You must name five good things and five bad things about 4e.

File: AbeOik6.jpg (3KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 160x160px

>>48313152
>In before a bunch of people reply anyway

>>48313181
>I can talk about something even though I'm not informed enough
>hurr durr bait

File: j189y4821uhoa.png (101KB, 500x517px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x517px

ebin

Dark Sun was good. That's about it.

>>48313152
Good:
1. Technically Dungeons and Dragons
2. Plenty of expanded lore/ splat books
3. Got a lot of people interested in the game who might not have been otherwise
4. Condensed stat blocks
5. Man... fuck I can't do it, 4e was so bad

>>48313152
Let's me try,
>Good;
>1: it helped introduce a lot of new players to the game
>2: it streamlined and simplified combat
>3: it allowed every player a way to heal themself without potions
>4: it introduced a lot of new player races to the game and new monsters
>5: it was fun to play with casual friends abs strangers

>Bad;
>1: the conga line of death
>2: it played like an mmo on paper, but not in a good way
>3: it was really easy to cheese the rules and get super high starts early on
>4: clerics became palladian 2.0 instead of healers
>5: you couldn't die unless you were extremely unlucky or forced it

How's that?

Well I normally don't talk about 4e much, but why not

I don't care for the slow pace of it. The "tactical combat" that people talk about is mostly just moving enemies around a few squares to give slight bonuses, tons of feats were just boring +1 to one thing that you're supposed to collect, and I'm glad DnD moved away from a lot of its design choices. That's only 3 though, so I guess I'll also throw in dragonborn as a core race and pretty much all fluff that actually came from that point in time. Also despite being more than 5 I think a greater emphasis on minis was a mistake

As for good things I guess it kept some settings alive and got rid of level adjustment bullshit. I'm pretty sure they stopped hiring Wayne Reynolds as much, but that probably had more to do with pathfinder. It was generally more honest in terms of its design than its predecessors. I guess the online stuff might have been neat if there wasn't that murder-suicide. Otherwise I guess I consider it ending a good thing

File: 1336438787538.png (24KB, 232x197px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 232x197px

>>48313259
>there will never be a proper 5e Dark Sun

>>48313427
There is a troubling amount of focus on Forgotten Realms and nothing else, but I don't know about never. I think setting books are generally more likely to come up than character building ones going by the recent trends

Good
>Some of the best balance in D&D history
>Characters feel like legit heroes
>Lots of classes
>Complex combat
>Setting Agnostic

Bad
>Classes feel to similar
>Abilities make little sense (bloody path, anyone.)
>Combat grinds to a halt at higher levels.
>Not terribly lethal, which can remove player investment
>The MMO-style ability design doesn't work well on paper.

Good Things
1. Feats that allowed damage variation
2. PoL setting design. Seriously, I loved it.
3. Introduction of so many pc races
4. Wide variety classes that were easily modified
5. Heroes of the Feywild

Bad
1. Totally subjective, but that combat system just felt too burdening
2. Minions. Minions annoyed me
3. Restrictive magic
4. At-will/Encounter/Daily powers
5. Feeling like the use if those powers is just macro-mashing

>>48313259
I kinda hated that about a third of the art was clearly stuff made for Exalted that got rejected and then reused, without bothering to recolor the metallic weapons.
Other than that, was pretty good. One of the few times I actually liked the way they shoehorned in the new races.

>>48313443
Forgotten Realms is the most popular because it features just about everything to some degree, even though it loses out on consistency and atmosphere as a result. Easier to sell, and easier to create new stuff for to sell.

-Best mechanics of any D&D edition
-Most clear, concise and easy to understand rules
-Best balance of any D&D edition
-Powers gave everyone interesting options and created fun choices to be made in every combat.
-The best GM side support of any edition of D&D

-Borked math at first, while it was tweaked in later books it still requires some houseruling and fiddling to really work as intended.
-Rituals and Skill Powers vastly underdeveloped, generally not being worth using outside of specialization
-Essentials
-More restrictive on certain race/class combinations which might make it harder to play a character you could make in another edition.
-Broken promises and awful digital support, abandoning the offline builder and sticking all the existing tools behind a ludicrous paywall

File: 1458090393524.jpg (40KB, 311x339px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 311x339px

>>48313782
>-Best mechanics of any D&D edition

1) The books are easily the best laid out D&D books - especially the core books
2) It does epic heroes better than 3.pf even if it struggles with sword and sorcery type campaigns
3) Although I feel it failed to use it effectively, the power cards made the game very manageable and modular
4) Combat math was eventually fixed
5) Good digital tools

>>48313782
>-The best GM side support of any edition of D&D
There's more to DMing than setting up combat encounters. 5e is a lot better for DMs, and encourages more customization to fit a campaign without the 3.pf "we have shitty rules for everything" nonsense.

File: tg - why play 4e differently than 3e_1.jpg (126KB, 1213x255px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1213x255px

>>48313152

>Another retarded 3aboo and pathshitter thread

>>48315176
>3aboo
>4rry

What's the name for 5e?

>>48315283

I'm partial to 5aggot.

>>48313152
good
>Easy to build creatures and encounters as DM
>Classes being extremely similar makes them easy to learn and play
>character building is fast
>Far better balanced than 3.5
>Consistent terminology makes it far easier to read than other editions of D&D

Bad
>Most (class role here) feel the same as all the others of that role
>Absolutely no support for creativity in using class abilities
>Encounter and daily powers on some characters just dont make sense
>Enemies were giant punching bags with nerf weapons
>Magic items REQUIRED unless you use boons

Death sentence
>IT IS BORING TO PLAY

>>48315367
>threeaboo
>fourry
>fiveaggot
You sir, are the true fiveaggot

>+ Warlords
>+ Balance
>+ Improv guidelines/DM guidelines in general
>+ Clearest rules
>+ Coolest combat

>- terrible starting books (MM1 math is fucked, PHB1 has shitty paladin and other boring stuff and math is bad, DMG1 has shitty skill challeneges)
>- electronic support got fucked
>- later classes not getting enough support
>- Everything Mike Mearls
>- kept the magic items treadmill and zillions of modifiers

>>48315283
5trician.

>>48315283
>>48318002

5ster?

File: 5thdora.png (1MB, 1024x775px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x775px

>>48318002
>>48318498
>>48317659
>>48315367
>>48315283
Silly people.

>>48313152
10 of my opinions
Good:
1) Clean combat rules
2) Every class contributes
3) Straightforward encounter building
4) Lots of adventures
5) Plenty of splats

Bad:
1) Cookie cutter characters
2) Magic items fall out of everyone's ass
3) Relatively slow combat
4) More difficult to brew for
5) Rest mechanic leads to awkward encounter balancing

4e is a decent tactics game, but if I wanted a tactics games I would play an honest tactics game rather than a tactics game trying to masquerade as a roleplaying game.

>>48313152
+Slaughtered some of 3.x's sacred cows (Half-Orcs, Barbarians, & Sorcerers in core)
+Slaughtered some of D&D's sacred cows (9-point alignment, vancian casting)
+Is honest about its wargame-y bent (3.x insisted that that grids & minis were "optional")
+Actually achieved something close to intraparty balance across the board
+Took the lore in new directions, with good results (Eladrin, Devas)

-All classes were built from the same framework, making them feel too similar to each other from a mechanics standpoint
-The formatting of most books was really plain
-5-point alignment was a step in the right direction but it still kept alignment as a subsystem
-A bit too wargame-y (the same is true of 3.x to an extent)
-Not as much GSL content as there is OGL content

>>48313152
Good
>Class balance
>Limited healing
>Being able to healbot and fight simultaneously
>Sticky defenders
>Math that actually works, albeit flawed

Bad
>Feat bloat
>Essentials class design
>Twin Strike
>Rituals taking a permanent resource (gold) for temporary effects
>The lack of a defining ability for Controllers and the Arcane power source in particular

>>48315283
I like Nextbeard.

Can I ask a question about 4E here, since this is a shit thread anyway?

Here goes:
How to award gear to players that want specific gear for their specific build and keep them viable in fights until they get stuff they need? I mean, they fight, they get XP and they level up, but gear that makes their build works only on such and such level, then it just gets shit. So what do with this situation?

>>48320636
Even then they didn't go all the way on some things - 9-point alignment might have been trashed, but alignment as a whole was still a somewhat vestigial thing and then you have Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil being the extreme alignments which is just pure ???

Also, the Wizard still kinda has vancian casting for some inscrutable reason. They need to choose which spells to prepare in the morning and everything. Weird as hell.

It's also interesting to note that despite being "wargame-y" it's got even less support for mass combat than 3E did. Who knows what happened there - I guess it just goes to show how far modern D&D play has gone from the domain play of old.

GOOD:
- Very easy to make customized, varied, and interesting monsters and bosses
- Healing is viable both in and out of combat
- Traditional casters got non-splat, effective, "always available" options
- Interesting classes, like Avenger
- Combat flow keeps players on the ropes, but actual outright failure or being completely out of options is a rarity

BAD:
- Utterly broken math in early stuff leads to lots of worthless powers and character options, and monsters from the DM side
- Combat is agonizingly slow if everyone is not on the ball and with a high level of system mastery
- Powers sometimes have very counter-intuitive and hard to grasp effects
- Game rapidly falls apart after Heroic tier in a number of different ways
- Literally everything about how the edition handled feats, and magic items

I had a lot of success running 1-10 or so games, with a set of houserules to eliminate feat taxes inexperienced players will miss, and using inherent bonuses. I liked that players could have 3/4 of their health nuked by a boss, and then rally in the same fight, as well as heal between encounters in a relatively short timeframe. It made a fast-paced narrative, if not combat. I also was able to design villains with a number of unique abilities that I knew would not lead to instant death to the entire party, which is a lot harder to do in 5e. Overall, I prefer 5e.

And detest 3e.

They fucked up clerics.

>>48313427
Nah, there will be. It'll just take a while.

>>48320799
Use Inherent Bonuses and have magic items more more about the properties they provide, rather than the numerical bonuses they give.

>there will never be a perfect marriage between 4e and 5e
>everyone in my area is a 3aboo even though it's shittier than both 4e and 5e

>>48313152
GOOD
> Streamlined a lot of core mechanics
> Races & Classes are clear in theme and function
> Made every class better at what they're supposed to be good at
> A wide but consistent selection of both races and classes
> I love some of the illustrations

BAD
> Failed to fix a lot of core mechanics
> Classes are like a built-in railroad of a mechanic
> Maintained the fallacy that "more options" fixes bad core mechanics (for combat or otherwise)
> The spells/powers/etc are largely superfluous and convoluted in both function and composition
> A lot of the illustrations are garbage

Same sort of thing happened with 5e really. It feels like they almost had a good game, but didn't know when to stop adding stuff or increasing the power level, like they're afraid nobody will play it if they can understand it in one read or their character's aren't over-powering towns single-handed by level 10.

>>48313152
Good
>Must greater class balance
>Tactical combat system has depth
>Flexibilty in classes with modular abilities
>Does away with the limitations of Vancian casting
>Repackaged for maximum new player access

Bad
>The classes loose some flavor at the cost of the balancing; a daily is a daily is a daily.
>Combat at later levels starts to run into an HP bloat problems where you can definitively prevent the enemy from ever winning the battle anymore but still have to slog through it's HP anyway
>By trying to compete with tactical-style MMO's in it's system it brought on a direct comparison which did not favor it. Nobody wanted to play "like Guildwars or Warcraft only YOU do all the math!"
>Weak on setting content. One of D&D's greatest strengths in prior editions were it's various settings. 4e doled out splatbooks for many, but went to huge lengths to homogenize them so they could fit into the new rules and thus the books could be written with minimal effort.
>The repackaging was done not out of a desire to improve the game or update it or make it's rules better for new players, but purely as a marketing tactic by it's creators from beginning to end. It shows sometimes, with it's fluff and rules looking like a checklist of "this is a cool thing right now, let's add it".

Basically all of 4e's problems can directly be traced back to being made by Wizards of the fucking Coast.

>>48320749
That's golden.

>>48323246
>>By trying to compete with tactical-style MMO's in it's system it brought on a direct comparison which did not favor it. Nobody wanted to play "like Guildwars or Warcraft only YOU do all the math!"
What are those MMOs?

>>48323246
>The repackaging was done not out of a desire to improve the game or update it or make it's rules better for new players, but purely as a marketing tactic by it's creators

This is literally the point of everything ever made for nerds. 4e's successes and failures are not about whether it uses marketing tactics, but how successfully it uses them. Marketing to old school purists is just as much a marketing scheme as trying to obtain broad appeal. All companies must engage in business tactics to survive and put food in front of their employee's kids at the end of the day.

4e may have FAILED in its marketing tactics, but all games don't have the integrity to both shun marketing tactics and exist as businesses. And 4e was not actually much of a failure as a game.

