bolts are working. The design works.

About as well as a mediocre retro-clone, yes. As well as previous editions of the game? No. Currently it's a half-empty husk of a bland retro-clone that we're playing.
6.) HP & healing is good. What HP means and healing rate are set by DM. No problems here.

Except using hit points as a resource is extremely limited in how that can function. There is no way to limit hit points as a daily resource, and non-potion in-combat healing without a cleric is...oh wait, you can't really do that. Nevermind.
Otherwise, these 4E sacred cows are either almost there or already there. Except tactics & warlord.

The most important design principles of 4e - cinematic action, heroic adventure, and flexibility in modification via transparency in the rules - are all totally missing from D&DN.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

One at a time then: How was 4e any more homoginized than 3e? A barbarian in 3e and a fighter played mostly the same as I recall.
I disagree, I found it homogenised

Please don't do that. It's ridiculous. Just no. This is not something that should be discussed, and also I find it so ridiculous that even you saying it means you cannot be reasoned with.
uncreative

If you could explain how any edition stifled creativity please?
un-dynamic

Always unchanging? In certain aspects that I doubt you're talking about, yes. Otherwise, the entire idea in the game was that every fight was wildly different and crazy; that the tiers focused on totally different goals; and that characters, even within the same class, could be incredibly varied
uninspiring

Not sure how rules are supposed to be inspiring. Settings, yes, rules, no.
operational, and dull. 

If you're talking about the pre-made 4e material, pretty much all of this is true.

Almost none of this is true for any edition as a rule-set tho. Virtually every point you brought up are aspects of the game at the table - namely, how well your DM is actually doing their job.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."


6.) HP & healing is good. What HP means and healing rate are set by DM. No problems here.

Except using hit points as a resource is extremely limited in how that can function. There is no way to limit hit points as a daily resource, and non-potion in-combat healing without a cleric is...oh wait, you can't really do that. Nevermind.




this is a lie

you also have paladins, rangers, and druids rocking heals.  the monk can heal himself as well, and the barbarian can give himself DR which is equatable to healing because in the end it does the same thing (removes incoming damage), the fighter does similarly because he can negate hits against himself and others.
Yeah, convenient, cheesy, immersion breaking, and number porn for the sake of it (3rd Ed also suffered from the treadmill, number bloat garbage).

You would rather a monster's AC be set by "well, I 'unno, I guess this sorta sounds right?"?

Because I don't see two ways about it. You have a base-line AC that can be modified slightly up or down (which, btw, up or down 2 can give you a 25% variance in how often any person will hit that monster); it's a logical, sound progression that makes for a logical flow. I don't see how this is "number porn".

Or you just sorta fill in whatever sounds right, I guess.

You honestly prefer the second? Interesting.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Every version of D&D had its own HP porn. Too say that only 3rd and 4th had it is bunk.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I wasn't addressing blacksheeps sacred cows. I was addressing TCO's list.
I disagree, I found it homogenised

Please don't do that. It's ridiculous. Just no. This is not something that should be discussed, and also I find it so ridiculous that even you saying it means you cannot be reasoned with





Unfortunately that is apparently the resounding play test response, or so the twitter that spawned this thread would lead me to believe.

and, I have to agree, to a point.  There was absolutely a homogenization in 4e.  There was homogenization everywhere, and you know what...some of my friends like it because of that not in spite of it.  Sure different classes could sort of do different things, but they all did it in the exact same way AEDU.  Hell to my understanding even the people that started 4e had never planned on absolutely everyone using the same power structure.  However it is indeed where the homogenization claim comes from, and unfortunately it is something many saw and didn't like, and that has been reflected in the platest survey results.
I will do what I please, I find what you are doing is absurd and offensive. I just stated something that made you defensive, very telling.

I find that you're immediately finding one of the primary hot-topic edition war buttons and smashing it with a sledgehammer offensive.

If you find that offensive, and you're surprised that I get defensive when it's obvious you're wandering into edition war territory, I am surprised. I wasn't aware that "I don't really want this to devolve into an edition war" was really a position of weakness.

In the meantime, it's been proven that there is more variance between two characters of the class "fighter" in 4e than there are between fighters, rangers, and barbarians in 3e (to say nothing of two fighters in 2e, which were different because of race, name, and how high their strength score was). The typical cries of "but the classes are the saaaaame" is just as ridiculous (and edition war bait) as "but it's just like an MMOOOOOOOO".

