Friendly reminder that 4e's vaunted "balanced tactical

Friendly reminder it's still a hell of a lot better than 5e's "bounded" "accuracy" where you only get 20% better at hitting between 1st level and 20th, with the excuse of "muh damage" when the problem is entirely constructed due to 5e's HP bloat.

At least 4e had minions. Contrived though they were, they were better than 15 hp orcs.

File: Eye Twitch.gif (108KB, 451x311px)

108KB, 451x311px

>>49222250
Anon, why are you feeding a blatant troll?

>>49222213
Eternally triggered bitch anon, what is best in life?

File: _You_.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px)

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>49222510
(You)s, apparently.

>>49222304

Because 4e is shit and playing it should be against the fucking law.

The only thing I liked about 4e was the different kinds of AC for getting hit by different things and the fact that fighters got actual abilities. seriously tho why do fighters get that shit in 4th but not 5th edition a shortsword at level one does 1d6 and so does a shortsword at lvl 20 but a mage can cast a firebolt and do sixteen quadrillion d8s every time he reaches a new level threshold.
>nb4 battlemaster
battlemaster is boring and barebones and every type of fighter should get maneuvers AND the champion archetype bullshit.

I don't see what's wrong with the meenlock, explain?

>>49224396

How does it feel to go through life being assblasted over a game?

>>49224958

Corrupting Mind will rip a party apart.

>>49225111
At that level? Seems unlikely.

>>49225111
Will it?
It's charm, illusion and disease, and there's a lot of easy ways to rack up defenses against those. Plus you just hit them and they can save again.

It's not as if there's meant to be five of these things in an encounter, either.

>>49225111
It sounds like you need to GIT GUD

>>49224958

it very easily mind-controls whoever's doing the most damage in a party (usually a fighter/warlord/etc with low mental resistance) and forces them to beat the shit out of their friends, literally turning all meenlocks invisible to them (so you can't just be like "well they look scarier so i'll hit them!). also, even if you succeed, the meenlock corruption makes it so they have -4 to Will saves, so they can just fucking do it again and succeed next time since they have no limit on how often they can use this ability or implication that they can only control one character at a time.

>>49224940
In 5e the fighter is raining down shortsword attacks at lvl 20, probably 5 a turn since he's using a FUCKING SHORTSWORD and thus using two weapons. 10 with an action surge.

Without the save for half that the monsters at 20th level are routinely making at that CR.

Unless you mean a rogue, in which case they are stabbing for 8 quadrillion d6's, with zero spell cost.

But why bother complaining about games you clearly haven't tried in the first place?

>>49225178
>literally turning all meenlocks invisible to them
It just turns the corruptor invisible to them.

>>49224940

Abilities /= Magic

If you are so assblasted over this, go make a homebrew for Fighters that buffs them up to your liking.

And no using ToB. If you want to use magic that badly be a wizard.

>>49225202
Ive played both thanks.
Level 20 CR creatures are nothing to fuck around with and you cant just run up to one or even cast a spell very easily on one as far as damage goes,
but a level 20 fighter doing 5 or six sword attacks implying he has 20 strength hits every time and rolls max damage each swing would tottal out to 60 base damage for 5 attacks (implying he gets to add his STR or dex from the dual wielding feat/class ability) OR 120 Using one of his action surges,Now a wizard at a level lower than 20 can cast touch of death or power word kill and instantly AT BASE without rolling do more damage then 5 attacks with 20 str or dex THEN gets to roll damage ontop of the base damage and add his int.
Rouges are nice but you cant hide everywhere and you cant always surprise everything.
Also I wasn't complaining,I was comparing the two which I like the qualities of so eat a dick kike.
TLDR A high level mage obviously outclasses a high level fighter but that wasnt the argument the argument was "I wish fighters had some more unf to them".

>>49225359

>TLDR A high level mage obviously outclasses a high level fighter but that wasnt the argument the argument was "I wish fighters had some more unf to them".

Then stop trying to make DnD into something else. Its established in the setting that Wizards and Fighters have advancement paths like this. If you don't like it play another game, full stop.

>>49225178
>it very easily mind-controls
+14 to will isn't all that hot, honestly, and no, it's a lurk, it won't be going after the frontliner (fighter defenses are built towards buffing will), it will go after shit like rogues, rangers, barbarians.

>>49225378
Is there something wrong with you?
"I wish 5th edition fighters had 4th edition shit because wizards stayed cool and got better"
>HOW DAAAAAARE YEEEEEW!!!!!!!
calm down m8

>>49225378
>Its established in the setting that Wizards and Fighters have advancement paths like this
And even Gygax said it was bullshit because it goes against the meaning of having "levels" in the game as a measure of power if one class' levels are better than another.

>>49225178
>also, even if you succeed, the meenlock corruption makes it so they have -4 to Will saves
When you're exposed to a disease, doesn't it only start if you fail a saving throw at the end of the encounter? So they won't have the -4 for that battle.

>>49225462
Dont bother arguing with him he will just "REEEEEEEEE" some more.

>>49225069
>u mad bro

Great argument, champ. You shore showed me with your 'wit' and 'humor'.

>>49225378
>stop trying to make DnD into something else

That's some hardcore anal retention right there. The spirit of DnD has always been invention and adaptation. In no way are you bound by RAW unless you're the worst kind of rollplay powergamer who wants to 'beat' DnD campaigns using netbuilds.

>>49225534
I'm mad op is mad anon is mad we are all mad,and so are you or you wouldn't have posted here.
All joking aside I feel like this thread turned into like five 300LB MLP T-shirt wearing, neckbeards flailing around and having asthma attacks

>>49222250
> where you only get 20% better at hitting between 1st level and 20th

It's funny because it's not true.

A 1st level character can be reasonably expected to have a +5 to attack (+2 proficiency, +3 STR/DEX). A 20th level character will have at least a +11 (+6 profieicny, +5 STR/DEX), not including any magical effects, items, or class features.

That would in fact be about 45% better.

>they were better than 15 hp orcs.