>>48313152
Good.
>Fucking amazing DM support, smoothest DnD edition for me to run by far.
>Great monster design, minions are great
>Characters feel like fantasy heroes, the guys you can read about in a novel doing crazy shit and surviving it
>Mechanics were amazing after the MM updates (see bad list)
>Ritual/Power divide means the wizard can still shit all over monster efficacy without also breaking the campaign over his knee (see bad)

Bad.
>Essentials - why cater to people who don't enjoy the game while producing content that people who like the game won't use?
>Rituals were far too costly to the point of being unusable for your average party unless you houseruled it.
>Monsters were terrible before MM3 and MV came out, to the point where I'm thankful I only got into 4e post MM3.
>Far too many feats, a lot of which did very little, on top of mandatory feat taxes. I prefer 5e feats, which is about all I prefer about that edition.
>Easy to learn, but your slower players will be slow to master it, so waiting an eternity for that one guy to pick which of his many options to go for will be a reality for most groups. Slightly patched with Essentials but Essentials is boring as hell.

>>48315047
>5e is a lot better for DMs, and encourages more customization to fit a campaign

Nigga no.
The 4e DMG was one of the best DMG's ever written, and not for the rules or combat advice. 5e's DMG advice is a lot of 'here's how FR works', general setting advice (a lot of it good, to be fair) and 'just make shit up' for rules questions.

The 4e DMG didn't just cover how to run 4e, it gave good advice that could be applied to any game. A few rundowns on types of players, how to keep people engaged, good advice for pacing the story of a campaign, etc.

>>48322743
Strike! with d20 and proficiency?

Good

1)Balanced classes, characters are all useful at any given level(aside from abandoned classes, like 3 of them)
2)The removal of the concept of leaders=healers.
3)Refluffable to any setting/genre as long as the tone remains Big Damn Heroes
4)In line with balance mentioned above, Essentials classes for those who want less complex characters in combat but still want to have a similar level of contribution.
5)Easy as hell to put a game together for. Enemies and DCs are both extremely simple to make up on the fly and retain balance. Preparation was largely unrequired.


Bad:
1)Broken math when it shipped. You can't tout balance and then shit the game up with math that doesn't work. This was fixed, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place.
2)Skill challenges are shit, there's a good idea hiding somewhere underneath the retarded rules, but good luck doing something with it.
3)Combat gets heinous to keep track of, with half a dozen +1 +2 -1 -2 bonuses sitting on different stats for different characters with inconsistent timing(this one's until the end of my next turn but it's applied to you, and that one's until the end of your next turn, the condition on you needs a saving throw, and this one ends at the beginning of your next turn).
4)Feat taxes used to fix previously mentioned bad math rather than just fixing the math, cutting down build diversity.
5)If any player goes with a non-essentials class but is hesitant to make decisions, combat will slog and become extremely slow as analysis paralysis hits. If multiple players do so, the game is in trouble.

>>48323869
>A few rundowns on types of players, how to keep people engaged, good advice for pacing the story of a campaign, etc.
That's all literally in the 5e DMG, too.

>>48324697

On pages 26-31 and most of chapter 8, I'm aware.

The 4e DMG devotes the first two chapters as well as a good chunk of chapter 8 to that sort of advice.

I'm not saying the 5e DMG is a bad DMG, I'm saying the 4e one is better. In addition to arguing that 4e is smoother for DM's to run overall.

I'd say more enjoyable but that's subjective. I have a friend who really loves running 5e. I'm personally not a fan.

Good:
1) Did away with racial penalties (5e will continue this)
2) Did away with paladin's "always lawful good" restriction, allowing you to play a paladin without being fucked over by a jackass DM.
3) Has quite a few cool classes, such as swordmages and warlords.
4) Gnomes were not in PHB, but tiefling were. Nobody plays gnomes. Nobody.
5) 4e dealt with linear warriors vs quadratic wizards problem.

The bad:
1) 4e dealt with linear warriors vs quadratic wizards problem horribly.
2) Magic mart is still a thing. Except now it's arguably even more ingrained into the system!
3) Essentials.
4) PCs and NPCs are created by and play by wildly different rules.
5) Feats are boring as fuck, every single one last of them.

>>48325529
>2) Magic mart is still a thing. Except now it's arguably even more ingrained into the system!

Inherent bonuses sort of make it not ingrained, though it was at release.

>>48325529
> 4) PC and NPC

This is bad.....because?

>>48326050
I'll have to agree with this - 3E moving away from AD&D by making NPCs use the same rules as PCs was IMHO a pretty bad move. NPCs honestly just don't need all the details that PCs do, especially once you start making chargen complex - why else would so many 3E monsters have a million Toughness feats, inexplicable racial skill bonuses and ridiculous stats?
No, better to simplify things by cutting out the bits that PCs need to care about but NPCs with a ten-minute lifespan don't. Especially since this means you can move away from codified accessible-to-the-players plot powers and just have NPCs be able to do things because they're able to do those things.

Then again, I also think that 4E didn't go nearly far enough. Why the hell do monsters need ability scores?

>>48326657
>Why the hell do monsters need ability scores?

For skill checks and ability checks, I'd suppose. Like if the fighter demigod player says he wants to arm-wrestle Demogorgon. It's dumb, but I can see people who'd want it.

File: 1449084700319.jpg (29KB, 425x301px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 425x301px

>>48313152
>good
I don't have to play it with OP.
I don't have to play it with OP.
I don't have to play it with OP.
I don't have to play it with OP.
I don't have to play it with OP.

>bad
OP talks about it.
OP talks about it.
OP talks about it.
OP talks about it.
OP talks about it.

>honorable mention
pic related

File: pls.png (29KB, 1592x324px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1592x324px

>>48313227

>>48326657

One of the worst things with 'Same stats for NPCs and PCs' was daily-use powers.

There is zero reason for an NPC to not just blow through all his spells in an encounter as he's not likely to be adventuring and trying for more encounters today.

>>48313325
>4: clerics became palladian 2.0 instead of healers
Clerics were the original Paladin you shit

>>48327007

I agree with this. Shit always seemed stupid to me when I first got 4e books. I mean they moved away from it later on but still. 4e at release must have been a fucking mess.

>>48320738
>>The lack of a defining ability for Controllers and the Arcane power source in particular
The defining feature of the arcane power source is that they're all controllers. I'm sure you can see how that might result in what you have there.

>>48323647
I know you hit the quota, but I think magic item treadmill and inherent bonuses deserve to be added.

>>48327631

Yeah if I had more space I'd add a lot more to both sides. The magic item treadmill'd be in bad while inherent bonuses would be in good. I'd have gone on about PoL setting and the way they handled Dark Sun, complain about the lack of a Nine Hells focused sourcebook ala Demonomicon, etc.

It's my favorite DnD and it has a lot of great stuff but a lot of flaws, as well.

>>48328066
I feel like the number scaling in 5E is another thing that's good from it. I know that's not for everyone though. Sometimes you just want to feel like an untouchable badass because you're that much above your enemy.

>>48328184

I actually don't dislike the number scaling on its surface, but I feel its something that's better handled by using minions. Like if you want to represent wading through an army of goblins as still being dangerous, make it an army of level X (Where X equals PC's level) minions. The PC's can still mow them down with ease, but the goblins can still hurt and even kill them if they're not careful.
And I can have them encounter things that are just straight no-threat to them. With 5e it's one or the other, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just not what me or my group are after.

>>48328285
It also applies to how it handles ability checks, which is where I think it's an improvement. Though D&D still has a shitty skill system. I love the shit out of minions though. They work a lot better than just using low CR monsters in 5E.

>>48328366

Oh yeah I see what you mean. I'm fine with that, though I dislike the way skills are handled in general, as you noted.

Here's my go at it:
1.) It concentrated on d&d's strength: combat
2.) The grid-based rules work and serve better than the whole retro-fitting that you have to do with earlier/later editions. It made positioning important and gave you something to do other than attack.
3.) It is really simple and easy to get into. It was my first d&d game and I picked it up with minimal issues.
4.) The abilities gave players something more to do and consider. For example, unleashing an ability that would knock and enemy prone and push him towards your waiting rogue. Emphasized strategy.
5.) It had a pretty fucking neato official character creator that made the process fun rather than a pain in the ass.
6.) Wizards weren't the dominant force. More variety in party composition. Having a Warlord rather than the obligatory stupid-ass cleric was nice.

1.) This game is horrible for anything other than combat. Really? I can only cast fireball as long as I'm aiming it at someone?
2.) Combat could take fucking forever, and with the board state changing with every turn, it wasn't even entirely the player's fault. In a lot of ways, there was too many options.
3.) Every class feels almost exactly the same.
4.) Game was meant to "level up" with you. Suggested difficulties scaled with player level so no matter how talented you were at something, it would still be difficult.
5.) "Daily" abilities were essentially "get-out-of-jail-free" cards.

>>48329582
>Really? I can only cast fireball as long as I'm aiming it at someone?

...That isn't the case though.

>4.) Game was meant to "level up" with you. Suggested difficulties scaled with player level so no matter how talented you were at something, it would still be difficult.

That is also not the case. The scaled DC's were for level appropriate challenges. If you encounter a locked DC 16 door at level 1 and come back at level 30, that door will still be DC 16.

>>48323869
You clearly never read the 5e DMG, and the 4e MM was the best DM aide in the system aside from the MM3 math fix index card.

>>48333514

I own the 5e DMG and literally opened it to respond to >>48324697

It is in no way special and contains less DM aide than the first 4e DMG, let alone the second.

The 4e MM didn't really add...anything and I'm not sure what you're smoking unless you forgot a '3' after the first MM.

>>48328366
Minions are not better than cleave rules, the horde attack rules, and low CR monsters in 5e though.

>>48333568
they kinda are

minions are way faster and easier in play, especially for the DM

>>48333568
>>48333639

IMO it's subjective. I find with my groups that minions are easier to run and better received by my group than low CR 5e monsters, but for other groups they'd be perfect.

>>48313152

Good:

Warlords

A pacifist option that enables people to justify playing do-no-harm healers mechanically.

Satyrs

Heroes of Shadow. Just, all of Heroes of Shadow

Tactical as fuck.

Gloomwrought box set. Shit was cash.

Bad:

"Oh, shit, I forgot that on my turn I can also X whenever I Y!"

PC HP, and how many healing surges

Monster HP before the fixes

Monster HP even after the fixes

>Okay, okay, we'll bundle the last 3 as one thing. Let's be fair, now.

The fanbase, including but not limited to the people who thought complaints about Monster HP after fixes were nullified by the existence of said insufficient fixes. I mean, small thing of a much larger problem. Holy shit, the fan base.

Every stunt imaginable is tied to a RAW move with a level pre-req and this makes DMs reluctant to let you do anything not on a card.

Feat taxes. So many feat taxes. Jesus christ, just reduce how often you can take feats.

For only 9.99 a month, you, too, have a monthly subscription to our mm- ah, uh, character builder.

Half-vampire, half-vampire with vampiric bloodline feats to show that their half-vampire, half-vampire heritage also has a bit of vampire in it. As for class? Meh, just take vampire. /Someone/ has to, it's fucking awful and no-one could have possibly thought it was a good idea.

>good
>>48326997 is still butthurt about it x5

>bad
the war's over :'( x 5

>>48328066
>PoL setting
?

>>48337928

The whole Dawn War setting with the Primordials vs. the Gods and the Elemental Chaos, Nerath, Arkhosia, Bael Turath, the Far Realm, all that shit. My major complaint about that setting was that all the lore about it was scattered between different books and there was no 'Points of Light Campaign Setting', but when you gathered it all together it made for a really great background to run a game in.

>>48313325
>1: the conga line of death
The hell's that?

>2: it played like an mmo on paper, but not in a good way
There's no MMO that plays like 4e. It played like FFT on paper.

>3: it was really easy to cheese the rules and get super high starts early on
Examples? And no, 20 in a stat is not cheesy by edition's standards

>4: clerics became palladian 2.0 instead of healers
See >>48327018

>5: you couldn't die unless you were extremely unlucky or forced it
Your DM was a baby. I haven't had a single session where someone didn't end up in a dying state or dead

>>48320843
>Literally everything about how the edition handled and magic items
To be fair here, Inherent Bonuses are pretty dope

>>48327072
It was forced out by Hasbro overlords roughly a year before its planned time

Good

Interesting battle system.
Only edition so far to figure out this whole martials and casters thing.
Extensive resources so many different types of characters are possible.
Nice framework for abilities.
Nice team balancing suggestions/framework helping beginners not gimp themselves.

Bad

Mmorpg trope battle system can lead to rigid rulings.
Out of combat support very lacking or retarded (so far though, every edition of dnd has been varying degrees of bad out of combat)
Shitty monster math, though it was fixed later.
Characters get better at everything as they level up.
Way too many splats for a dm to keep track of. Make sure your group is on the same page splat wise.

>>48320738
>the Arcane power source in particular
As in, "the power source is bad because in doesn't really have a theme"? Or "the power source is bad because all its classes are Controller-secondary, and Controller is not defined properly"?

>>48327458
>The defining feature of the arcane power source is that they're all controllers

Swordmage (Defender) and Sorcerer (Striker) say "fuck you".

>>48338783

But the Swordmage and Sorcerer have more control than any other class in their archetype (except in the Sorcerer's case, because the Warlock might as well be labeled 'controller', but Warlock aside the Sorcerer has more control than any other striker.)

>>48338005
>My major complaint about that setting was that all the lore about it was scattered between different books and there was no 'Points of Light Campaign Setting',
To be fair, I kind of get the impression that that was the point to some degree?