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

There was absolutely a homogenization in 4e.


As far as power set-up was(with AEDU), then yeah, I'll agree.

As far as how the classes actually played? Outright nope.
spreading misinformation/bashing of pre-4th Ed is due to unfortunate experiences with crap DMs, happens, sorry.

I'm sorry you think that discussing - calmly and rationally - the good and bad aspects of previous editions is "spreading misinformation/bashing". No edition is perfect. 4e isn't. 3e isn't. 2e isn't. BECMI isn't. They all have faults. I would know, I've played every one of those editions for at least 3 years, most more.

Bringing up ridiculous ones that are blatently untrue is a different matter; which seems like your go-to position on 4e.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

No edition is perfect. 4e isn't.


Hey wait, you said something remotely negative about 4e if you take it lightly. The mods are going to annihilate you when they see this because 4e.
For the purposes of this list, people who didn't like 4E mean nothing, and their opinion means nothing. The purpose of this is list is to determine what 5E needs to do for 4E fans to be interested in playing it. Why some people hate 4E has nothing to do with that.
...whatever
(Insert defense of 4E here).

Meanwhile, back on topic.

I think the 4E elements I'm looking for are: cinematic action, round-by-round meaningful combat decisions, classes that play differently, monsters that are unique interesting and dangerous.
Well yes obviously the classes all had the AEDU stuff, or in the case of some were defined by how they deviated from it, but that actual abilities and play style of each class and character varied more in 4e than 3e. For example the warrior classes all had different tactics and pririties rather than spamming a few basic attacks. BArbarians and fighters were two distinct classes that had different powers and abilities in 4e, in 3e they were almost identical in play.

as for things to bring back form 4e, characters that can support themselves without a dedicated healer class, these HD just aren't cutting it, they don't scale well. 
spreading misinformation/bashing of pre-4th Ed is due to unfortunate experiences with crap DMs, happens, sorry.

I'm sorry you think that discussing - calmly and rationally - the good and bad aspects of previous editions is "spreading misinformation/bashing". No edition is perfect. 4e isn't. 3e isn't. 2e isn't. BECMI isn't. They all have faults. I would know, I've played every one of those editions for at least 3 years, most more.

Bringing up ridiculous ones that are blatently untrue is a different matter; which seems like your go-to position on 4e.


Ha, classic, me not being totally on board with 4th Ed seems to have got you very emotionally charged, let's calm down a sec,


I'm honestly curious where you get the idea he's angry about this.
I'd call it standardization myself; homogenization feels dismissive somehow. 

I'll throw in my few coppers (even though I don't really have a dog in this fight ;)):  The standardization of 4e really appealed to me.  I liked things like the power structure.  Whether spell or exploit, prayer or invocation, the format was the same, no learning this, or hunting for that.  Racial traits even fell into this format; everyone had an encounter power.  No learning this or hunting for that.  It could all be written out in a nice-n-neat stat block, easy to glance at and find what you need.

Also, as already mentioned, the power set-up was standardized but the classes actually played very differently.
/\ Art
I disagree, I found it homogenised, uncreative, un-dynamic, uninspiring, operational, and dull. 


I do not hate 4th Ed at all, I have DMed it consistently and own pretty much all product

How somebody could DM the game consistentily and say that it's homogenised baffles me entirely. In the meantime, you're obviously quite okay with playing (what you see as) a blatently inferior product.
I am not insulting you personally, please get over yourself and your crusade, please, it's getting embarrassing and dull for the rest of us.

I'm not sure why you think I am getting particularly riled about this (hasn't even registered as a tick in my blood pressure, trust me). I'm not taking it personally.

You're just pressing a hot-topic button that the mods here have spoken out against; one that tends to incite an edition war; and more importantly, one that is absolutely and ridiculously false.

But hey, if you like being wrong, keep on thinking that. No skin off my back, not like I'll ever be at the same table with you.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

On TCO's list: 1.) Almost there. Need to iron out maneuvers, skill tricks, feats. 2.) Almost there. They need work but feel pretty balanced so far in play. 3.) System transparency - seems transparent to me. 4.) Good game design is subjective. While this game is still boring, the nuts and bolts are working. The design works. 5.) Advancement and options need lots of work. Totally agree. 6.) HP & healing is good. What HP means and healing rate are set by DM. No problems here. 7.) fully capable by level 3. Fine. Whatever. 8.) Magic isn't the best answer to everything. 9.) tactical depth is lacking but they're working on it. 10.) Easy to DM. Check. Encounters have XP budgets and guidelines are pretty good so far. I haven't had problems DMing this and I suck. 11.) Warlord! Yeah. I need this. Otherwise, these 4E sacred cows are either almost there or already there. Except tactics & warlord.