...the Hell is the problem with 15 hp orcs? Swing a longsword or rapier at them, average damage from a 1st-level character's longsword or rapier is 7 (4 on a d8 plus +3 STR/DEX). A single character takes them down in 3 swings at most, and that's assuming that they are the only character fighting them, and that damage isn't being boosted in any way.

An orc reduced to just 1 hit point is probably gonna try to cut and run, anyway (or he should if you don't have a shit DM). You get XP from overcoming foes, not necessarily killing them, so there's nothing wrong with letting the orc escape; you'll get the same XP either way.

>>49225614
I always figured orcs where to savage primal and pridefull to run away especially to something smaller especially if the orcs outnumber them Dont half orcs that get reduced to exactly 0 hp come back to 1 hp so wouldn't orcs also? Also orcs are also damn near mindlessly aggressive so aggressive they can move their full movement toward something as a bonus action but I guess thats not your point

>>49225558
>>49225462

Then how does it feel to be wrong when the majority of the fanbase, the developers of 5e and even Pathfinder themselves disagree with you?

>>49225674
More people in this thread have disagreed with you than have agreed so the burden to prove that falls on you also who the fuck is dumb enough to disagree that wizards are more powerfull than fighters? who the fuck is dumb enough to say "its noda bug its a feetcha" in regards to the leveling system?

>>49225614

The problem is that those Orcs are supposed to be both standard enemies and minion enemies with the exact same stat block.

Which is basically impossible. (This is why video game, when bosses are demoted to regular enemies, often have less complicated moves, despite having their stats scaled up.)

>>49225753
Orcs are standard enemies...for mid-level adventurers. You're level 1, son. You fight rats and kobolds.

>>49225796
Orcs dont fuck around if they swarm you you are fucked and you cat out run them.

>>49225796

And how does the DM know this from the games material?

4e has enemies have levels, which gives you a sense for what level characters they have stats close enough to have fights not take forever.

Just working of a translation of XP budget into neat units isn't going to tell a DM the intent.

>>49225822
Which is why orcs aren't standard enemies for level 1 characters. The 5E MM gives their challenge rating as 1/2. I'm not quite up-to-date with what this means in 5E terms, but back in 3E this would mean that a party of 4 1st-level adventurers should consume about 20% of their total resources fighting just two of them. Four such encounters (8 orcs total, spread across multiple encounters of 2 at a time) was the limit of what 1st-level adventurers should face between rests; the 9th and 10th orcs would almost certainly kill them.

Like I said, the issue with 15 hp orcs seems to be the misunderstanding on the part of folk like >>49222250. They are not meant to be faced en masse by 1st-level parties.

>>49225854
>And how does the DM know this from the games material?

Understanding what the "challenge rating" line in a monster's stat block springs immediately to mind; SEE >>49225899.

>>49225854
Using the 4e monster statblocks is a bit easier because of a few things like that. However, a pack of weak level 5 monsters can't even touch a level 15 4e party. That's why bounded accuracy is nice. The players can get in over their heads from a large volume of enemies, even if they are high level. Granted, they have more options, such as more/larger area effects and multiple attacks, which are still useful against this horde.
I just find it silly when adventurers 'outlevel' standard kobolds and goblins, so then you get to fight...standard orcs! Which are just another 1 hp minion statblock with bigger attack numbers.

>>49225899
In fifth edition encounters are based on the CR and how much XP the monster gives,there is set brackets on a table if i recall so its like
say there is a level one party of 3 adventurers a challenge appropriate to them is 300XP (not really) so if there is a bunch of CR1/4-CR1 creatures you can mix and match to get to 300XP and thats supposed to be a balanced encounter
so it could be 1 creature CR1 that gives 300 xp OR 10 CR1/4 cratures that give 30 xp each
I dont use this cause its kind of lame

File: comic_lotr89.jpg (126KB, 600x782px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 600x782px

>>49225614
>...the Hell is the problem with 15 hp orcs?
They're unimporant fodder monsters that exist to slow down but not really threaten mid-level heroes, so tracking HP is a waste of time.

>>49226001
But some of the best moments in games that I've both run and played is when an otherwise ordinary opponent, like a Stormtrooper or Orc, would get absurdly lucky and kick everyone's ass even though they should have been wildly outclassed.

That Stormtrooper was impressive enough that my character spared his life, and later when she had become Mandalore the Forge, he showed up and joined the Crusade!

That would never have happened if he'd only had 1 hit point total.

>>49225674

If you're a representative sample then it feels pretty good to be doing something different to you, considering how retarded and rump-ravaged everything you've said so far has been.

I'm not bound by majority opinion anyway. If you personally feel that you are, then on top of 'angry' and 'stupid' we can add 'gutless' to the list of your most salient personality traits.

>>49226059
Why? Getting absurdly lucky and kicking everyone's ass is independent of the orc's HP if the PCs keep missing him and all of his rolls keep critting.

>>49222213

>Meenlock Corrupter
>Imbalanced

...How?

File: 2016-09-07 21_05_39-5e - Dungeon Master's Guide.pdf - Foxit Reader.png (550KB, 475x631px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 475x631px

>>49225998
> 10 CR1/4 cratures that give 30 xp each

Wouldn't that be times 2.5 - a 750 XP budget?

>>49225178

>Warlord
>Low mental resistance
>Against a +14 against Will attack at level 11

What the fuck am I reading.

>Turning all meenlocks invisible to them

Scratch that, what the fuck are YOU reading?

>Meenlock corruption makes it so they have -4 to Will saves
>Saves
>A disease effecting defense in combat when it will only take effect after the combat is over

>All this about an attack that grants a save literally every time the dominated target takes damage if they manage to fail the first save

>>49226111
I happen to be an idiot on the subject!
it was just an example but hey there is the table I was talking about.

>>49226059
>That would never have happened if he'd only had 1 hit point total.

You've obviously never dealt with 4e minions. Some of those fuckers are brutal. Enough lich vestiges come to mind.

>>49226145
I think a lot of GMs just wing it instead of using the multiplier anyway.

>>49226178
I had a player once that convinced the GM to let him fight a lich vestige before we had reached paragon in a dream sequence in case he failed. His wizard went down hilariously fast.

