|
5 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2008 - 8:43AM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2008
|
Unhelpful. ...Unhelpful. You were discourteous to suggest it; I'm surprised the moderator didn't delete your post... Please refrain from exaggerations.
If you're really a member of the forum police, I'd like to see your badge.  :P
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2008 - 8:47AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2004
|
I completely agree that D&D attributes and defense scores are just an abstraction, so there's no definitive right or wrong answers. However, some rationales are surely better than others.
Here is what 4E's mechanics are implying:
1) dexterity is a major part of good reflexes
2) intelligence is a major part of good reflexes
3) dexterity and intelligence are equal in their contribution to good reflexes (because you choose one or the other, whichever is higher)
4) there is no synergy between dexterity and intelligence for good reflexes (no averaging or anything)
5) all other attributes are *less* important to good reflexes (because they play no part in the modifiers)
This was set up this way primarily for simple game mechanics, which I can appreciate. That said, to help make sense of it in a larger perspective, there's been a certain amount of rationalizing to support these mechanics.
ICS, JohnSnow et al. have already made convincing arguments on behalf of Intelligence, and I acknowledge that.
On the other hand, I've think I've made a good case for why Wisdom (defined in the PHB as common sense, perception, danger sense, etc.) with a combination of Dexterity could also be the foundation for Reflex, and some people have acknowledge that this is also fair.
I'm sure other cases could be made for other attributes as well, like how do you define fast-twitch muscle fibers in game mechanics -- is that also Strength which would contribute to Reflexes?
Has anyone rationalized that Intelligence is *more* of a contributing factor to Reflex than any other attribute (excluding Dexterity but including Wisdom)? No.
Has anyone rationalized why an 18 Dex 18 Int fencer has the same base Reflex as a 8 Dex 18 Int fencer or 18 Dex 8 Int fencer? No.
So if I remain unconvinced, it's not because I am stubborn, it's because a logical argument has simply not been made.
BUT...
All of that is irrelevant anyway because WoTC didn't create the stats based on the ideal rationale, they just created the stats for game balance and mechanical simplicity, and that's why there is no good rationale. It's a sort of reverse engineering with a dead end (or dead beginning).
So if you guys are going to take the approach of rationalizing Int + Dex = Reflex, then don't be shocked or hurt or upset if someone debates you within that specific context and points out that your rationale is faulty or lacking. Or you can ditch the rationale and take it from another angle (game balance, etc.). But if your post is something like Elven_Swordsmen's, which is like "dude, it's just an abstraction" but "you can rationalize it like...", then you are mixing up apples and oranges.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2008 - 9:05AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2005
|
Well
There is definitely an argument as to wisdom being more appropriate that int in that very topic.
Dexterity is reacting to danger, intelligence is building a conceptual model that enables you to limit you choice and give you advantage buy using sound bio mechanics and simple movement
Ie medieval fencing has only a method to defeat 5 guards. Those 5 guards are in fact the 5 guards are the only way your hands can be relative to your body.
(up and in from, up and back, low and in front, low and back and straight in the middle.).
Those 5 methods to defeat the guards are 4 strikes, and each strike is a slight variation of a normal strike.
You do not need to be especially quick to be good at it, that is what training and repetition is for.
Phil.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2008 - 9:15AM
#64
|
|
|
Well
There is definitely an argument as to wisdom being more appropriate that int in that very topic.
Wisdom could work, but it's locked into Will Defense for fairly obvious reasons. Having it overlap wouldn't be balanced.
Switching the two (Wis to Ref, Int to Will) works until you realize that we then lose the "power nerd without a spine" archetype, and we're back to square one. Not to mention that the application of Int to the Will Defense is even more of a tenuous connection than Int to Reflex.
Basically, when it comes down to it, no system is going to provide for everything. 4E (like all editions before it) is designed for high adventure, heavy action games; and the character creation process is geared towards creating characters that fit that paradigm. If we're trying to provide for possibilities outside those parameters, we're going to have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis, rather than trying to change the system as a whole to accommodate it.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2008 - 10:13AM
#65
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2004
|
Here is a rephrasing of my deleted "4E forum fanboy" post.
I think one problem endemic to ALL threads on this forum is the two quarrelling camps. A number of offensive names have been tossed around. I'm not talking about just anti-4E vs 4E, this more about the "editors" vs the "stasists".
The editors find faults in official material and want to change it. It may be nitpicking or it may be a fair and legitimate criticism. Like anyone, they feel validated if others agree. Editors can rightly be seen as overly-negative, whiny, ranting and provocative.
The stasists like it the way it is and nothing should be changed. If you want, you can house-rule something in your campaign, but the official material is ideal and immutable. (Honestly, I don't understand this apparent devotion to WoTC and I wonder about the loss of credibility when the official rules are changed and the stasist promptly abandons the old ruleset, switches loyalty, and defends the new ruleset with the same devotion -- it's as if they are Lawful Neutral to whatever is the current ruleset)
When the two camps start to argue, it is futile to find a resolution.