It's vague as hell and scattered across the entirety of the product range since a)a lot of it was probably made up on the spot Known World-style and b)when you centralize everything and make it more concrete you get the Forgotten Realms.
Lorefags are the bane of the GM.

A PoLand/Nerath book would have been nice, though, no argument about that. The closest they made was what, Threats to the Nentir Vale? And that was a monster manual.

>>48338538
Both, really. They never really seemed to figure out what exactly a Controller should do, I don't think? The role is a lot more broad than the other three, and lacks unifying mechanics - Leaders have minor action heals, Strikers get a situational damage bonus, Defenders mark people, and Controllers... do AoE attacks? Debuff?

The archetype for the Arcane Controller being the Wizard probably didn't help in designing the role, to be honest - historically, D&D Magic-Users haven't had that much of a limit in designing what the fuck they could actually do.

>>48338783
They're all controllers in the same way that divine is all leaders and martial is all strikers. It's a subrole thing. And yeah, >>48338820 is right - just look at all the AoE, zones and forced movement the Sorcerer is throwing around.

>>48339095
Agreed. What alternate thematically-coherent power source(es) would you make instead?

>>48338043
>>1: the conga line of death
>The hell's that?

A stupid complaint about flankers flanking flankers being the optimal strategy.

Basically, flanking goes like this:

player-monster-player

and then the monster moves in to flank

player-monster-player-monster

and then another player moves in etc. At least that's the complaint, in theory it happens once in a blue moon.

>>3: it was really easy to cheese the rules and get super high starts early on
>Examples? And no, 20 in a stat is not cheesy by edition's standards

I'm also interested in this.

>>48339297
I'd probably keep Arcane and perhaps even keep it tied to the Controller role, but it's pretty hard to figure out what the fuck "arcane" is actually supposed to mean.

'Cause, y'know, it's basically just "all magic ever (that isn't healing or biblical stuff)". The general theme was "AoE debuffs and utility", which I guess is something you could work with.

I really don't know, to be honest. I'm not that familiar with the workings of 4E, so I can't really figure out what the fuck should be done there.

>>48339901
>>48339297

Personally I'd try clarifying controller before clarifying arcane. Like the way I've always used controllers (both monsters and characters) is as the guys who stop their enemies from doing what they want to do.
The method for how they get their (AoE damage, zones and walls, dominates dazes stuns, etc.) differs between controllers, but their general schtick is they make things suck for their enemies.
Like a 3.5 wizard but less super-effective.

>>48340127
Strike! solved this by splitting Controller into Blaster (AoE guy) and Controller (debuff/forced movement guy). I agree that otherwise there's a bit too much crammed in there.

>>48340172

That's actually pretty brilliant and so painfully obvious I feel stupid for not thinking of it before.

>>48340172
>>48340214
There are two problems with this.

1. Controllers are already the least used and useful classes. Splitting them up farther will make them even rarer.

2. There are Strikers, primarily the Monk and Sorceror, who already do the AOE thing. Plus only the Wizard really does AOE damage out of the Controllers.

>>48340452
Ever notice how both of those classes have
>You lean towards controller as a secondary role.
at the end of their "Role:" writeup?

>>48340581
Every Striker has AOEs though. Striker and some Wizard AOEs are for damage and other Controller and other Wizard AOEs are for secondary effects. Plus Monks do secondary effects much more. The majority of their powers push, pull, and/or prone.

Hell every role has AOEs for different reasons. Making AOEs a Controller only thing is a little silly. Should they have the largest effects? Yes. Should they be be known as THE AOE role? No not really.

>>48340452
>1. Controllers are already the least used and useful classes. Splitting them up farther will make them even rarer.

I'd argue that defining their roles makes protecting those roles easier, plus makes it so that you are allowed to go more "all in". Like, (and I'm sorry I keep bringing the game up but it's the one 4e clone I know) Strike! blasters always get to attack at least 2 targets at the bare minimum for what counts as full effect/damage. Controllers also always get to weaken and move around foes. Getting both would be too much, but only having one means you can go a bit crazy with it.

>2. There are Strikers, primarily the Monk and Sorceror, who already do the AOE thing. Plus only the Wizard really does AOE damage out of the Controllers.


Yeah, so under Strike! terminology, Monk and Sorcerer would be Striker/Blasters, and Wizard would be Controller/Blaster, or Blaster/Controller.

>>48313152
good:
- Rolling characters doesn't take 4 hours
- streamlined combat
- Balance improved from 3.5
- More PC Races
- Took focus of local gamestore children away from more serious groups.

bad:
- Introduced D&D to a wider, less /tg/ audience
- Character customization went out the window
- Mystra dies (Seriously, what the shit, Wizards?)
- Alignments are optonal?
-The core rulebook was lackluster.


Now that I'm allowed to talk 4e,
Holy shit can we please petition wizards to just claim that nothing lorewise in 4e ever actually happened and that it was all just a dream some old god was having? It's been half a decade and it still hurts.

>>48341051
>- Mystra dies (Seriously, what the shit, Wizards?)

Mystra dies every edition. Sometimes multiple times an edition.

That being said
>FR lore
>Ever

File: Durrclang[1].jpg (25KB, 407x257px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 407x257px

Explain.

>>48340847
As someone who hasn't played Strike and interpreted what your saying as make a fifth role, mixing roles didn't come to mind. 4e classes dip toes in other roles but none really blend.

Also much like 3e, 4e blaster wizards are by far the worst wizards. Actual control wizards help the party much more than fireball spammers.

>>48341140

Rogue runs through a group of enemies and nimbly tricks them into stabbing themselves.

What's to explain?

>>48333564
The 4e DMG has less information. The 5e DMG has the same, plus about 20 more pages on campaign styles and such.

The 4e DMG has about double the combat encounter pages in a much slimmer book and Chapter 5 is justifiably panned - skill challenges are a fine concept (actually one I like a lot), but they handle it horribly and mostly talk about combat resolution in failure and then besides skill challenges it is puzzles and traps. It's pretty useless and very game-y for no reason. 5e has a lot of good tools to use for common situations, and how to handle working on the fly better. 5e also has a huge section for different rules systems to better suit campaigns compared to 4e's.

DMG2 for 4e is much stronger, and fixes the places it was useless before. Skill challenges are still clunky, but fleshed out and balanced better and the changes to running one are much improved.

And I say the MM is more useful to DMs because it gives out of the box encounter groups that are incredibly useful along with a terrific stay block and tactical advice. Bad math or not, the MM is way more useful in a practical way.

>>48341163
>I am a master swordsman. Thus I am capable of stabbing myself more expertly.
>Self bite Beholder.

>>48341198
>The 4e DMG has less information. The 5e DMG has the same, plus about 20 more pages on campaign styles and such.

The 5e DMG has about 100 pages devoted solely to a list of magic items and becomes variant rules for 5e after that. The first 41 pages are full of good advice on running adventures that can be applied generally.

In contrast, the 4e DMG has 72 pages that's all-around good adventure running advice, from starting your own campaign to using published campaigns.

Both have information on settings (mostly FR in the 5e guide) and variant rules, but when it comes to actual information on being a GM, the 4e DMG has more to offer.

I agree entirely on the uselessness of skill challenges in the first DMG (and I'm not even sold on skill challenges in the second) but I disagree on 5e offering good rule systems for different campaigns because I believe that 4e suits running different type of campaigns better than 5e does (unless you're going for low/non-heroic fantasy, in which case 5e is clearly superior.)

>And I say the MM is more useful to DMs because it gives out of the box encounter groups that are incredibly useful along with a terrific stay block and tactical advice. Bad math or not, the MM is way more useful in a practical way.

Okay yeah I see what you're saying now, but all the 4e MM's were good for that, without most of the math problems of the first (MM2 being in that weird limbo state of better hp but still no damage).

>>48341305

Yes a guy who is really good at stabbing would hurt himself more than an untrained mook if his blow went awry.

And a beholder can bite its own tongue.

I'm not sure what it is that's confusing you here. Maybe type instead of greentext?

>>48341152
I meant the stuff after the / as the secondary role, not full on 1:1 blend. Strike! works by having classes that have a bit of everything in them (sometimes leaning towards a role) that you then select a role for, so no 1:1 there either, although, it actually sounds like an interesting character building alternative.

>>48341305
>>Self bite Beholder.
Gotta be careful with those eyestalks, man.

>>48341198
On the other hand, 5E's DMG has 5E's monster creation rules and the rules for making higher-level characters.

Either way the best DMG remains the AD&D one, though.

>>48341425
But both DMG's have monster creation rules (though the original 4e DMG has outdated rules and the MM3 business card/Sly Flourish chart is better to use)

>>48341425
>Either way the best DMG remains the AD&D one, though.

Serious question, what that's like?

>>48341489
>>48341425

I second this anon's question. I own a few 2e books but 3.5 was the first DnD I actually played.

>>48341542
2E's one is abysmal - I'm talking about the 1E one. It's filled to the brim with nigh-incomprehensible High Gygaxian and also tons of good-to-decent DMing advice and rules.

>>48341467
My point is that the 5E monster creation rules are horrendously bad.

Seriously, the vampire's charm ability has no impact on CR whatsoever, the Kobold's near-constant Advantage on attacks from Pack Tactics is just an effecrive +1 to attack, and the only spellcasting that matters is direct damage, AC boosts, and hit point increases? What the actual fuck, Wizards?

At least 4E had math that pretended to be mathematically sound, and BECMI recognized that spellcasting level mattered for monster difficulty - 5E just gives you some seemingly strict guidelines and then tells you to figure stuff out on your own.

Also, the entire idea of having a monster's CR be based on the average of its offensive and defensive CRs is pants-on-head retarded.

>>48341140
Judo. Use your enemy's strength against him. Rogues know kung fu.

>>48342254
>My point is that the 5E monster creation rules are horrendously bad.

Ah, yeah. Totally agree there. One of the biggest things that turns me off about the system.

>2E's one is abysmal - I'm talking about the 1E one. It's filled to the brim with nigh-incomprehensible High Gygaxian and also tons of good-to-decent DMing advice and rules.

I might have to pick that up then. I'm a sucker for DMG's.

>>48341152
>4e classes dip toes in other roles but none really blend.
But they do tend to all dip their toes rather heavily in another role and I'd always describe each of 4e's roles as a combination of two general tactics anyway, with classes generally getting some focus in one and competence in several tactics.
>Defender (Tough, Sticky.): Make it so it sucks to attack anyone else, while being able to take attacks.
>Striker (Dangerous, Slippery.): Make it so it sucks to attack me, while being the threat that you want to attack.
>Leader (Enabler, Healer.): Make someone easier to attack, while making sure my allies can make those attacks.
>Controller (Disabler, Sweeper.): Make it harder to attack anyone.
Tear gas and shotguns form of crowd control. It does feel like something is missing from the controller.

>>48313152
>Good
1. Well balanced character abilities.
2. Quick NPC/monster creation.
3. Great character builder.
4. Dark Sun

>Bad.
1. Combat takes too long.
2. Mechanics are super gamey instead of making any kind of sense in-setting.
3. The travesty that is 4e faerun
4. 4e Tieflings and 4e tiefling art.
5. 4e Eladrin.
6. You can't play a wizard anymore, as the fun spells in combat are rituals now.
7. You can't play a fighter, as even the fighters have weird gimmicky videogame powers.
8. 4e's PR campaign
9. Stealing everyone's pdfs on dtrpg when they decided to stop selling there.

And yes, I realize that that actual fighters, and actual wizards, don't play well in the same campaign. But 4e doesn't appeal to either crowd, it's something else entirely.

File: spells.png (507KB, 914x2248px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 914x2248px

>>48342500
>6. You can't play a wizard anymore, as the fun spells in combat are rituals now.

pic related

>7. You can't play a fighter, as even the fighters have weird gimmicky videogame powers.

Slayer?

>>48342560

By 'fun spells' I'm guessing he means 'end the encounter' spells, not actual battlefield control.

>>48342560
>6
Yeah, that's a handful of wizard things.
Examples I was thinking of are things like knock, fabricate, contingency.
But you're right, there is some wizarding possible, it's just quite limited.

>7
My 4e is a bit rusty. Does the Slayer only have plausible mundane abilities, usable at will, or whenever would situationally make sense instead of x/time period? Because typically for the people I've met who complain about 4e being unable to do fighters, this is what they mean.

>>48342676
Duration instantaneous battlefield control would qualify, to some extent, but yes, if someone is "looking to play a wizard" they're typically wanting to do the kinds of permanent reality warping stuff mages in 3.x could do after level 12 or so.

Whereas the people complaining that 4e can't do fighters are complaining there's no "realistic badass normal" in 4e, something similar to a level 6-7 3.x fighter, but possibly with more combat maneuvers or something.

>>48342710
>knock
>fun spells in combat

u wot m8

>>48342676
I mean, there's that spell that conjures a fucking castle, where you can rest without interruption, and IIRC that's a standard action spell in the PHB (although level 20 something).

Plus if all the really fun spells are rituals.. guess what, there's a ritual master PP or ED (not sure which), that lets you use them in combat.

>>48342710
>Examples I was thinking of are things like knock, fabricate, contingency.

Why would you use knock in a battlefield situation? I'm pretty sure there's a fabricate ritual though not entirely sure, in which case ^

Wasn't contingency a diviner themed wizard ED power? Not sure.