>>49225674
Well, Pathfinder is unbalanced garbage, so I don't think that helps your argument.

>>49226389
>fight a lich vestige before we had reached paragon
Did he...did he change the attack or defense values at all?

>>49227727
Nope. Said player was flipping through the Monster Manual for shits and giggles, found out that there was a level 27 or so minion, and for some reason wanted to fight it. He was notorious for having stupidly good luck and felt he could pull off a nat 20 before it managed to kill us all. The rest of the party was less than enthused and we managed to downgrade "Put a lich vestige in the next dungeon" to "Make him fight it alone in a dream sequence."

>>49225614
>+5 to +11
>That would in fact be about 45% better.
Shouldn't a +6 be +30%? Since on a d20 each increase is +5%?

>>49222213
what's wrong with the meenlock? I've used 'em a couple of times.

>>49225178
>literally turning all meenlocks invisible to them

No, just the one that dominated them.

>>49228138
The neat thing about that progression is that at level 1, average monster AC is 13 (so you hit on an 8), at level 20, average monster AC is 19 (so you hit on an 8), but you'll hit AC 13 on a 2. If you rolled a 1, you'd miss anyway. Odd how that lines up.

>>49225473
Yes, that's correct.

>>49226178
Yeah, hilariously minions (especially ranged ones) can totally fuck a party that's not ready for them. Much more so than most solo bosses, elites, etc.

>>49225202
>10 with an action surge.
Actually, 9 times, since you don't get to attack with your off hand twice, even at level 20.

>Without the save for half that the monsters at 20th level are routinely making at that CR.

Their saves are about as much higher as their AC.

Except their bad saves are at fucking 0 or so.

>Unless you mean a rogue, in which case they are stabbing for 8 quadrillion d6's, with zero spell cost.

You mean... 10 d6? + a shortsword so 11d6. You know a fireball from a 5th or 6th level slot does that in a huge AoE. Or just, you know, warlock doing comparable damage with eldritch blast without even trying.

>>49226001
But 5e isn't going for that "epic untouchable heroes " thing that 4e did. An orc is still a threat because an orc can still hit you. And swarms of orcs can hit you a lot.

>>49224940
A fighter is on average going to do 48 dmg
A wizard will do 26 with a firebolt

>>49229121
>An orc is still a threat because an orc can still hit you. And swarms of orcs can hit you a lot.
And a minion can do all that *and* cut down on the bookkeeping because now you need to only track one number -- the amount of orcs still alive -- as opposed to individual HP tracks for every unimporant copy-pasta'd orc in the mob.

>>49229195
So a jizz wiz with no spellslots and not even trying can do half the damage a fighter can do when he gives it his all
noice

>>49229121
It's a fucking lie tho.

>>49229228
That's the "no resource expenditure" for both.

Fighter can action surge for double damage (and if Battlemaster, also gets to nova some more).

Of course, wizard expending resources will be on a similar level, although probably not in single target damage.

>>49229209
But minions don't scale up, so you need constantly new minions or you need to change higher level ones to be more like the lower level ones.
And it means that one hit won't always kill them.

>>49229228
No, because a fighter has several other abilities that add damage, which recharge faster than wizard spells can more often.

Not that it's super balanced and it's pretty easy to see how the fighter can still get outclassed, but it's not 3.p level unbalanced because a fighter can always feel and act kinda usefull

>>49229285
>But minions don't scale up, so you need constantly new minions or you need to change higher level ones to be more like the lower level ones.
>And it means that one hit won't always kill them.
Nigger what?

>>49229346
Sorry, I see the confusion.
A level 1 monster, minion or not, in 4e won't be able to do much to a level 20 character, while a level 1 monster in 5e can. So in 5e you can use any creature in the book in enough numbers to be a challenge.


I was talking about 5e orcs not always dying.

>>49229121
>An orc is still a threat because an orc can still hit you. And swarms of orcs can hit you a lot.

This is exactly what minions in 4e did. And they did it quite well.

>>49229595
Yeah, but a level 1 orc minion isn't going to do that to a level 20 character.
Along with the 4e minion having the whole 1 hp deal that has it's pros and cons

>>49229285
>But minions don't scale up

Dude what

Scaling minions from 1-30 is easy as piss in 4e. Just use the updated MM3 math. Or the Sly Flourish Chart.

Beyond that there are rules for leveling monsters in the first DM guide.

>>49229608
But why would you use level 1 orc minions against a party that isn't in that level range?

(I don't even think level 1 orc minions exist in 4e, orcs are kinda really brutal IIRC).

>>49229608
>Yeah, but a level 1 orc minion isn't going to do that to a level 20 character.

Add 19 levels to the orc minion.

>Along with the 4e minion having the whole 1 hp deal that has it's pros and cons

I struggle to think of a con for this but I know some people do so I leave it up to personal taste.

>>49229643

They don't, orcs are srs bznz in the mid-heroic tier.

>>49229617
But if you scale them up you lose something else.
There's a limit to how many minions there can be against a party that will be challenging.
If you add more and weaken them they'll become more and more useless exceptionally, while if you add more without making them easier all your doing is making the encounter harder. Bounded accuracy and such circumvents this

>>49229643
Well you wouldn't, that's my point. In 4e you either use a different minion meaning you can't have them fight orcs, or you make a new one, which requires some time. In 5e if you want a level 20 character to fight an orc army you just throw a bunch of orcs at them.
Also it's pretty easy to make minions in 5e, but you really can't make a lot of low level enemies be a threat in 4e.

>>49229710
>In 5e if you want a level 20 character to fight an orc army you just throw a bunch of orcs at them.

To be fireballed before they can do anything.

"Hordes of low level enemies totally work in 5e as a challenge" is a lie until you get into silly high numbers (like hundreds).

File: mm3businessfront.gif (7KB, 350x200px)

7KB, 350x200px

>>49229710
>In 4e you either use a different minion meaning you can't have them fight orcs, or you make a new one
Alternatively
>Grab stats for any given minion around their level
>Describe them as Orcs to your players

Also
>Implying minions take long to make

>>49225534

That was the response your post warranted.