1) Not even close. 5E is spam city, and non-spell abilities are lame compared to 4E powers.
2) Bad balance isn't a glaring issue, not like 3.5E. I still say 5E is currently a step backward on this.
3) Transparency means the game works like it looks like its supposed to work. 4E nailed this, and I'm not seeing this in 5E to that extent.
4) What I mean most when I say good game design is "works as intended". Again, 4E nailed this and 5E is not anywhere near that mark.
5) we agree
6) Current 5E healing is nowhere near the heroic cinematic feel of 4E, and some half-&@$ed bandaid optional rule in the DMG isn't going to fix that.
7) Level 3 not fine
8) Yes it is. Magic is still > all, just like before 4E
9) I see no indication it is being worked on
10) Not as good as 4E, but an improvement over 3E for sure
11) we agree 
...whatever
have the same agenda you do...oh wait, I just answered that...


What agenda? Seriously, I keep seeing you and Dan mentioning some "agenda" 4e fans have, mind elaborating?
I'm honestly curious where you get the idea he's angry about this.

My first assumption is "lol i trolled u" sort of reaction that people assume whenever they make a statement like that.

If you respond to them at all, obviously you're raging and throwing things, possible even breaking your computer.

(When in actually, you're just wondering how anybody can be quite so dense.)

Any further response is typically taken as a further increase in rage (when it's normally a further decrease in their percieved cognative functions).

Tis a sad state of affairs. They can think what they will, doesn't bother me.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Yeah, convenient, cheesy, immersion breaking, and number porn for the sake of it (3rd Ed also suffered from the treadmill, number bloat garbage).

You would rather a monster's AC be set by "well, I 'unno, I guess this sorta sounds right?"?

Because I don't see two ways about it. You have a base-line AC that can be modified slightly up or down (which, btw, up or down 2 can give you a 25% variance in how often any person will hit that monster); it's a logical, sound progression that makes for a logical flow. I don't see how this is "number porn".

Or you just sorta fill in whatever sounds right, I guess.

You honestly prefer the second? Interesting.




Yes actually I do prefer that.  If I say the enemy is wearing plate armor, and that it isn't magical I know that guy has an ac of 18, and I don't have to go through any number porn to figure out what his AC needs to be to be an apropriate challenge to the players.  I just say ac 18.

oh this guy is a dex based rapier wielding enemy wearing a chain shirt...ac 17, +7 to hit with his rapier, and 1d8+4 damage with said rapier, and maybe I give him a few interesting tricks to make him capable, maybe I give him a d6 pary....boom I don't need to do any number crunching to figure out any of his bonuses I know I can throw that combo in and it will work within the math of the system.  From there I just need to decide what is hit die is going to be I go with d8s I'm gunna give him 5d8 because he is a pretty high energy guy and really won't be getting hit till the deathblow its gunna be all near misses that tax his vitality.

I can create a valid enemy in no time flat by saying what does he look like and how does he act, and the party won't be entirely outclassed by him and won't entirely outclass him.  I didn't need to go through any real number porn to create him just go over the description of him.  Heck I can in fact arbitraily pick some of it at this point and still have it work out.

BONUS: they are still planning on including the monster building guidelines.


Any further response is typically taken as a further increase in rage (when it's normally a further decrease in their percieved cognative functions).

Tis a sad state of affairs. They can think what they will, doesn't bother me.



But hey, if you like being wrong, keep on thinking that.

Look, for some reason, you really seem to have it in for me, at this point, I'm flattered.

Predictable.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Some more 4E SCs IMO:

- Utility powers for everyone

- Healing Surge based healing

- Second Wind healing for everyone

- Proactive Leadering

- All is Core philosophy

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

have the same agenda you do...oh wait, I just answered that...


What agenda? Seriously, I keep seeing you and Dan mentioning some "agenda" 4e fans have, mind elaborating?



You know what you guys and gals are doing (for shame).


Soo you have nothing then.