> Does the Slayer only have plausible mundane abilities, usable at will, or whenever would situationally make sense instead of x/time period?

It has a single encounter "I hit harder now" ability, but otherwise just optional utility powers that each have an at-will option I think. IIRC it's best used on crits anyway, so you may as well just consider it a crit-trigger. That's basically somewhere between 5e Champion and Battlemaster.

>>48342779
And 4e does neither of those things, instead giving you something more akin to the ranger for everyone, but with even more gamey, dissociated mechanics (another thing that turns some people off, myself included).

4e has a specific kind and power level of game it does, and not everyone wants that power level. It's also got really abstracted gamey mechanics, and not everyone wants that either.

That's not illogical whining, that's just objective observation.

>>48342779
>Whereas the people complaining that 4e can't do fighters are complaining there's no "realistic badass normal" in 4e, something similar to a level 6-7 3.x fighter, but possibly with more combat maneuvers or something.

Literally Slayer.
Thief if you want it in Rogue flavor. They're Essentials classes so they start to fall off somewhat by epic level but less than other Essentials, because they're Martials.

The Slayer only has stances he can enter that give him bonuses in different combat situations, and a per-encounter 'I hit it so hard it'll shit blood for the rest of its presumably short life'.

Permanent reality warp stuff is the domain of rituals (which the wizard is best at), and which you can use in combat if you take a certain wizard paragon path.

>>48342868
>And 4e does neither of those things,

But it does.

Essentials was literally made with this complaint in mind (mostly the 'I hit things hard and don't do any weaboo fightin' magic bullshit' fighter complaint).

Rituals, while they have problems with their cost (think I mentioned that in my first post in this thread) do the perma-reality warp stuff that you want from your wizards.

>4e has a specific kind and power level of game it does, and not everyone wants that power level. It's also got really abstracted gamey mechanics, and not everyone wants that either.

This is entirely true, though.

>>48342791
>>48342807
>Knock in combat
Used as part of running away from the bad guys in a dungeon when you're retreating/overwhelmed.

>Fabricate
It could be used pretty effectively to make permanent barricades, bars, briars, or a field of spikes, which would alter the flow of a battle or maybe give you a chance to escape, slowing them down, changing a melee combat into a ranged combat, giving your guys cover to use, etc.

>>48313152
+
1. Easy to pick up
2. Pretty balanced
3. Martials arent shit
4. Fast and exciting combat
5. Dark sun

-
1. Non combat abilities
2. Things get bullshit fast
3. Not much support
4. Lore changes were questionable (I know its subjective)
5. 5e came out and we like it more (not really a con, 4e was solid, its just different from what people think of dnd, it can be a + too)
Final note:
4e is good, play it if you have a chance/10

>>48342939
>Used as part of running away from the bad guys in a dungeon when you're retreating/overwhelmed.

I think there's an actual wizard spell that can do that, but still, see that instantaneous ritual guy above.

>It could be used pretty effectively to make permanent barricades, bars, briars, or a field of spikes, which would alter the flow of a battle or maybe give you a chance to escape, slowing them down, changing a melee combat into a ranged combat, giving your guys cover to use, etc.

Which you can do with >>48342560

Or you know. Instant ritual guy.

Wizard has fun spells.

Wizard has reality warping spells, usable in and out of combat.

You should probably just go ahead and admit you want omnipotent wizards of 3.5. I mean, it doesn't look as cool on the fault list, but at least it'd be true.

>>48342920
>This is entirely true, though.

I think it's only about 50% true. The mechanics are only disassociated if you play them as disassociated.

Like, I once had my dragonborn use his ice breath to create a sheet of ice on a river he can latch on to, so he doesn't drown in his full plate.

None of the PHBs of any editions write that ice-breath should work that way. Fuck, I think 4e and 5e dragonborn breaths are basically identical (except 5e sucks because it's a standard). The trick is realizing as a DM that the descriptors for the powers are there for more than just power interactions, they describe how the power interacts with the world. (I'm pretty fucking sure one of the DMGs, or maybe a Dragon article has that advice word for word).

The other half of the disassociation thing, the whole at-will/encounter/daily is only really a problem for martials, and only really if one seriously can't wrap their head around how combat is already heavily abstracted. Which is again, fine, but I seriously think the fault here does not lie with the game, but the person's expectations.

>>48343253

Somewhat related to the above, do you think if you could spend a standard to recover an encounter power that would alleviate some of these issues? Like, you usually couldn't use your tricky move again because they are watching out for it, but you'd be setting it up to use it in a different way or something, Basically, BoNS style maneuver recovery. Casters could like, gather energy for the same spell again, or something as a standard.

>>48315283
5mind

>>48343253
>I think it's only about 50% true. The mechanics are only disassociated if you play them as disassociated.
>The other half of the disassociation thing, the whole at-will/encounter/daily is only really a problem for martials, and only really if one seriously can't wrap their head around how combat is already heavily abstracted. Which is again, fine, but I seriously think the fault here does not lie with the game, but the person's expectations.

I think this part is why people find them dissociated. The at-will/encounter/daily split. When players are used to characters either being able to do their thing all the time and nothing else or having a bunch of awesome things they can do once a day, the split fucks them up big time.

You yourself say the combat is abstracted. Someone who can't stand to have even slightly abstract combat would not, then, enjoy 4e.

Note that I'm MOSTLY assuming because I don't find the mechanics abstract at all, but I'm trying to understand and perhaps elaborate on >>48342868 's perspective.

Good:
>Balance between character classes
>Fighters are an absolute joy to play
>Monster statblocks are genius
>the Points of Light setting was really cool, especially with the history of Arkhosia and Bael Turath
>the Underdark book is one of the greatest D&D supplements ever

Bad:
>Zero rules for anything outside of combat
>the Essentials books aimed at simplyifying the game just made it boring as shit
>many people dislike the Dragonborn as a standard race option
>changes to established settings (Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun) were very unpopular
>Monster Manual 1 had shit math

I started tabletop stuff with 4e and while it drove me towards rules-lite storygames, it's not bad at all as a tactical combat game.

>>48343253
If you had been paying attention, I explicitly said that what I meant by 'wizard', was something similar to 3.x level 11+ wizard gameplay.

Though there are more flexible options for 4e than I thought.

>>48343354
>Someone who can't stand to have even slightly abstract combat would not, then, enjoy 4e.

If that's the reason, he'd then not enjoy the entirety of D&D; at least not after he took a deeper look into what the mechanics represent.

I mean, that's my problem with most 4e complaints; sure, in a vacuum, they are reasonable, but when you contrast them with the direct competitors (the D&D before and after it) they kinda fall flat.

Except the modifier curbing of 5e, I think that's a genuine improvement (even if I find the scale a bit too small).

>>48343253
>Abstracted gamey mechanics are only abstracted and gamey if you can't wrap your head around how abstracted everything is.
Really? You don't say.

The new classes 4e added were dope

>>48343354
It's not the split that makes them dissociated or abstracted, it's that they're limited to a specific number of uses per time period, rather than unlimited, or something more tied into the narrative, such as a fatigue mechanic or something.

The other part is all the mechanics not interacting with the world (such as fire breath that doesn't start fires), which only an issue if the gm doesn't house rule it to make sense (and many of them don't do that, by the way).

>>48343379
>>Zero rules for anything outside of combat
Oh, that's a bit unfair. Skill Challenges are kind of ass, but they're still a thing. Not to mention all the advice re: puzzles, and traps and passive perception and so on and so forth.

It's definitely a combat-focused system, though.

>>48343618
>which only an issue if the gm doesn't house rule it to make sense (and many of them don't do that, by the way).

If I could slap every DM who did this I would.

>>48343618
>The other part is all the mechanics not interacting with the world (such as fire breath that doesn't start fires), which only an issue if the gm doesn't house rule it to make sense (and many of them don't do that, by the way).
Those are the same GMs that don't make Fireball start fires and melt treasure in other editions, though, or don't let Lightning Bolts conduct through metal flooring or the like.

Shit DMs will be shit DMs.

>>48343480
Mind giving an explanation of what the hell hit points are, and why exactly a kobold with a knife can't slit the throat of a sleeping 11th-level Lord?

Also something something Stunning Fist, something something Fighter Bonus Feat, something something Barbarians can only rage once per encounter.

>>48343710
You forgot

>Something something Knight's Challenge

>>48343710
>The core mechanic that's everywhere in 4e is in some places in previous editions.
>X/time period abilities existed in 3.x too, anon!
Yes. I know. They're one of the things I like least about 3.x.

As for HP? I just take it as it behaves. DnD takes place in a world where life experience eventually makes your body tough enough to wade through lava, survive a boulder to the face, and require dozens of arrows before you can be killed.

>Kobold vs sleeping 11th level Lord.
Coup de Grace?

Good:
>Not FATAL
>Not 3.5
>Not Pathfinder
>I have a friend who plays it who I quite like
>Not 3.0

Bad:
>Not OD&D
>Not BD&D
>Not either AD&D edition
>Not a retroclone
>Not 5e

How'd I do?

>>48343827
I never said 3.x was perfect, it's not even in my top three. I just said there are things people don't like about 4e, that are either not, or less problematic, in other editions or games.

>>48343890
Honestly, pretty good.

>>48343890
But anon, not being 2E is a good thing. Unless you've got a thing for elves and metaplot, I guess, in which case good on you.

>>48343827
>Coup de Grace?
Oh no, a DC 16 save or die. I need to roll a nine or higher, assuming I've got ten fucking constitution. Whatever shall I do.

Hit points are a fucking disgrace and any game that lets "mundane" characters be incapable of being killed by a direct hit from a catapult at goddamn level five should be dragged behind a shed and shot.

Christ on a bike, people. Don't go half and half - either your characters are heroic or they fucking aren't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


To be honest, a lot of the problems I have with 4E are just ones it inherited from 3E (e.g. the lack of hirelings, the inflated numbers in general) and some from 2E (e.g. XP primarily from monsters). It's at its best when it actually tries to strike out into uncharted territory, and at its worst when it stubbornly sticks to what came before - the Wizard, the Fighter's lack of skills, the atrocious 3E-esque design of the early adventures that really didn't transfer well to 4E's system, shit like that.

>>48343379
>Dark Sun
I thought Dark Sun improved.

>>48344487
Sounds like you just don't like DnD. You can't escape the main elements of the franchise if you're just looking at different editions.

>>48344487
>e.g. the lack of hirelings

Not that I'm disagreeing with you on the rest of your points but hirelings are totally in 4e. Either in the Adventurer's Vault or Mordenkain's Magnificent Emporium/Compendium. I forget, but they exist.

>>48341387
>Yes a guy who is really good at stabbing would hurt himself more than an untrained mook if his blow went awry.
That's the opposite of what skill does.

>>48344783

Well skill would protect him from making the mistake in the first place on his own, but he's not on his own, he's getting Judo'd by a rogue. So all his skill and strength is being turned against him.

>>48344846
>So all his skill and strength is being turned against him.
No, his sword is being turned against him. His skill is his skill at manipulating the blade, so at the very least, his base Attack bonus should count as a penalty to the self-attack rather than adding to it.

>>48345031
>No, his sword is being turned against him

But it isn't just his sword. The rogue isn't plucking it out of his hands and stabbing him with it, the rogue is moving in such a way that he strikes for the rogue and hits himself instead.

Think of it this way. You ever swung a baseball bat or some other large object, whiffed, and cuffed yourself? It's like that, only a dude who is extraordinarily good at fucking up people's intended movements is making you do it.

>base Attack bonus

Wrong edition brah.

If anything what you want already exists since opportunity attacks from skilled martial opponents tend to be just basic attacks instead of encounter, daily, or in some cases even at-will attacks.

Yet that power will fuck up dumb brute monsters if the majority of their damage comes from basic attacks.

>>48345144
This post is as bad as the Paizo Dev talking about weapon chords.

>>48345186

Except I'm not saying because an untrained person can hit themselves, fighters should risk hitting themselves when they swing a sword.

I'm saying that an extraordinarily adroit rogue is tricking trained fighters and monsters into hitting themselves because he's just that nimble. Explanation by comparison.

I'm kind of surprised I had to explain that, actually.

>>48313152
Good:
>1. Easy to build encounters, monsters, items, and content for DMs.
>2. Characters played by average players are roughly balanced and DMs can reasonably estimate how powerful X players will be at Y level.
>3. Almost impossible to make a totally worthless character. Also extremely difficult to make a character that is more powerful than perhaps two other characters.
>4. Combat is fun and satisfying. Lots of movement and positioning is encouraged. Creative actions in combat have defined rewards written into the rules and are worth it.
>5. Formatting of the books is amazing. It's easy to find and reference information and rules are written in clear, concise, and direct language most of the time. Frequent errata was issued to clear up the few poorly worded things.