>>49229784
That's true, but that's kinda AoE's shtick.
Besides on average a fireball at level won't kill on a miss.
Though yeah, AoE's do at a certain point end those hordes pretty fast.

Plus it was kinda weird that minions could just no sell fireballs, imho (That was a thing right, where if it missed it did no damage? It's been a while)

>>49229990
>Plus it was kinda weird that minions could just no sell fireballs, imho (That was a thing right, where if it missed it did no damage? It's been a while)

In effects it's the same as the orcs not getting killed when they get half damage in 5e.

>>49230034
Except an orc not killed when they get half damage is weakened, while a minion isn't, which makes a difference in the event that an other AoE fails, or if the DM wants to play the monsters as non-suicidal so the moment they get hurt they retreat.

>>49230067
>Except an orc not killed when they get half damage is weakened, while a minion isn't, which makes a difference in the event that an other AoE fails

The chance of that in 4e is somewhere around 5% (assuming typical characters in a ypical encounter). So 95% of the time, it's the same.

>or if the DM wants to play the monsters as non-suicidal so the moment they get hurt they retreat.

1.) Not being knocked out by a spell doesn't mean they didn't get hurt by it.
2.) If the DM wanted to play them "intelligently" so they retreat, half their troops being burnt to death in an instant would be enough even if 1st point wasn't true.

>>49229710
>But if you scale them up you lose something else.

...No you don't?

>>49229710
>There's a limit to how many minions there can be against a party that will be challenging.
>If you add more and weaken them they'll become more and more useless exceptionally, while if you add more without making them easier all your doing is making the encounter harder. Bounded accuracy and such circumvents this

You don't have to weaken them. Or strengthen them. That's not how minion scaling works. They stay level-appropriate if you use the MM3 math. Which fits on a little card, dude.

>>49230228
I think he means you can't add 100 minions to an encounter, because a minion is always equal about 4 encounter appropriate monsters.

Of course, the whole thing falls apart in 5e as well, so I'm not sure how strong of a point that is.

>>49230344

I mean in 4e or 5e if you add 100 minions or 100 low level orcs to an encounter and the players fight them they're going to get crushed, yeah.

>>49222213
Friendly reminder that people who were born when 4E came out are now old enough to play it.

It's time to move on and stop being triggered.

>>49228366

Lalalala I can't hear haters, 5e is good I swear

>>49226070

God damn haven't seen a burn that bad in a while. #roasted

File: tumblr_larlhuJtfD1qcv9zpo1_500.jpg (45KB, 424x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 424x400px

>>49230126

>yfw 3/5e are less RP friendly than 4e but people still give it shit because skill challenges

>>49225916

CR is a translation of the EXP budget, it doesn't tell you appropriate level directly.

The idea that a monster requires a certain amount of character power to be a good fight. (I.e. Likely damage amounts are interesting and will happen enough that there is tension between a hit or a miss happening) independent of the monsters in an encounter, but it just seems weird to add a 1.5 exp modifier when you should just assume monsters will appear in clumps and point out that a single orc against a 4 man party isn't going to be a good fight ever.

>>49224855
Couldn't be saved fast enough. Cheers.

>>49229617
>Only the DMG is allowed to be used to improve how 4e plays! 5e must be played as I deem it should!
This is why I had the 4e loving group around here.

File: 1379965375737.jpg (252KB, 460x800px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 460x800px

>>49231794
>>Only the DMG is allowed to be used to improve how 4e plays! 5e must be played as I deem it should!

That isn't anything even approaching a sketch of what I said. I didn't even mention how 5e must be played at all.

Are you drunk?

>>49225899
In 5e it means a four-man level 1 party would fight 2-3 orcs as a hard encounter, 4-5 as a potentially deadly one, and could face a total of 30 orcs in a single day with 2 short rests.

>>49231839
>minions are better because you track number of creatures and not health
>a response
>your post using outside material and the DMG as a counter argument
Concersing is not difficult, the argument about 15HP orcs being used as an unmanageable horde ignores the 5e DMG advice for handling hordes which is intuitive and quick.

You pool a hordes HP into a single pool, and an Orc dies each 15HP chunk falls off. Their attack lands based on the number of orcs attacking the player and not by rolling attacks.

>>49231934
I'm not even sure what my phone did with that first word.

>>49231934
>>your post using outside material and the DMG as a counter argument

>The MM3
>Outside material

And are you seriously trying to argue that using rules in the DMG for leveling creatures is inapplicable?

I didn't even mention managing hordes, let alone 5e's ability or inability to do so.

All I did was correct that anon's misunderstanding about how minions 'scale'. And don't worry about the phone thing, I understood what you meant.

>>49230344
>100 minions to an encounter
And that's what swarms are for.

>>49230393
I think he was using an arbitrary number to illustrate a point.

>>49232513
But that's not the same thing

>>49231233
>skill challenges
But they were the antithesis of roleplaying.

>>49233139
>I think he was using an arbitrary number to illustrate a point.

This is probably true but his point is the same in 5e or 4e. If you add too many (X number) of low level orcs to a 5e game, they'll kill your party. Add too many minions (X number) to your 4e game, you'll kill your party.

>>49233199

But barring that, there's plenty of roleplaying in 4e that people ignore entirely so they can go back to hating it for no reason.

>>49233199

That doesn't really refute his point (though I happen to disagree)

>>49233233
But those numbers might not be the same. I don't recall the amount of minions that 4e had, but a group of 4 level 20's can take 60 orcs (Why would you do this I would never know) as a medium encounter in 5e

>>49233235
What exactly does it have the 3/5 don't? I'm genuinely curious. I think some of the spells in 4e are a little more rp friendly than a lot of the 3/5 spells

>>49233247
Sorry I misread, I thought he said because of skill challenges

>>49233281
>But those numbers might not be the same

This is true, because they're different systems. I mean if you take 100 peasants with crossbows they can kill a young green dragon in 5e. That doesn't mean the green dragon is weak and adventurers aren't needed or some other dumb shit, that's just the way the system's bounded accuracy works.