Most of us are centrists, but when we butt heads, we tend to take one side or the other. It's like two people from countries that are political enemies. In their own country, each person may sometimes criticize their own government. But when those two people discuss politics, they may get defensive and staunchly defend their country (not everyone, but many would).
Or like evangelists vs atheists. The atheists believe in nothing by default and decide their own truths. The evangelists have complete faith in the Bible and nothing will disuade them. So if the evangelist and the atheist argue about the story of Noah, the atheist will think that makes no sense and argue that it's impossible to fit every animal in the ark. The evangelist *knows* the story of Noah is true, and will rationalize how it could be. There will never be any agreement between these two.
So for this particular topic, are we rationalizing on behalf of Intelligence for Reflex and well-rounded characters because we know 4E has it right and we're just reverse engineering the rationale? Or are we asking first how it should/would/could be and does 4E do it best? And so forth.
If you've already made up your mind that 4E is the way it is, or if you have already made up your mind that another rpg does it better than 4E, then what's the point?
In many cases, I have not yet decided but I have a concern about 4E. I may start off as conciliatory and quickly digress into the argumentative simply because it feels so difficult to get my points across. Firstly, I feel that the "stasis" side tends to set up a huge wall of denial and it takes a lot of convincing to get through that or even to meet halfway. Secondly, there are many condenscending snarky remarks about how I can do what I want in my campaign but 4E is The Truth (until 4.5 comes out) plus the aforementioned unhelpful one liners that discouragingly bypass all previous arguments and take everything out of context.
Now, I have a modifier of -12 to my Will Defense when it comes to replying to an incendiary post on this forum, but hopefully I will keep rolling 20s and stick to working for the rest of this week.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2008 - 10:20AM
#66
|
|
|
I understand that you're trying to be civil, and I can appreciate that.
The problem is, you've divided everyone into camps that aren't really realistic in terms of how they view 4E. Noone is completely on one side or the other. I've got several threads around here looking at potentially changing the way the mechanics work for specific things about 4E. That doesn't mean I'm out to change absolutely everything about the system, and it sure doesn't mean I'm going to do it without first getting in a good chunk of playtime to see whether or not those issues are things that actually need fixed.
I'm a tweeker by nature. I tweeked 2E, I tweeked the crap out of 3E and I'm probably going to be tweeking 4E eventually as well. But I don't see any reason to be jumping to conclusions about mechanics before we even play a serious campaign and can tell whether they need tweeked. Especially given that it's fairly easy to rationalize Int to Reflex on a broad scale, as evidenced by the posts here.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2008 - 10:26AM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2007
|
I'm not sure. The centrists tend to take one side or the other. I know I personally would argue against someone saying that fourth edition was world of warcraft, but I would also argue against someone saying it was a perfect flawless system better than every other edition of D&D and all other RPGs. Although I would probably argue that an RPG other than a previous edition of D&D is better, since I like Fudge better than any edition of D&D I have seen so far, including what I have seen of fourth edition.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2008 - 10:47AM
#68
|
|
|
I'm not sure. The centrists tend to take one side or the other. I know I personally would argue against someone saying that fourth edition was world of warcraft, but I would also argue against someone saying it was a perfect flawless system better than every other edition of D&D and all other RPGs. Although I would probably argue that an RPG other than a previous edition of D&D is better, since I like Fudge better than any edition of D&D I have seen so far, including what I have seen of fourth edition.
But if someone came out today (before the books are even on shelves) and said;
"I'm banning the Fighter from my games. They're completely overpowered in 4E."
What are you going to say to them? Anyone with an ounce of sense is going to tell them to wait and see how it plays out, at least for a little while, before drastically altering the game itself.
This is the same situation, at least to my mind. It's not about some people naturally falling towards playing it as is, and some wanting to tear it down and start from the ground up. It's about waiting until you actually have a decent amount of data about how the things you don't like play before making heavy-handed changes to the system.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2008 - 11:21AM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2007
|
"I'm banning the Fighter from my games. They're completely overpowered in 4E."
Why? They seem no more powerful than any other class. If this is some sort of nostalgia from third edition where they were a lot weaker just try to forget about it and look at them objectively. At least give them a shot.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2008 - 11:47AM
#70
|
|
|
Why? They seem no more powerful than any other class. If this is some sort of nostalgia from third edition where they were a lot weaker just try to forget about it and look at them objectively. At least give them a shot.
He wasn't saying that he actually is planning to ban fighters merely pointing out that saying "Fighters are overpowered I'm banning them" and "Int or Dex to Reflex won't work and doesn't allow me to play the character archetype I want" are both unfounded statements because we as a community lack the expertise in the system to make these judgement calls at this time.
|
|
|