Bad:
>1. Before MM3 the monster math was a bit grindy unless your party was well optimized.
>2. Essentials was a disaster that did away with good points 2, 3, and 5 above and provided no benefit in return besides confusing players as to which materials they needed to purchase in order to start.
>3. The Christmas Tree Effect is still heavily in force and WBL is not enough to purchase interesting equipment beyond the bare necessities. If you are a dual wielder than you get fucked.
>4. Late paragon and particularly epic tiers were clearly never playtested. Lack of published content for these areas is another problem. The game is still better stopped at level 20 IMO but if you want to go beyond that it's nice that there are rules for it in the base book.
>5. Setting books suck compared to 2e

Good:
1. Easily accessible for a lot of people, generating interest.
2. Lots of customization with cool races and lore ideas
3. Easy to play as any class, thus being able to make a party of noobs straight of the getgo
4. Created an awesome line of minis
5. Allowed for D&D to have a strong digital presence
Bad:
1. Way too easy and made players feel like gods.
2. Lack of consequence from creating a character (No negative ability modifiers or class limitations outside of proficiency)
3. Hit point values and most other values were way too high and made the game way too hard to be dangerous
4. Most stories and games created were way too pastel and colorfully painted due to a lack of grimdark and brass tacks because most DMs got a lighter story due to the books, being new, or not having cruel numbers to make things awesome.
5. Ability cards were really dumb and, even though it made things easier for the newer players, made certain classes too OP (Ex. barbarians with Avalanche Strike or Devastatin Strike)

>>48342500
You have a very strange definitions of wizards and fighters

>>48344635
>the Dray are now asshole mercenaries rather than experiments-turned-cultists of an udnead dragon king
>Eladrin exist and are from a dimension retconned into the setting

nah

>>48345682
>rather than experiments-turned-cultists of an udnead dragon king

There are still totally dray cultists of Dregoth though. A whole city full of them.

>>48345383
>5. Ability cards were really dumb and, even though it made things easier for the newer players, made certain classes too OP

...how does 'A way to compile abilities a class has' make them OP?

>>48345818

I'm still trying to comprehend point number 4, personally.

File: 1466719145840.jpg (581KB, 905x1368px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 905x1368px

Pros:

1. Greatspears are baller, fuck yeah spears
2. Martials can do shit in and outside combat
3. Illusion Wizards
4. Could do entire balanced parties with the same powersource, like a Swordmage, Wizard, Sorcerer, Artificer/Bard party as students of a big magic school or an all-divine party doing knight templar shit
5. Tactical combat feels great if you have a map, it definitely made melee combat more fun than previous editions
6. Everyone always seemed to be doing something useful every turn.

Cons:

1. Fuck Dragonborn. They're sparkledog versions of Lizardfolk without the dignity to be Draconians. I don't care whether or not they had tits, there's no point to them and they're inevitably the worst character in the party, except they get +Str +Cha so they're mechanically very good
2. Overreliance on Attack bonuses. High attack bonus is the be-all and end-all of 4e, it's stupidly easy to miss all the fucking time for dumb reasons.
3. Standardized tieflings. In the old days, tieflings could forego the retarded giant tail and klingon forehead, and were awesome. New tieflings are hideous and their fluff is awful and the players they attract are awful.
4. Way too reliant on a map. I actually blame it for the online push back towards skype and online map systems with voicechat for online DnD.
5. Swords were overpowered because they were almost always the best option. Frankly I prefer 5e's handling of it, where I'm not really punished if I take a hammer or an axe instead.

>>48313443

Is there a FR book for 5e or is the setting info somewhere else, like the DMG?

>>48313721

Explain PoL to me, please. I never really got it.

>>48346587
>way too reliant on a map
>the only way to determine flanking, spell effects and cover/concealment is with a grid

>>48346621
There sort of is.

It doesn't cover the whole continent, just the sword coast.

Most of it is a rehash from 3.x, with some stuff changed back to how it was at the end of 2e.

I'd just use old books, personally, unless you're wanting to use the published adventures

File: online hammer hunters.gif (2MB, 359x184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 359x184px

>>48346587
>5. Swords were overpowered because they were almost always the best option. Frankly I prefer 5e's handling of it, where I'm not really punished if I take a hammer or an axe instead.
???
???

Usually swords were the blandest option. Fighters have a ton of better support for spears/polearms/flails/etc. Same with most classes. Maybe rangers is all, but rangers are for fags.

>>48346621

Sword Coast Adventures and the DMG go into it. FR is the default 5e setting, for better or worse.

>>48346643

Basically IN THE BEGINNING the Primordials, great beings of elemental fury and power, created the world. Then they made the giants, and the elementals, and the titans. Then they got bored and wanted to destroy the world and start again, when the gods stepped in and said 'hey this world thing looks cool as shit, its ours now'. They started making mortal life by combining Astral souls with elemental bodies, and this pissed the primordials off, so there was a giant war between the Astral forces of order, the Gods and their angels, and the Elemental forces of chaos, the Primordials and their elementals.

This war raged for a long, LONG time, claiming the lives of a lot of primordials and a lot of gods, and a lot of things happened during it. Tharizdun, one of the gods, sought a way to defeat the primordials and searched the cosmos for a secret weapon. He found a shard of 'utter evil' somewhere in the dim reaches of the cosmos (that was actually pushed into the PoL reality by the obyriths) and picked it up. It drove him fucking nuts but also made him incredibly powerful, and he planted it in the depths of the Elemental Chaos, where it bloomed into the infinite layers of the Abyss and added evil to the whole order-chaos conflict. Eventually a bunch of primordials ventured into the Abyss to try to claim the power of the shard. Demogorgon, Baphoment, Orcus, Yeenoghu, and co. found the shard and fought each other for the right to claim it, but Obox-Ob, one of the obyriths who created the shard, claimed it first.

I'm slowly realizing there's too much to summarize but TL;DR; Greek-like conflict between elemental beings of chaos, astral gods, chaotic evil demon lords, and lawful evil devils.

Also a lot of ancient empires that I didn't get into.

>>48346792

Yeah. A nice thing they introduced in Heroes of the Elemental Chaos was that some of the Primordial Lords took one look at the Abyss being formed and shat bricks, swapping to the godly side to prevent losing the Elemental Chaos to the Abyss. Not all of them were good but none of them wanted the Abyss to take over even if it meant the gods won.

>>48345031
Clearly his skill is also being turned against him, as evidenced by the fact that the better his opportunity attack is, the more he's going to hurt himself.

>>48346951
>Clearly this thing that is shown in the way the rules are written is happening, because it's shown in the mechanics of the rules the way they're written.
No shit Sherlock, we're saying that doesn't make logical sense.

"His skill is also being turned against him" is a meaningless statement. Skill is how well he handles a blade, as a function of his experience with it and innate ability. So you're saying that the better he is with it, the more likely he is to hurt himself with it when someone tries to... push his arm around at his body or something? Because he's so good with a blade that he can't help but to hurt himself? That's idiotic. Trying to justify a poor rule has made you say things that are absolutely retarded.

>>48349410
>push his arm around at his body or something?

No?
The enemy swings, the rogue moves and lets the enemy hit himself. Like a rogue baiting a dragon into biting its own wing while he tumbles under it. Shit like that.

If you naturally hit really hard/skillfully with your melee, then its going to hurt that much more when the rogue dodges and you stab/bite/punch yourself.

How is this hard to get?

>>48343292
Aren't Encounter powers usually not as powerful as 2 at-wills?
Minor action and a Surge to recover an Encounter power maybe?

It would shorten the adventuring day but 3-4 encounters a day is way too much for 4e's combats anyway

>>48349452
>the rogue moves and lets the enemy hit himself.
That's even worse. So this bility simply alllows a rogue to dodge a weapon in a way that makes trained warriors more likely to hit themselves with their own swords than inexperienced ones? Everything you say makes this rule seem more and more stupid and poorly thought out.

>>48343379
>Zero rules for anything outside of combat
More than there's in 5e

>>48349509

How would you propose to make it work mechanically then to allow those sort of jackie chan 'The attacker injures himself' tricks without them being useless?

>>48313302
>1. Technically Dungeons and Dragons
But that's not a pro.

>>48349509
>So this bility simply alllows a rogue to dodge a weapon in a way that makes trained warriors more likely to hit themselves with their own swords than inexperienced ones?

No, because a more trained warrior is going to have a higher AC due to how 4e defenses work. He is going to hurt himself more if he succeeds on hitting, though.

>Everything you say makes this rule seem more and more stupid and poorly thought out.

Convincing you it makes sense is an impossible task because you did not come here to be convinced in the first place, you came here to fight. So I'll take my lack of success with a shrug.

>>48349551
>How would you propose to make it work mechanically then to allow those sort of jackie chan 'The attacker injures himself' tricks without them being useless?
I'm not as familiar with 4e. I know about 3.5 and 5e though, and if something to that effect were implemented there, the thing that would make the most sense is that the BAB or Proficiency bonus is a PENALTY to the roll against yourself rather than adding to it, to represent the increased skill at not making such careless mistakes. Of course, this would then need to be calculated separately from your normal attack bonus as an "accidental hit bonus", that could also be used in effects that might make you accidentally hit something else, like a friend, or an object you didn't mean to hit. Mechanically, it would mean that the higher level the opponent is, the less likely they'd be to fall for this trick, so it would be most useful in taking out large numbers of mooks.

>>48349576
>Convincing you it makes sense is an impossible task
Convincing anyone it makes sense would be an impossible task, unless they already actively felt a need to defend a bad game mechanic, so thanks for conceding defeat, I guess.

>>48349576
>No, because a more trained warrior is going to have a higher AC due to how 4e defenses work.
But then how is the rogue making their opponent attack themselves?

>>48349651

Out of curiosity, does 5e impose this negative BaB penalty on a charmed or dominated character when they make an attack against their ally or themselves?

>>48349672
You haven't actually argued that its a bad game mechanic. Only that you can't understand how someone who is good with a sword can be tricked into hitting himself, which is something completely different.

But you're welcome.

Good
1. Casters can't just cast "I Win" dozens of times per day any more.
2. Classes are very balanced.
3. Casting is Caster Roll vs Static Defense instead of being different for now discernible reason.
4. Tactical combat is pretty cool if you like that sort of thing.
5. Had an awesome version of Dark Sun

Bad
1. Every class uses a power system that somehow manages to be even more logically retarded than Vancian Casting.
2. Setup of powers forces you into specific combat and non-combat boxes (the mere existence of specified Utility powers forces players and GMs to view At Will, Encounter, and Daily as combat only)
3. Combat is basically a lite wargame, so you're practically forced to use minis or roll20.
4. Gigantic number of very specific powers leads to "You can't do that without the feat" syndrome.
5. Number bloat out the fucking ass. HP in the hundreds, bonuses at 30+ by high levels, etc. This means enemies that were threatening at Level 5 are a joke at Level 15.

>>48349689

Because Bloody Path doesn't target any defenses. You can literally see that in the power. That was linked in this thread. Right here >>48341140

The rogue isn't rolling to hit anyone, they're hitting themselves. The opportunity attack roll is their chance for that training and skill to come to bear and save them from gibbing themselves.

>>48349651

So you'd need to make it incredibly situational and fiddly?

>>48349651

Actually it IS the large number of mooks version.

The single target one is Drunken Monkey, a Monk power. It only affects one guy but gives him a hefty bonus to hit himself.

>>48349651

What about those monsters that have a large attack bonus not due to skill but due to other methods? Like say, an ogre with a large club. He's huge and strong and accurate but he's not very smart.

>>48349695
>Out of curiosity, does 5e impose this negative BaB penalty on a charmed or dominated character when they make an attack against their ally or themselves?
Those are magical effects, so it makes sense there.
>Only that you can't understand how someone who is good with a sword can be tricked into hitting himself, which is something completely different.
Look at the rule mechanically. In its current form it makes it so that the better the person is at attacking, the more vulrerable they are to attacking themselves. The very concept of that depends on the idea of "Their skill being turned against themselves". So I'll give you one more chance to explain what that even means.

Because from my current perspective, the better someone is with a sword, the better they ought to be at NOT hitting themselves, and that's why it's a bad mechanic, so prove me wrong.

>>48349782

>Because from my current perspective, the better someone is with a sword, the better they ought to be at NOT hitting themselves, and that's why it's a bad mechanic, so prove me wrong.

So the big, dumb, retarded ogre warrior should be not very trickable because he's good at hitting with a blade?

>>48349778
>He's huge and strong and accurate but he's not very smart.
are you saying that 4e makes no distinction between strength bonus to ac and a base attack bonus? Then that's an error right there.

>>48349730
Alternately, you could just make it some kind of saving throw.

>>48349797

Even people with a heap of BAB are not certainly more skilled than another. The +20 BAB barbarian and the +20 BAB fencer are not really equally skilled in that area.

>>48349795
So you can't support the idea of "Skill being turned against itself" then?

>>48313152
five plus five is ten, OP
That's more things than the average 4e player knows.

>>48313152

The good:
>Not Ivory Tower horseshit
>Doesn't require extensive houseruling to be fun
>Post-MM3 math is fast and works
>All players have options in combat
>suboptimal characters aren't dead weight

Bonus: The entire warlord class. I like it.

The bad:
>Pre-MM3 math was slow as fuck
>Shit lore for most settings
>Skill DC scaling was nonsense
>Special snowflake races in core
>Got pretty damn bloated near the end

>>48349819
>Even people with a heap of BAB are not certainly more skilled than another.
Yes they are, doofus. That's the whole point of BAB. That's why it goes up with level.

>>48349782
>Those are magical effects, so it makes sense there.

No hold on. Why does magic get a pass?