If you wanted to run 60 orc minions against a level 20 4e party you'd probably use horde rules (like you would for 5e if you didn't want to hate yourself running 60 orcs).

I don't remember the xp budget for a level 20 encounter off the top of my head in 4e but it would be quite a lot of minions. (More if you wanted it to be a challenging encounter)

>>49233376
>This is true, because they're different systems
Yeah, that was my only point really. I like the system specifically for that and how bounded accuracy means mobs can do a lot, even an army of peasants could be dangerous

Not that there's anything wrong with 4e

>>49233432

I mean there's nothing wrong with liking different systems, everyone has their own personal taste. But an army of peasants can be dangerous in 4e as well, it's just mechanically represented differently than 5e.

Unless it's a 4e god, since they're explicitly immune to attacks from creatures below level 20.

>>49225674
lets see your numbers, autismo

>>49233199
Skill challenges work for one thing and one thing only

Chase scenes

>>49234439
And god are they great for that.
I really wish every other DnD would make chase scenes actually work. At best all I can do is try to recreate skill challenges

>>49228138
If you want to get technical I'm pretty sure it's more than 100% better, since 11 is more than twice 5.

>>49230462
8 years olds can't actually play d&d, that was just marketing, particularly not adhd, media-spewing, cod-playing retard millennials.

>>49237894
>8 years olds can't actually play d&d, that was just marketing, particularly not adhd, media-spewing, cod-playing retard millennials.

>tfw my group isn't real
Thanks, anon, you've opened my eyes.

>>49238274
Share the red pill

Don't knock on 4E it was an excellent miniature based tactical skirmish game with a low cost entry fee compared to something like Warhammer. Sometimes you'd get players who would act weird and start talking in their miniatures voice and shit but they soon got bored of doing that 15 rounds and 3 hours into the level 1 fight with 4 goblins which let everyone focus on the actual game.

>>49222213
who cares it's just D&D, aka babby's first RPG.

>>49239714
fuckin' saved

>>49233506
You're talking out of your ass. With 4e's modifier inflation, the only way to make peasants matter against anything more than 5 levels or so above them was to artificially increase their level. Which started to look very odd when you had this peasant who somehow managed to reach paragon or epic levels with only 1 hit point.

>>49241558
>saving weak bait
Disappointing, anon.

>>49231233

>>yfw 3/5e are less RP friendly than 4e

Elaborate.

>>49241575
An army of peasants in 4e would be a swarm, no?

>>49222213
Please keep this going a little longer, I'll be using it as a sample for why no one should take anything on /tg/ seriously and especially not to the gaming table.

>>49241575
>the only way to make peasants matter against anything more than 5 levels or so above them was to artificially increase their level

Or just use a horde of peasants.

>Which started to look very odd when you had this peasant who somehow managed to reach paragon or epic levels with only 1 hit point.

There are epic level demon minions with only 1 hit point. Increasing levels does not increase minion hit points, I have no idea where you got the idea that it does.

Also, fun fact, the 'Corrupted X' epic level minions in MM3 are pretty explicitly civilians/peasants.

>>49242412
>Or just use a horde of peasants.
That doesn't work. That's what I'm saying. The way numbers artificially inflate in 4e, you very quickly reach the point where lower-level creatures only hit on a natural 20, and the biggest monsters are explicitly immune to anything done to them by lower-tier creatures. So even if the peasants are fighting a creature that isn't outright immune to their attacks, you physically cannot pack enough peasants within shooting range of a higher-level monster to make 1/20th of their shots do more than negligible damage.


>There are epic level demon minions with only 1 hit point. Increasing levels does not increase minion hit points,
I know that minions never gain hit points, and that's exactly what I'm complaining about. I never thought they did; I'm saying it strains suspension of disbelief to the breaking point that they don't. Even a human commoner will a relatively peaceful life can expect to accidentally take 1 damage now and then. One can only imagine how these 1HP demons get along in the Abyss.

Did you even read my post?

>>49225928
>a pack of weak level 5 monsters can't even touch a level 15 4e party.
That's why you use level 15(ish) minions at level 15 and call them the same monster

>>49229121
>But 5e isn't going for that "epic untouchable heroes " thing that 4e did.
Funny that, neither did 4E. Not that you'd know it

>>49242546
>Even a human commoner will a relatively peaceful life can expect to accidentally take 1 damage now and then.

You don't fucking understand what minions represent.

A demon who is at level 29 is a minion would be a final boss to a level 10 party. He'd, at that point, not have 1 hp.

NPCs out of combat are not bound by the abstractions that are HP, saves, or whatever. A peasant doesn't have 1 HP. It doesn't HAVE hp, it doesn't take damage, it makes no saves, up until the point it interacts with the PCs in or pre combat (which only happens if he'd pose a threat to them in some way, a single peasant for the PCs to bully isn't even an encounter). A level 30 lesser umbral demigod-shardling-spawn minion won't die from missing a save against hot weather in a desert.

>>49242546
>That doesn't work. That's what I'm saying

What.

>The way numbers artificially inflate in 4e, you very quickly reach the point where lower-level creatures only hit on a natural 20, and the biggest monsters are explicitly immune to anything done to them by lower-tier creatures. So even if the peasants are fighting a creature that isn't outright immune to their attacks, you physically cannot pack enough peasants within shooting range of a higher-level monster to make 1/20th of their shots do more than negligible damage.

Dude horde rules in 4e don't make you use a bunch of lower level peasants, it turns the peasants into a single higher level creature, like a swarm.

>and the biggest monsters are explicitly immune to anything done to them by lower-tier creatures

Well yes, you cannot kill Demogorgon or Tiamat with a swarm of peasants (unless they're all super high level minions and you have hundreds of them spread out to avoid Demogorgon's gazes and Tiamat's breaths). This is kind of by design.

> I'm saying it strains suspension of disbelief to the breaking point that they don't. Even a human commoner will a relatively peaceful life can expect to accidentally take 1 damage now and then. One can only imagine how these 1HP demons get along in the Abyss.

