4E D&D Discussion

Not the part I considered simplistic, so I agree. However, the utter lack of options means it is pretty simplistic in that regard.

Tshern wrote:Not the part I considered simplistic, so I agree. However, the utter lack of options means it is pretty simplistic in that regard.

It's an utter lack of effective options, actually. Martial Power alone has options out the yin-yang - they just mostly suck.

Well, they DID make a more simple game.

Reverend Red wrote:Well, they DID make a more simple game.

This is a totally conflated falsehood. 4E is, in fact, MORE complicated than 3.5 ever was, since you have to resort to hardcore dumpster-diving and theoretical optimisation just to not suck. The only reason the system LOOKS simpler is because there are far fewer books out for it.

Let's wait for the splatbook army.

However, the lack of options makes it sort of simpler. However, 3.5 never had that many feasible options either, you just had to recognize the junk from the real deal, but at least you had every laid out for you.

Tshern wrote:Let's wait for the splatbook army.

However, the lack of options makes it sort of simpler. However, 3.5 never had that many feasible options either, you just had to recognize the junk from the real deal, but at least you had every laid out for you.

Not only that - there were some options which were quite obviously good enough to stand alone without the need for 50 splatbooks to make them work (such as the wizard). However, in 4E, they literally do not exist - that, and the fact that whereas TOpt in 3.5 breaks the game, TOpt in 4E is mandatory. Go fucking figure.

Depends on what definition of theoretical optimization you use. The one I have clearly states that theoretical optimization is not actually used in games, so what you have is a case of theoretical optimization-equivalent practical optimization. At least from my point of view.

As such, though, we are in agreement, just wanted to get the definition out here.

Tshern wrote:Depends on what definition of theoretical optimization you use. The one I have clearly states that theoretical optimization is not actually used in games, so what you have is a case of theoretical optimization-equivalent practical optimization. At least from my point of view.

As such, though, we are in agreement, just wanted to get the definition out here.

That's the thing - there IS no difference between the two in 4E. You need to go to the 3.5-equivalent level to TOpt in 4E just to not suck. Yes, I know, stupid.

So it is practical optimization for that game. The fact that you have to go to great lengths to achieve similar results doesn't make it theoretical, hence the name.

Tshern wrote:So it is practical optimization for that game. The fact that you have to go to great lengths to achieve similar results doesn't make it theoretical, hence the name.

Well, alright, my terminology was loose. The point is, though, that the extent of what's required is far above and beyond 3.5. FAR, FAR, FAR.

If I recall correctly, you are coming up with a something of a fix for 4e? At least someone I know is and I am eagerly waiting for that.

Tshern wrote:If I recall correctly, you are coming up with a something of a fix for 4e? At least someone I know is and I am eagerly waiting for that.

I came up with a fairly simple framework to make it less stupid, but to be honest, once you stop treating it like a video game, it just falls apart. If you wanna play a game with those premises, be my guest, but if not, you're much better-off finding another system, seriously.

Oops. I've been neglecting this forum for a couple of weeks. Otherwise, I surely would have objected to the implication that I have... sand.

MisterSinister wrote:ends up looking like a pile of shit.

MisterSinister wrote:just to not suck.

Your arguments would become much more meaningful to me if you could define the above terms.