>Look at the rule mechanically. In its current form it makes it so that the better the person is at attacking, the more vulrerable they are to attacking themselves

Not the case because if they're better at attacking in melee they also have high AC and Fort defenses, which I said already.

>The very concept of that depends on the idea of "Their skill being turned against themselves". So I'll give you one more chance to explain what that even means.

I honestly don't know how to make it any simpler to you. I'd say 'google Judo' but you obviously didn't when an anon used that martial arts technique to explain it. So I'll try to break it down step by step.

Rogue pretends to leave himself open to attack of opportunity.
Enemy swings.
Rogue moves, because he's a rogue.
Enemy's swing connects with part of himself, which the rogue intended all along by feigning weakness.
Enemy's full-strength blow, intended for the rogue, is now on a path for his own body.
This could be a rogue running across a giant's foot or tumbling beneath a dragon's wing or sliding between a knight's legs, however it fits the fight he's currently in.

>are you saying that 4e makes no distinction between strength bonus to ac and a base attack bonus?

There is no such thing as a base attack bonus, this is the second time this has been said to you.

>>48349820

No, I can support it because it's an RPG. You can't have incredibly complex rules for every single power to work out exactly how each individual creature interacts with each individual power.

The power works fine as it is. Drunken Monkey is better designed but there is nothing wrong with Bloody Path.

>>48349838
>No hold on. Why does magic get a pass?
Because in that case, it's an effect taking hold of a person's mind, and actually redirecting their actions at a friendly target. In that case, it makes perfect sense that their full attack bonus would be at play, because they are attacking with all they have at what they think is an enemy.

>Enemy's swing connects with part of himself, which the rogue intended all along by feigning weakness.
>This could be a rogue running across a giant's foot or tumbling beneath a dragon's wing or sliding between a knight's legs, however it fits the fight he's currently in.
And what if he is fighting against a single trained knight, who has has extensive weapon training, and is unlikely to act the way a dumb giant would. Why does he swing wildly, and whack himself in the face with his longsword, and why is he more likely to do it than someone with less training?

>>48349841
>You can't have incredibly complex rules for every single power to work out exactly how each individual creature interacts with each individual power.
It sounds like it would work just fine as a saving throw effect.

>>48349927
>and why is he more likely to do it than someone with less training?

Honestly, he is less likely.

Defenders like knights tend to have a higher AC to attack bonus than brutes like giants who rely more on meat points than AC.

>>48349945

4e doesn't have saving throws other than the '55% chance for an effect to end' saving throw.

>>48313152
Pros:
Balance mostly achieved
Encounter design made fantastically easy for DMs
Ivory Tower Game Design and system mastery bullshit by and large stripped out
Extremely modular, making homebrewing very easy.
Mostly separates combat from everything else.

Cons:
With balance comes homogenisation
Combat can be tedious unless you're well-practised
Completely disconnected from most previous D&D traditions
Unless you really grind all you can out of the design space/stray far from the core rules, combat becomes very stale at higher levels
No online support Thanks WotC you massive faggots

I like 4e overall, but if it was the only flavour I had to eat I'd get sick of it really quickly.

>>48349949
>Defenders like knights tend to have a higher AC to attack bonus
And if he's caught out of his armor, but he still has all that training? Then what, genius? The mechanic doesn't automatically become not shit, just because there's another one that mostly kind-of patches it up.

>>48349927
>Because in that case, it's an effect taking hold of a person's mind, and actually redirecting their actions at a friendly target. In that case, it makes perfect sense that their full attack bonus would be at play, because they are attacking with all they have at what they think is an enemy.

Okay, so a rogue who is equally good as an equal level wizard at tricking people in and out of combat uses his skills to trick a guy into attacking and gets a penalty, but the wizard gets no penalty because he's taking over the guy's mind?
This guy is an experienced warrior in the example we've used so far, shouldn't his experience and sense of self give him penalty on the attack? Maybe subtract his charisma?

>And what if he is fighting against a single trained knight, who has has extensive weapon training, and is unlikely to act the way a dumb giant would. Why does he swing wildly, and whack himself in the face with his longsword, and why is he more likely to do it than someone with less training?

Where are you getting swing wildly?
Also hilariously enough your question is answered in the very thing you quoted. And he's not 'more likely to do it'. Anyone the rogue uses Bloody Path on is going to do it, regardless of skill.

His weapon training doesn't matter any more than his weapon training would matter against a wizard, because 4e doesn't assume that the rogue is arbitrarily less good at what he does than the wizard is at his magical area of expertise.

>>48349978
>And if he's caught out of his armor, but he still has all that training?

>Why is the guy outside his armour more likely to injure himself when a rogue puts him in a situation to potentially hurt himself.

GEE, I WONDER. Maybe because armour is good for keeping you safe from sharp objects.

>>48349978
>And if he's caught out of his armor, but he still has all that training?

Then he's more likely to knick himself because he's butt-naked swinging a sharpened stick of metal against a nearly epic tier master of deception, assassination, and larceny.

>>48349980
>And he's not 'more likely to do it'.
Yes he is. The better his attack bonus is, the more likely he is to hit himself, according to this rule, and the only reason this wouldn't be the case, apparently, is because he likely also has a high AC. It's basically patching up a shitty dynamic,
>His weapon training doesn't matter any more than his weapon training would matter against a wizard
I really don't know where you're going with this anymore. The Wizard in this example is casting a mind effect, yes? So any mechanic to resist that happens separately from his attacking ability. Not so with Bloody Path. Bloody path simply makes a non-charmed opponent attack himself, basically because, in most situations that have been outlined, he's stupid or clumsy. Except that mechanically, they make it so that the more competent opponents are more competent at hurting themselves.

>>48349980

>His weapon training doesn't matter any more than his weapon training would matter against a wizard, because 4e doesn't assume that the rogue is arbitrarily less good at what he does than the wizard is at his magical area of expertise.

Heck, even then the Wizard actually gets a bonus to it. Hypnotism gives a +4 to the attack you force the other guy to make. Mind you, Hypnotism is designed for a single target rather than ravaging a heap of mooky bastards.

>>48350045
>Yes he is. The better his attack bonus is, the more likely he is to hit himself, according to this rule, and the only reason this wouldn't be the case, apparently, is because he likely also has a high AC. It's basically patching up a shitty dynamic,

Attack and AC both rise at 1/2 level independent of weapons and armour.

A guy doesn't get better at hitting himself as he levels.

>>48349994
>>48349995
Then why is he more likely to hit himself than a butt naked peasant with the same sword then? He has a higher attack bonus than that peasant, so obviously, he's better at hurting himself, right?

>>48350070

See >>48350064

The things that would be making him better at hurting himself would be his strength, not his 1/2 level to attack bonus as it's nulled by the exact same bonus to avoiding attacks against himself.

>>48350045
>Yes he is. The better his attack bonus is, the more likely he is to hit himself, according to this rule, and the only reason this wouldn't be the case, apparently, is because he likely also has a high AC. It's basically patching up a shitty dynamic,

The better his attack bonus is the better his defenses against melee attacks are likely to be, due to the high level of training you're going on about that should protect him in the first place. You are literally arguing in circles, now.

>he Wizard in this example is casting a mind effect, yes? So any mechanic to resist that happens separately from his attacking ability

Except the mind effect would make him attack with a weapon, yes? Which you are arguing his high level of skill should allow him to take a penalty on that attack.

>Bloody path simply makes a non-charmed opponent attack himself, basically because, in most situations that have been outlined, he's stupid or clumsy.

Are you just not reading the situations outlined? He's attacking himself because a dude who spent fifteen levels in the class designed to deceive, befuddle, and stab people is deceiving him. His combat prowess isn't going to make him harder to trick any more than it would make it harder for a wizard to jack his mind.

>>48350070

See >>48350064

But in addition, yes, this hypothetical super sword skill man probably has a higher strength bonus, so in the -less likely- event of him hitting himself, he's going to hit -harder-. If you put both this guy and a peasant in a room and they're in their birthday suits and a level 15 rogue bloody paths them, they're both probably going to hit themselves because -they're butt fucking naked- and have a super low AC.

Unless super sworder has high dexterity, in which he's less likely to hit himself (astonishingly less likely depending on class) because his AC would still be high.

>>48350137

Yeah, it's kinda funny. Most of the 'Good with sword' classes save the Barbarian and Warden are not going to care too much about Bloody Path. The swordmage gives incredibly few fucks.

>>48350137
But it still doesn't explain what his "bloody path" effect is actually DOING. Even if a higher Attack bonus opponent isn't more likely to hit himself, he still is mechanically compelled to swing at the rogue, and miss, and have a chance to hit himself. Why? I've heard theat the rogue is a "master of deception, assassination, and larceny." Okay, how is it that there is no ability to resist this effect by being less prone to deception, and what kind of deception could possibly be in play here against an opponent that isn't a giant whose toe you run across, or a dragon you trick into biting his own tail.

>>48350202

>and what kind of deception could possibly be in play here against an opponent that isn't a giant whose toe you run across, or a dragon you trick into biting his own tail.

Have you not seen a Drunken Kung Fu movie? Half of those things have at least one scene where a guy is forced to hurt himself due to clever dodging.

The exact details are left to the rogue as not every single foe is the same.

>>48350228
>Half of those things have at least one scene where a guy is forced to hurt himself due to clever dodging.
1. There's no mechanical effect that compels such a person to swing, and to also miss, it's a function of the kung fu master's ability, and their opponent's clumsiness. This rule doesn't respect that in any way, it simply makes it easy to write as a rule, but less responsive to other extenuating circumstances, like an opponent who would be less likely to initially miss, or to fall for this feint in the first place.
2. Those are movies, not game systems. They're set up to be fun to watch, not to play.

>>48350202
>Okay, how is it that there is no ability to resist this effect by being less prone to deception

The best way to represent that would be through Will defense, and if it was a Rogue attack versus Will defense, the Rogue would be MORE effective at making most enemies stab themselves (and super sword dude would actually be worried about getting bloody path'd, unlike now, see >>48350191 ). The ability that resists this deception is the same ability that resists any sort of regular combat action in 4e, AC. (Opportunity attacks, by the way, are regular combat options. They don't target reflex or do anything jazzy.)

But really like the other anon said, imagine pretty much any action movie involving a super quick, dextrous and tricky character.

>what kind of deception could possibly be in play here against an opponent that isn't a giant whose toe you run across, or a dragon you trick into biting his own tail.

Depends entirely on the enemy. My rogue player fluffed it differently each time (where the 'tumbling under a dragon's wing as it turns to bite' example came from). He described it as running over an aboleth's back and making it slap itself with his tentacles once. Grabbing a zombie's arm and spinning with it as it lunges to bite, making it tear out a hunk of its own flesh. Rogues do crazier shit than Bloody Path by 15 level.

>>48350273

>Those are movies, not game systems. They're set up to be fun to watch, not to play.

So games shouldn't emulate fiction?

>>48350273
>it's a function of the kung fu master's ability, and their opponent's clumsiness

Literally what Bloody Path does. There are few opponents who are perfectly poised at all times, and those that are (Liricosa off the top of my head, most monk enemies) are unlikely to hit themselves (fall for the trick) in the first place, due to high Dex.

>This rule doesn't respect that in any way

I mean except that it does exactly that. The power describes what it does mechanically, the players and the GM decide how that happens in the fiction.

>but less responsive to other extenuating circumstances, like an opponent who would be less likely to initially miss, or to fall for this feint in the first place.

You wanna show me a monster with 'immune to feints' or 'immune to deception' anywhere within the ~6 4e monster books?

>>48350273
>2. Those are movies, not game systems. They're set up to be fun to watch, not to play.

4e generally does a lot to try and emulate movies books. Like Healing Surges for representing getting ground down over the course of several dramatic fights rather than 'I had a wand of healing, I'm gunna be good basically forever'

File: Life's a happy song.jpg (47KB, 400x350px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x350px

>>48313152
The Good
>1. Really good use of original setting in terms of the material plane. The Nentir Vale was really solid and the design philosophy behind it was great. The Monster Guide to the Nentir Vale is one of the better MM out there just because of how it provided information.
>2. Combat is streamlined and if your group isn't dumb they can get through a fight very quickly.
>3. Dungeon and Dragon Magazine, while terribly neutered, provided a wealth of content and adventures with pretty decent illustrations. For the price, which was like 7 bucks a month; it was good.
>4. The Adventure Paths in general. Scales of War amped up nicely. The Chaos Scar was a really well put together mini-setting with fun plug-and-play adventures.
>5. Condensed stat blocks which made for ease of reference.

The Bad
>1. Other settings were really bad. Forgotten Realms was a travesty, Eberron was an after thought at best. The wider setting of the planes lost a lot of depth or got stupid names. Dark Sun got a revival thankfully, but the issues still stand.
>2. A lack of apparent out of combat utility. Spells are less unique and this could've been easily fixed but wasn't.
>3. DM's guide and DM advice wasn't good. 4e's subsystems are really quite elegant but they're handled like a beat up Ford Pinto. Proper writing could've salvaged this and shown how good things like those big multi-Skill Checks could be by wording potential failures and successes as examples.
>4. The Magazines provided a lot of content that bloated the character generator and errata'd it to hell and back. The lack of a new offline generator also sucked, but that ties into the wider issue of digital tools falling apart due to a murder suicide.
>5. Didn't strive to be D&D at its most D&D and played it very generic and safe while trying to branch out. It could've done generic and safe well, but it didn't.