4e is not a simulationist game, man. Minions exist to allow 'lower level' (read: weaker) creatures to fight against much more powerful threats and remain relevant.

Though for the record the demon minions in question are mezzodemon shocktroops and vrock lackeys, the summoned dross that demon lords send against the things that challenge them and the guys who died in droves during the Blood War.

>>49233199
They're a bloody framing device! A way for a DM to know when to say "You've reached your goal" or "Everything's gone to shit".
Now, admittedly, they were explained awfully in DMGs

In what way do they interrupt your roleplaying?

>>49228168
OP's just scared of bonuses larger than 2

>>49242688

Probably had a DM who explicitly said 'okay this is a skill challenge' and then just told them what skills to use.

I had that during my first brush with 4e. Made me hate the system for a while until I decided to take the reigns myself.

>>49242546
4E is not a physics simulation game.

A monster that is a 1 level Solo could be represented as a 6 level Elite, a 11 level Standard, a 15 level Minion and a bunch of them a swarm of any Epic level (level numbers are very rough)

They don't have an objective state they follow all their lives. It's like quantum physics: they only have specific stats when they're observed (as in, when those stats actually matter)

>>49225928
>However, a pack of weak level 5 monsters can't even touch a level 15 4e party

Why the fuck its a problem?

>>49222213
Isn't anybody who played that game dead?

>>49243717
Yes, actually, but it turns out playing 4e gave you the power to become a lich or other undead of your choice. Who knew?

>>49225359
Why are we claiming short swords without duelist, instead of GWF maul users. Just makes it so blatant.

On average, a lvl 20 fighter will swing 4 times for 2d6 each + STR, plus rerolling 1's and 2's. That's on average 52 damage, maybe slightly higher, in addition to having three times the health pool and much higher armor for doing absolutely nothing. That's not counting action surge, knocking your enemies down for advantage, or the +10 damage from the feat.

That's pretty fucking good.

>>49242855

This.

Every game makes shortcuts and assumptions that reduce realism to improve ease of play, and not nailing a particularly class of enemy, as simple as NPC orc to a particularly stat line is part of that.

This is why the Peasant Railgun/small object teleporter never happens in setting, because characters aren't aware of the small breaks in physics that the game system does to keep things simple.

(Not that teleportation/ultra long is impossible in any version of D&D, just that it doesn't use peasants who are roughly untouched by the process.)

... I now want to make a vampire empire who uses the depleted blood of thousands of peasants to power their teleport system.

>>49243127
He's just trying to prove 5e and the hectopeasant are superior

>>49243717
Yes, WotC kill squads were thorough

>>49222213
Friendly reminder that you should play a different RPG than D&D, because D&D is terrible and the only reason people still play it is out of tradition.

>>49242855
the one problem I have with this is it makes it hard to reflect unique creatures through there mechanics.

It's not really a problem with something pretty generic, like say orcs. But if you want it to be something interesting and feel like the thing you are describing, it can't just be a name that can be slapped onto a set of mechanics, or a set of mechanics that you can slap a name on.

Also, while people talk about this is 4e as if it's a 4e only thing, it's not.
In many games I've taken a stateline, made a tweak or two, then called it what I wanted. Works fine for a lot of things.

>>49246666
>it makes it hard to reflect unique creatures through there mechanics
Most powers scale freely. Traits you don't even need to scale.
Now, things like acting several times a round (common feature of Solos) should be excluded if you change its type. But that's as much for convenience as for power reasons

>Also, while people talk about this is 4e as if it's a 4e only thing, it's not.
No one in the thread claimed that

>>49246653
Friendly reminder that preaching non-D&D in a specifically D&D thread is shitposting

>>49246784

Particularly if you are not offering a system that have overlapping use cases with D&D as a tabletop RPG

>>49246775
None of the mechanics you mentioned deal with creating a unique feel.

They can make something feel like a level 6 striker, but not "the fears if the dark made manifest" or "a living spell" or "the god of lightning's hunting pet".

Those things should not be mechanics you can just take a name on or off of.

>>49225165
>It's charm, illusion and disease, and there's a lot of easy ways to rack up defenses against those.

Keyword-specific defense bonuses are rare.

>>49226137
Int warlords have dildoes for Will, Anon.

>>49247312

You sounds like someone telling me to not crack something open to make a better version of it.

I can literally smell the sutures, that hacking together was how the thing was made.

To know the divine is to be divine, and what better knowledge is there then the knowledge needed to create?

>>49247343
>Int warlords

There's your problem

File: 1470384422992.gif (140KB, 379x440px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 379x440px

>>49247753
>Int warlords
>Bad

>>49247774

>Playing anything but Bravura all day erryday

>>49247393
No. All that's good.
I'm saying the ethos 4e embraced and described of 'take a stat block and refluff it' is only a half measure.
You need to do more if it's going to be a special and flavorful encounter. While GMs developer a skill at building this things up, a publisher can and should also provide examples, or ones a newer or busy gm can pick up and us.

Not many things in 4e felt this way by their mechanics. They felt like things you could refluff at ease.
And while sometimes that's what you want as a reader, it shouldn't be the only thing in the publisher puts out.

>>49222213
Weak. Old school meenlocks were some of my favorite monsters.

>>49247987

Sounds like you are complaining about something that it stastified by monster stat blocks existing in vast quanties that do something unique.

That can be done by writing good stat blocks and description, which is not related to having the tools you use to get the math right being open to the public.

>>49247312
>"the fears if the dark made manifest" or "a living spell" or "the god of lightning's hunting pet".
That's all literally fluff you can add onto anything. And fluff has exactly bugger all to do with levels, which is what that particular line of conversation was about

>>49247987
>You need to do more if it's going to be a special and flavorful encounter.

DMG 2 and later MMs deal with this by adding a bunch of monster templates you can add to your "generic" monsters. I think being a shadow creature and living spell are actually templates (although I usually just brew my own anyway, it's not hard).

File: 1470456782089.jpg (239KB, 386x1180px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 386x1180px

Has anyone here actually PLAYED 4e?