At the very least we got Fell's Five outta it, and some good adventures that are easily adapted by plot beat.

File: Goading Attack.png (190KB, 431x167px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 431x167px

>>48350289
>So games shouldn't emulate fiction?
If they do, they should endeavor to emulate it in a much more intuitive way than Bloody Path does, I'll tell you that.

Here, I'll give you an example. In 5e, the Fighter's Goading Attack maneuver is distinct from, but is somewhat similar to the Bloody path feature we're talking about. Like Bloody path, it's vague as to what the action specifically is that goads, leving it to the player or DM's creativity.But instead of simply forcing them to do something that they mechanically would be maybe unlikely to do, it makes them roll a wisdom saving throw to see if they are goaded, and if they are, they have disadvantage on targets other than the one that goaded them. It forces no actions, and doesn't turn any abilities that are supposed to be positive into negative ones, rather, it takes advantage of actual weaknesses, such as a low wisdom saving throw, or is resisted accordingly.

>>48350328
>I mean except that it does exactly that. The power describes what it does mechanically, the players and the GM decide how that happens in the fiction.
No, it doesn't. Because it still forces them to attack themselves, meaning there is no way to actually hit the rogue running by them at all. No saving throw, no skill check, just "use what is usually a positive ability against yourself".

>>48350387

>played it very generic and safe

Are you sure that's not 5e? Safe and generic is not how I'd describe the sudden changes of 4e.

>>48350430

>meaning there is no way to actually hit the rogue running by them at all

That is...literally the point of the ability. Heck, 'Move full distance and don't provoke' turned up 9 levels earlier for the rogue.

>>48350390

>It forces no actions, and doesn't turn any abilities that are supposed to be positive into negative ones,

This is not a selling point.

>it takes advantage of actual weaknesses

High attack bonus and low AC is an actual weakness that makes creatures (brutes, mostly) particularly vulnerable to Bloody Path.

Also Goading Attack is pretty much a less effective version of the marked status effect using disadvantages instead of -2 to attack rolls.

A slightly better manuever for your purposes might have been Distracting Strike or Feinting attack.

>>48350435
Agreed. The more I read about 4e, the less I feel like playing it, but It's not because the game feels safe. The changes they tried to make seem very bold and risky, and unfortunately it just seems that many of those risks didn't pay off, and those revolutionary gameplay mechanics weren't that well liked.

>>48350430
>Because it still forces them to attack themselves, meaning there is no way to actually hit the rogue running by them at all.

Yes, that's the point. The incredibly evasive rogue is not just evading their opportunity attacks, he's turning them against his enemies.

The 5e rogue, too, can make it so there's no actual way for enemies he goes near to hit him using Cunning Action, he's just worse at it than the 4e rogue because 4e is about heroes and 5e is about adventurers.

>>48350485

If you're more interested in playing it safe, 5e is a great game to pick up for you. It took no risks and made no innovations beyond advantage and disadvantage. It's also decent at representing nonheroic fantasy.

>>48350468
>This is not a selling point.
I emphatically disagree.
>A slightly better manuever for your purposes might have been Distracting Strike or Feinting attack.
It was not my intention to give a direct analogue, more to give a different design philosophy that something like Bloody Path ought to have used.

>>48350485

While I DO like 4e for it's sudden changes which I feel were for the better.

To each their own. No shame in disagreeing about which games you enjoy.

I still don't get how he thinks it was safe and generic. 5e went that route with it's hefty backpeddling on many of 4e changes (Saves are back, spells per day are back etc)

>>48350512
See, you're trying to insult me, but I already like and play 5e, and yes, I think it is a good game that played it maybe a little too safe, but made much fewer mistakes as a result.

>>48350531
>Saves are back
I don't really see what's wrong with saves, or why anyone felt the need to eliminate them.

>>48350514
>I emphatically disagree.

You have that right.

>more to give a different design philosophy that something like Bloody Path ought to have used.
>ought

No. If I wanted 5e's design philosophy I could play 5e, or a heavily houseruled 3.5. Not every fantasy game has to be low-fantasy adventurers and it would be boring as hell if they all were.

You want Bloody Path to be something it, and 4e in general, is not. It gives the monsters its used on the chance to resist by not hitting themselves with the attack. Whether that's because of low accuracy or high AC, they still have that chance. They don't get to double dip on resistances because the rogue, in 4e, is very -effective- at fucking people up in the way Bloody Path fucks people up.

If you don't like how it works, that's totally fine, there are plenty of games that follow the philosophy you prefer. But you not liking the design philosophy does not mean it is fundamentally flawed, only that it's not to your taste.

Personally I think requiring someone to fail a saving throw after you expend a resource -after- you successfully hit with your ability in order for your attack to do anything but extra damage is stupid as hell, but I don't think that's because the design is wrong, it's just because I don't like that design.

>>48350491
>The 5e rogue, too, can make it so there's no actual way for enemies he goes near to hit him using Cunning Action
That's markedly different than forcing an activity with no saving throw or other mechanic to resist.

>>48350514

If it had used that you'd need to have two attacks (One vs the target, one vs the target for their attack) for literally every single person they went past when a rogue can easily go past 10 people. That would take forever and would be kinda shitty an ability as even if they'd had a 60% chance for each that would be a tiny chance per person for anything to happen.

>>48350550

It was a gameplay speed thing mostly. Attacks vs Saves meant that people wouldn't be trading dice back and forward during turns.

It also meant that you could apply generic 'Bonus to attack' and have them work the same for both spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Else you'd need 'Bonus to attack AND save DC'.

It also made it easier for some attacks to work like a lot of rogue things that are Weapon vs Reflex as they slip through the gap in some armour. 'Ref Save vs sword to face' feels a bit wierd.

>>48350539
>See, you're trying to insult me
I'm actually not. 5e sounds like your type of game. There's no shame or insult in that.

>made much fewer mistakes as a result.

Eeeeeeeh there I'd disagree. If anything I felt it stepped backwards into making the same mistakes that 5e avoided (and many mistakes it vowed to avoid during playtesting, but made them anyway because the Next playtesting audience was terrible).

>>48350573
>That's markedly different than forcing an activity with no saving throw or other mechanic to resist.

Their mechanic to resist is high AC to avoid the opportunity attack. They can miss, just like any other attack in 4e.

>>48350598

>5e
*4e, excuse me.

>>48350614
>Their mechanic to resist is high AC to avoid the opportunity attack. They can miss, just like any other attack in 4e.
Just a quick question, are any of these classes or class abilities used to create enemies that stand against the heroes, or are they exclusively hero abilities?

>>48350598
>If anything I felt it stepped backwards into making the same mistakes
Such as?

>>48350655
>Just a quick question, are any of these classes or class abilities used to create enemies that stand against the heroes, or are they exclusively hero abilities?

Can you elaborate? Are you asking if there are any class abilities that summon creatures, or if creatures can have class abilities and powers?

The answer is yes to both but I'm tired and you may be asking something else entirely and I'm misreading you.

>>48350655

Exclusively hero abilities. Though NPCs often have abilities that do similar(Though not exactly the same) things. The At-Will, Encounter, Daily paradigm is unique to PCs.

>>48350676
The second one. So in effect, an assassin the party faces could have a "bloody path" ability, that forces the players to roll against themselves, using the Attack Bonus they've striven to build up using whatever buffs or magical weapons against them. They get no save against this, cannot refrain from acting, and in fact, are penalized for having a high bonus in one area that is usually positive, is that correct?

>>48350669

Saves returning, martials back to being boring as fuck (though no where near as useless as 3.X), fighters major schtick being once again 'I full attack', though now he full attacks better than anyone else, whooo... (at least eldritch knight fixes this), wizards and casters in general back to being more powerful than everyone else (though not by as big a margin because of concentration and the way spell save dc's work), casters being decoupled from having to roll to be successful like everyone else, some of the -worst- monster design and CR rules I have ever seen in my time tabletop gaming, making the core setting FR and then reverting FR to its usual clusterfuck position, barbarians losing most of their primal flavor (though they kept a little of it, for which I'm thankful), lack of cool classes like the warlord, zero content in two years post-release except overpriced as hell adventure paths (I try not to judge people who use premade adventures but I hate running them), the return of 3.X's terrible multiclass style, though without the terrible rules that come with it, no hybrid classes and less customization options in general for player heroes, less customizable monsters...

About all I like about what 5e did was advantage/disadvantage, feats, and getting rid of the magic item market. Though to be fair, I like these things very much and use inherent bonuses in order to treat my 4e magic items like 5e treats them.

>>48350727

There are a number of monsters like Mind Flayers that can force people to attack themselves and their allies.

Generally monsters don't have abilities as focused on mook clearing as Bloody Path though. Most adventuring parties don't go above 5 people.

>>48350727

Actually, I vaguely recall there being a demon that forces people in it's aura to take opportunity attacks regardless of if they are provoked by ally or enemy. It's theme is infighting and chaos, unsuprisingly.

>>48350727

>So in effect, an assassin the party faces could have a "bloody path" ability, that forces the players to roll against themselves, using the Attack Bonus they've striven to build up using whatever buffs or magical weapons against them

Yep. Though it'd be terribly ineffective against...anyone but a few strikers.

>They get no save against this, cannot refrain from acting,

Saves do not work that way in 4e. There's a mind flayer in MM3 that can make you stab yourself if it hits you. No save. Because that's not how 4e saves work. You hit or you miss. If you hit, the effect happens. Though there are multiple defenses, AC, Reflex, Fortitude, and Will. So a mind flayer is attacking your Will defense.

>are penalized for having a high bonus in one area that is usually positive, is that correct?

Yep. Much like if your barbarian with a high bonus to attack and damage but low willpower penalizes your entire party if he's dominated.

Though I must emphasize how rare it is to have someone with a low AC, a high attack bonus, and high damage with an opportunity attack.

>>48350788

I want to say Oublivae but I'm betting that's wrong. I do remember this demon.

Hell, if Demogorgon uses his insanity gaze from his right head, Hethradiah, he makes you use a basic attack (much more dangerous than an opportunity attack because this could be an at-will spell or something) against a target of his choice if he hits you.

>>48350801
>Much like if your barbarian with a high bonus to attack and damage but low willpower penalizes your entire party if he's dominated.
That's not at all the same thing. One is being penalized for not having a high bonus, the other is being penalized FOR having a high bonus.

>>48350801

>Though I must emphasize how rare it is to have someone with a low AC, a high attack bonus, and high damage with an opportunity attack.

Yeah that's...some barbarian builds. Maybe a brutal rogue who went equal on strength and dex but that's not a great way to build a brutal rogue. I can't honestly think of too many people who match all of those. Dragon Sorcs can have a mediocre AC and high attack bonus but they have a pitiful opportunity attack.

Oh, Warlocks with Eldritch Strike!

>>48350836
>That's not at all the same thing. One is being penalized for not having a high bonus, the other is being penalized FOR having a high bonus.

Except he's only penalized if he has a high bonus and a low defense, exactly like the barbarian. We've been over this.

>>48350853
>Except he's only penalized if he has a high bonus and a low defense, exactly like the barbarian. We've been over this.
So you're saying there's no +1 enchanted weapons or spells that boost attack, or bard effects that make allies attack better? because if there are, he's being penalized for all that too, AND for choosing a class with a high Atk/AC growth.

>>48350899

The barbarian with the low will save would also get the buffs from his allies when he slaughters them. That applies equally to both examples.

>>48350899
>So you're saying there's no +1 enchanted weapons or spells that boost attack, or bard effects that make allies attack better?

There are, but your magical item defenses generally scale the same way. And that's only if his character has a good opportunity attack, which most characters...don't, unless you're a defender or a melee striker. And if you're a melee striker, you usually have a high AC.

>+1 enchanted weapons or spells that boost attack, or bard effects that make allies attack better? because if there are, he's being penalized for all that too

And he's rewarded for having enchanted armor (or just for existing if you use inherent bonuses and keep magic items rare like I do) and having defender abilities that buff his AC. Again, like a barbarian who shores up his poor Will with magic items and a friendly bard or cleric would be.

>AND for choosing a class with a high Atk/AC growth.

Just as penalized as a barbarian is for having a high Attack growth and low Will growth against a mind flayer, yes. Bloody Path punishes an enemy for having high damage and accuracy, and low defense, which is a weakness on its own.

One MOST players don't have because of how important having high AC is if you don't want to get pasted.

>martial and casters no longer separated by a 3 mile wide gap
>lots of books
>okish art

Thats really all that's good about it

>Doesn't know that's is supposed to be an RPG and not a really poor skirmish wargame

Thats basically the crux of everything wrong with it.

>>48350952
>would also get the buffs from his allies when he slaughters them
Not the bard ones, as they usually only apply to allies of the bard. And if you're charmed, it doesn't as easily translate to an incident where the bard says "Oh jeez, I better stop magically playing my instument, it's making the barbarian hurt himself more!"

>>48351013

He's still an ally of yours when he's charmed. He's just a mind controlled ally.

By the same token if he's NOT an ally, then all those leader buffs that give allies in the general area a boost in 4e would also not apply.

>>48351033
>He's still an ally of yours when he's charmed
Not if he's attacking you. Do you know what the word "ally" means?