Dominates will totally fuck up any party, period.

>>49255476
Only if your party is made of scrubs. I usually need at least four or five monsters that dominate at the same time before the party I DM for has an actual difficult time.

Otherwise between high defences, interrupts that boost defences or redirect the strikes, reactions that allows additional saves, invisibilities, and the ability to stun or incapacitate the PC that get actually dominated they rarely would be in danger.

>>49255476
Domination does wreck groups. That's why you make sure you lock down and kill any casters first and foremost (that is true for any edition). And yes, I have played. Played somewhere around 2 years and then had a smaller few month campaign a while back (last year).

>>49242855
So you're saying that to make the same creature relevant in different ways at different points in the campaign, you have to completely rewrite its stat block up to five times.

Funny how bounded accuracy does exactly the same thing without all the work. But go on, enjoy your pointless numbers inflation.

File: 1461284905028.gif (243KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 640x360px

>>49255704
Any party that stands a chance against a bunch of dominating monsters will totally curbstomp "regular" monsters.

>>49255704
>stun or incapacitate the PC that get actually dominated
>using actions for that
That's dumb. You're dumb.

>>49256094
Being able to shred debuffs doesn't mean you'll be able to shred everything.

That said, dominate is the nastiest, unfunnest shit, and should be handled with a lot more care than it is/was.

>>49255476
Dominates will fuck your party, but only if your leader doesn't have the ability to throw saving throws around like candy

That said, in a 4e PvP scenario (which should always be avoided), entrancing mystic warlocks will keep their chosen target dominated forever

>>49256076
>you have to completely rewrite its stat block up to five times.

Yeah man, addition is SO much work. Like who has time to look at a formula that fits on a business card?

>>49229121
>Never played 4E

>>49258735
Reading comprehension, Anon. Try it some time. We were talking about the bizarre relativity of stat blocks and how a lower-level elite is the same creature as a high-level minion, not just mindlessly changing a monster's level to match the PCs

>>49258984
>>49242601
That's entirely what 4e was going for. They make it clear from the get-go that the PCs are invincible superheroes who don't even play by the same rules as anyone else in the world. It's practically impossible to die, and the expected ending of any campaign is to kill at least one god and become some kind of mega-powerful immortal. Which is surprisingly easy, because the gods that were statted in 4e kind of suck.

>>49259435
>We were talking about the bizarre relativity of stat blocks and how a lower-level elite is the same creature as a high-level minion, not just mindlessly changing a monster's level to match the PCs

You know it's not much harder to change a monster from an elite to a solo or from an elite to a minion, right? The only thing that isn't on that card's formula for that purpose is damage expressions and any effects you want the monster to deliver.

>They make it clear from the get-go that the PCs are invincible superheroes who don't even play by the same rules as anyone else in the world. It's practically impossible to die

It's harder to die than in 3.5 but 'practically impossible' is straight bullshit. Try playing a Dark Sun 4e game sometime. Post MM3 monsters knock you to the floor in four hits, the desert eats surges like candy on top of the ones you spend to survive combat, etc.

>>49259435
Not the same guy, but honestly the way you're writing that does seem like you haven't played 4e

4e monsters tend to hit HARD from high heroic levels up until the end of Paragon, and harder still at Epic (although you tend to have ED features that counteract it at those levels). Unless you're a defender, chances are you're going down in 4 hits against standard monsters, 3 hits to an elite or 2 hits to a lurker, and since a downed target is "helpless", if a monster really wants your character dead, they will straight up kill you

>>49259435
>Local man proves beyond a doubt he has never touched 4e
>It's practically impossible to die
Look at the OP image, a monster that will fuck your shit up in a flash.

>>49259594
There's a bit more than that

Elites have higher health, but also tend to have harder hitting attacks, better recharge powers and often have action points.

Minions meanwhile tend to lack any sort of attack beyond basic attacks, and have higher defenses to offset their lack of health

>>49259681
>There's a bit more than that
>Elites have higher health, but also tend to have harder hitting attacks, better recharge powers and often have action points

Which is why I said the card didn't have damage expressions and effects, but fair enough, I should have clarified. 'effects beyond basic attacks' would have been better of me. I apologize.

>>49250215
>which is not related to having the tools you use to get the math right being open to the public.
I'd say they are related as they are the two things you need have GMs able to provide a number of satisfying encounters from your books.
They provided one half, but were missing the other half.

>>49253404
My last 4e campaign stopped a bit before MM3, so I can believe this, but it very much was a problem with the game.

I liked 4e, partly because turn/grid based strategy rpgs are my fucking bag, but I felt it had some issues.
Too often I'd find people I talked to acting like pointing out those problems was 'not getting the system' or saying '3.x was just as bad or worse', which missed the point.

I'm glad that they did get around to addressing those things, and a bit sad that 4e ended so soon, but the game and the monster design in particular, had problems during the early stages.

>>49259700
There are problems with 4e, but it's rare that I see its actual flaws that lasted beyond MM3 pointed out

Beyond skill challenges, but everyone hates skill challenges

>>49259700
>but the game and the monster design in particular, had problems during the early stages.

I don't think anyone can argue against this in good faith. What I personally argue is that they fixed most of it in later releases, which is true.

>>49259733
>>49259739
thinking about it in more detail, after MM3 people were a lot more willing to admit that it fixed things.

The problem was when complaining about it before MM3, a fair number of people refused to admit there were problems that needed to be fixed.

The only 'problem' is still point out, which isn't really a problem, is the 4e is well designed for a particular type of game experience. Which is true for most games I like, and picking the right system for the right type of play is important.
I feel because of how finally tuned 4e is for it's type of play, it's a harder to adapt out of it, but that's not really a 'problem'. Looser systems tend not to be as good at any type of game as more specific systems are for the type of game they are for.

>>49246666
>But if you want it to be something interesting and feel like the thing you are describing, it can't just be a name that can be slapped onto a set of mechanics, or a set of mechanics that you can slap a name on.
What else can it be?

>>49259930
>The problem was when complaining about it before MM3, a fair number of people refused to admit there were problems that needed to be fixed.