>>48351033
>By the same token if he's NOT an ally, then all those leader buffs that give allies in the general area a boost in 4e would also not apply.
Still apply for bloody path though.

>>48351055
>>48351071

>Not if he's attacking you. Do you know what the word "ally" means?

For the purposes of 4e buffs and the like he's still an ally while dominated. Meaning that all those buffs work against you if he is.

>>48351055

Yes but the point is that he's equally an ally to both the 4e bard and the 3e bard. Either he's not an ally and neither get the buffs or he's an ally and both get the buffs as the point was about a bard making his allies better while he kills you in the 4e case.

>>48351078
>For the purposes of 4e buffs and the like he's still an ally while dominated. Meaning that all those buffs work against you if he is.
That just makes 4e seem even worse.
So it's not just "Oh shoot, I need to stop creating this magical instrument effect because it's making my barbarian stab himself when the assassin runs by" it's also "Oh shoot, my magical instrument effect is boosting my friend that's trying to kill me for some reason, even though the whole point is to inspire confidence in those who believe they're on my side"

>>48351104
>Yes but the point is that he's equally an ally to both the 4e bard and the 3e bard.
Well in 5e, the bard chooses an ally to boost, so it's less of a problem.

>>48351117
>So it's not just "Oh shoot, I need to stop creating this magical instrument effect because it's making my barbarian stab himself when the assassin runs by" it's also "Oh shoot, my magical instrument effect is boosting my friend that's trying to kill me for some reason, even though the whole point is to inspire confidence in those who believe they're on my side"

I mean it's more like 'oh shoot, the buffs I cast on my friends don't selectively stop working when he gets mind controlled so I can win an argument on 4chan'.

If it's a sustained effect like certain bard spells you can just...stop sustaining the effect, but you can do the same for Bloody Path.

>>48351117

Where in 3e does it define ally and enemy? As saying the 3e guy is not the ally of the 3e bard is purely your ruling as best as I can tell.

He's still your friend, even if he's currently dominated. Friendly fire is after all, defined as attacks against allies.

>>48351120
If you chose the dominated barb he could still use the dice you gave him to attack you (if Valor).

>>48351120

Except you're talking out of your ass and the creature with a bardic inspiration die can use it at any time in the 10 minutes after its given, and the bard can't take it back.

That includes while being mind-controlled.

Now the bard can use Countercharm to help get rid of the mind control effect...but the bard in 4e can also grant saving throws through their leader powers, and boost the AC of allies to protect against effects like Bloody Path.

>>48351142
>Where in 3e does it define ally and enemy?
If it doesn't, and 4e does, that's a point against 4e in this case, because it allows the DM to say that your music is not making the dominated ally want to kill you more, but according to
>>48351078
Buffs in 4e still work on dominated allies, which makes no sense for a bard's abilities, which rely on the idea that your friend is inspiring you with magic-boosted music, and if you don't see him as your friend in that moment, why would it work?

>>48351166
>Except you're talking out of your ass and the creature with a bardic inspiration die can use it at any time in the 10 minutes after its given, and the bard can't take it back.
Doesn't that just kind of mean that both systems are stupid, and have mechanics that don't match what's intended by what the magic is supposed to do?

>>48351178

Buffs in 3e still work on dominated allies. Your friend doesn't stop being giant size because he now hates you.

>>48350759
>martials back to being boring as fuck (though no where near as useless as 3.X),
Even if they're better than the core martials, they're still much shittier than any ToB class.

>>48351178
>which makes no sense for a bard's abilities, which rely on the idea that your friend is inspiring you with magic-boosted music, and if you don't see him as your friend in that moment, why would it work?

No where in the rules for -any- edition does it say this. Buffs in 5e still work on dominated allies as well. You've reached the point where you're actually making stuff up just to try and save your argument, dude.

>Doesn't that just kind of mean that both systems are stupid, and have mechanics that don't match what's intended by what the magic is supposed to do?

Yes, though by both I'd mean 'all' because DnD doesn't have rules for literally every single scenario possible, even 3.X, and expecting them to is asinine, at this point, after decades of systems being this way.

>>48351178
>because it allows the DM to say that your music is not making the dominated ally want to kill you more

But it doesn't. 3.X buffs don't stop working on dominated allies. Nor do 5e buffs. No edition of WoTC DnD works that way.

>>48351243

This is actually true. I'd actually happily play ToB, ToM, and EPH only 3.5 over 5e.

>>48351274
Eh, even then, skills, saves and combat maneuvers scale terribly in 3.5, not to mention the magic item treadmill.

But I'd play them real happily in 5e, if there was a good brew.

>>48351265
>But it doesn't. 3.X buffs don't stop working on dominated allies.
Where does it define ally?

>>48351309
Nowhere, but no buff effects say "this stops working if target stops being your ally", so it's moot.

>>48351309

It doesn't matter, because 3.X doesn't make buffs have to be cast on allies. A buff is a buff, whether you buff your friend or the dragon currently trying to kill you.

They don't stop working because what you buff has hostile intent. This is the case for all three WotC editions.

>>48351327
>The effect lasts for as long as the ally hears the bard sing and for 5 rounds thereafter.
So in the unlikely event event that they are still turned against the party after 5 rounds, do you thing the effect still works?

>>48351350

Are they still hearing the bard sing? Is the bard still singing? If the answer to both of these is yes, then yes.

Though 5e Bardic Inspiration can be used on any creature and doesn't give a shit about allies or not.

>>48351334
>It doesn't matter, because 3.X doesn't make buffs have to be cast on allies.
We were talking about Bards here. most bard "inspire" effects specifically list allies.

>>48351350
Assuming the bard didn't change to a different song for some reason, I'd say yes.

Bard song is a magical effect, once it's on it's on.

>>48351365
>Are they still hearing the bard sing? Is the bard still singing? If the answer to both of these is yes, then yes.
It says "as long as the ally hears the bard sing" if they haven't been an ally for 5 rounds, why would it keep working?

>>48351374
>Assuming the bard didn't change to a different song for some reason, I'd say yes.
So he has to stop singing for a round or two, or what? Are you still saying that a creature, even if it's a PC is an "ally" if it's hostile?

>>48341140
The reasoning going on here seems to be that the rogue is tricking them into hurting themselves and such.

But then the problem lies in the fact that they all HAVE to make an opportunity attack if they can. They're not allowed to ignore the rogue or be patient, they have to make a wild shot at a nimble target very suddenly for no explored reason, no matter who they are or how intelligent/competent they would normally be.

Flavor-wise, it's rather half-assed.

>>48351367

You can inspire others through stirring words or music. To do so, you use a bonus action on your turn to choose one CREATURE other than yourself within 60 feet who can hear you. That CREATURE gains one Bardic Inspiration die, a d6. Once within the next 10 minutes, the creature can roll the die and add the number rolled to one ability check, attack roll, or saving throw it makes...
-5e PHB, pg. 53, under Bardic Inspiration

For the sake of brevity I won't post the entire entry, but nowhere does it state that it stops working once the creature is affected by charm, dominate, or any mind-affecting ability, for that matter. Check it if you doubt me.

Bless
You bless up to three CREATURES of your choice within range. Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw.
5e PHB, pg. 219, Bless spell description
As above, so below

The only thing I see that references allies is the Song of Rest, and there is nothing there about it not working on dominated, charmed, or mind-affected allies.

>>48351406
>they have to make a wild shot at a nimble target very suddenly for no explored reason, no matter who they are or how intelligent/competent they would normally be.
This. And the only explanation I've gooten so far is that you an interpret a miss against yourself as "You didn't fall for the rogue's trick", even though the check has nothing to do with a mental attribute.
This is what happens when you get rid of saves

>>48351379
>It says "as long as the ally hears the bard sing" if they haven't been an ally for 5 rounds, why would it keep working?

Because they're still an ally, just dominated. Is there any text that says 'this stops working on an ally when they are charmed, dominated, or otherwise turned against their allies? No?

What's that, no buffing ability in the last three editions says that? Must be because such a ruling doesn't exist and you're pulling it from between your asscheeks.

>>48351434
>This is what happens when you get rid of saves

You understand saves are the same fucking things as defenses, right? The only thing that changes is who's rolling the dice.

Wait, no, of course you don't, because you have demonstrated time and time again that you don't understand 4e, nor post 3rd D&D in general.

>>48351434
>I've gooten so far is that you an interpret a miss against yourself as "You didn't fall for the rogue's trick", even though the check has nothing to do with a mental attribute.

It's a feat of combat skill, not mental attribute, as YOU YOURSELF argued when trying to claim it should have a penalty based on combat skill. Holy shit you continue to argue in bad faith.

>This is what happens when you get rid of saves

Saves still exist you blithering mongoloid, you make a saving throw against most status effects at the end of your turn. They're just no longer 'save and nothing bad happens even if the creature hit you with the effect' or 'save or die' anymore.

Why are we even bothering to argue the merits and flaws of a system with someone who hasn't skimmed through even the first pages of the Player's Handbook?

>>48351463
>nor post 3rd D&D in general.

I don't even think he understands 3rd edition, honestly. This buff thing is some of the most baffling shit I've seen when it comes to interpreting DnD rules.

>>48317901

This is... actually a pretty good and objective summary of the edition. Unsurprisingly, it got no replies because it pretty clearly wasn't in the 3aboo or 4rry camp.

Well-balanced responses: not even once.

>>48313152
Can we talk about it in the context of problems with D&D in general?

>>48351568

I just didn't respond to him because he was right. Nothing to nitpick there.

>>48349727
Couldn't they just not take the attack?

>>48350435
>>48350485
>>48350512
>>48350531
I meant in terms of setting and aesthetic really. It was high fantasy and very generic in how high fantasy it was; which really means it was a product of the time it was made in (like what was it 2009?). Everyone was heroic looking, that was sort of the MMO issue for me while others applied it to combat.

It played it safe when it tried to introduce new concepts like the Far Realm or the Elemental Chaos, with all the cool and interesting parts of them hidden away in scant articles or little snippets and blurbs.

5e, for all its faults, is doing its best to appear like it has a setting worth taking seriously. It tries to look like people might live in it. And while this is entirely within the realm of opinion, it has a better tone. 4e is an action movie where the actors and extras look like different species, while 5e looks like someone put some thought into it.

5e in terms of setting is doing generic and safe correctly. It looks like what D&D would look like if it came out now. 4e tried its best to look like that despite being -not- that and as a result it failed to capture a lot of the imagination I hoped it would. It lacked cohesive unity mainly because it tried so hard to have it (I remember those pre-4e books and thinking this world sounds cool; but when we got it they hid away most of the cool stuff).

Mechanically, you guys are absolutely correct. It was my fifth point in the bad for a reason, because it is my point most based entirely in stupid feelings towards it rather than logic.

>>48349841
>incredibly complex rules
The targeted person has an 50% chance to have to roll to hit themselves, and a 50% chance to hit nothing
Really complicated

>>48351664

No. It says that in the text that it must. It's a lot like Come and Get It when I think about it.

>>48351683

>It played it safe when it tried to introduce new concepts like the Far Realm or the Elemental Chaos, with all the cool and interesting parts of them hidden away in scant articles or little snippets and blurbs.

The Far Realm existed LONG before 4e. iirc, it's AD&D. At the very least it was there in 3e.

>>48351683
>5e, for all its faults, is doing its best to appear like it has a setting worth taking seriously. It tries to look like people might live in it

>Setting is literally FR with all the Mary Sues brought back to life
>Demogorgon rampages through the Underdark and gets one-shot by Drizzt
>Takes itself seriously

Anon on the one hand I get you're expressing your feelings and since I don't share those feelings I can't possibly understand them the way you do. But on the other hand nigger what the fuck.

>>48351470
>It's a feat of combat skill, not mental attribute, as YOU YOURSELF argued when trying to claim it should have a penalty based on combat skill.
If you look at it in detail, it's a lot of things. You're not only falling for this trick the rogue does - without fail, mind you - you're also making an attack against yourself, which only the clumsiest opponents could be expected to do. So trying to fix it still needs an elegant solution. You either make some kind of wisdom saving throw, or you totally rework the attack bonus.

Look, I think you're a little confused about me "Arguing in bad faith", and I'm sorry if it cam across that way. I'm only trying to set up something that isn't so pants-on-head retarded, but all I've gotten here is people defending the system as is, even when it makes not sense. Things like saying the rogue is "turning their skill against them". to try to justify their attack being more effective with a higher attack bonus, which, as we have already established, does not code to a higher defense in all creatures. Also, any buffs to attacks also help you stab yourself better, cause that makes sense. But if you like the system, go ahead and like it. It just makes no sense is all.

>>48317901
Bravo, im tempted to screencap that.

The sad part is, I had some of the best times in 4e. I actually spent an entire day at PAX prime playing their demo version back in the day, and with all the other things I missed out on by doing so, I still think it was some of the best fun I have ever had with DND.

I guess I just got a good group there by luck, but everyone wanted to play heroic DND without any party conflict, the DM was good, the adventure was fun high fantasy, and despite enduring the agony of balance checks in heavy armor it all worked out .

Ah well. Perhaps one day.....

>>48351489
How can someone be an ally while they're attacking you?

>>48351742

That's the definition of friendly fire.