I can't really support or deny this because I didn't get into 4e until after the MM3 came out, but it sounds true considering how fans of any game will act.

>>49260005
a set of mechanics that reflect a specific set of abilities and action that even if you just had those with no name or fluff, you'd get a very clear idea of what it was.

and before you say it that not "a set of mechanics you can slap a name onto", it's a set of mechanics that by themselves suggest a name and fluff.

>>49260005
A name and a set of mechanics that clearly have something to do with each other. If you separated the names of a bunch of creatures and the rules for them and scrambled them up, somebody else should be able to match each name with each stat block. That doesn't happen in 4e, with every monster (and PC, for that matter) using the same four or five templated mechanics in a completely forgettable, interchangeable, and sometimes nonsensical fashion.

>>49259660
Look at the rest of the comments, people who have actually played against creatures like that and mowed over them because the rules for disease, domination, and attacks/defenses are all skewed way too far in favor of the PCs.

>>49260092
Pretty much everyone was recommending "Halve monster HP, double the damage" or "Double all damage, PC and monster" as house rules from early on

>>49260189

Actually the majority of the comments are about how the creature in question isn't overpowered. Meenlocks are certainly dangerous because there WILL be a low-Will defense party member in your party. But they aren't some unstoppable rape machine, either.

>>49260167
>with every monster (and PC, for that matter) using the same four or five templated mechanics in a completely forgettable, interchangeable, and sometimes nonsensical fashion.

Classes with the same power source don't have the same mechanics before you even get to their powers, let alone the same role.

Which is why the ranger is an amazing striker and the vampire is a shitty one.

>>49260212
no, some people said that, others said that was terrible ideas.

MM3 proved it was actually wasn't the idea, and the solution was more nuanced. Balancing out attack and defense bonuses, etc.

>>49259594

>Try playing a Dark Sun 4e game sometime.

That's like saying you want to eat crab so you instead eat processed fish sticks.

>>49260381

>Dark Sun 4e
>Bad

Nigga it was the most faithful adaption of the setting WOTC has ever produced. Which, granted, isn't saying much.

>>49260403

I may have been some of the best sauce made for 4e, but in the end it was still spread on a steaming log of shit.

It doesn't matter how good it was, as 4e will be 4e.

>>49260430

You gonna add an argument to that opinion, or...?

>>49260403
It's saying nothing, if I remember correctly. Wizards never really tried to adapt it to 3e. They did their best, but 4e and Dark Sun just share too few basic assumptions.

>>49260450

It's 4e.

File: 1473367027099.jpg (79KB, 831x445px)

79KB, 831x445px

>>49222213

>>49260472
Look at the salty little boy who burst into tears when he couldn't act out his power fantasy and have infinite CLW wands

>>49260495
I'm getting really sick of reporting you five times a day.

File: BQqowsu.jpg (17KB, 720x533px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 720x533px

>>49260472

>>49260453

They attempted a lot of articles on the old website to convert it to 3.5 IIRC.

> They did their best, but 4e and Dark Sun just share too few basic assumptions.

Pretty much the only thing that doesn't fit is the dragonborn to dray conversion. Inherent bonuses changes magic items into things that happen only sparingly, no metal works fine, the defiling rules pretty accurately portray how fucking evil defiling is, the super deadly environment is accurately portrayed, plus all that primordial/elemental stuff fits Dark Sun like a glove.

>be new to tabletop
>play 5e as my first real ttrpg
>make a stealthy dex man with stealth proficiency
>get a low roll on a stealth check
>GM makes me choke on his cock

>move on from 5e to a system where abilities are raised point-by-point instead of being a yes/no checkbox
>make another stealthy man, use chargen points to raise stealth really abnormally high
>roll low on a stealth check
>I still succeed because I'm a stealth master
what the fuck I hate bounded accuracy now

>>49260547
>Pretty much the only thing that doesn't fit is the dragonborn to dray conversion
I didn't mind that because Dray were a thing, though they weren't as common.

I was a little annoyed at them having Tieflings, but they're very easily removed.

>>49260588
>makes rolls not matter
>having someone roll when the result of the roll doesn't matter

>>49260627
>I didn't mind that because Dray were a thing, though they weren't as common.

It's an aesthetic thing for me. Dragonborn look too...put-together. Like they're natural, noble things, instead of fucked up wizard dickery.

>>49256076
>you have to completely rewrite its stat block
Yes, you do. It takes about five minutes.

>>49260627
>>having someone roll when the result of the roll doesn't matter
5% to succeed or 5% to fail are not "roll doesn't matter"

>>49260588
Um, both 4e and 5e have all-or-nothing training/proficiency.

>>49260683
I wasn't talking about 4e.
>>49260627
>makes rolls not matter
>having someone roll when the result of the roll doesn't matter
I'd take this any day of the week over my "stealthy" rogue being a pigeon-toed chump. Also >>49260672

>>49260672
it is. 5e doesn't have autosuccess or autofailure on 20/1 for skill rolls. It tells you not to have them roll unless there is a chance to fail/succeed based on the die roll.

>>49260729
>my "stealthy" rogue being a pigeon-toed chump.
if it wasn't a situation where it should have been difficult or risky, the GM shouldn't have had you roll.
If it's difficult or risky, there is a chance you fail if you roll bad.

>>49260547
Inherent bonuses are an embarrassingly obvious patch, defiling does almost nothing and preserving is trivially easy, themes and the rules for "fragile" items just plain don't do what they're supposed to, the abstracted supplies takes away the survival emphasis and just plain doesn't make sense for a lot of races, and the whole thing still feels like an MMO.

>>49260765
Yeah, and the other anon mentioned rolling low, not rolling a nat1. Hence assumption that the roll didn't matter has no real basis.

>>49260811
he said he succeeded anyways in the 'other system', so the roll didn't matter in the other system.
That was my basis.

>>49222213
>tfw still playing 3.5/75

>>49260804
>the whole thing still feels like an MMO
Nice job sending your own post to the trash pile with memery

>>49260804
>Inherent bonuses are an embarrassingly obvious patch,

I don't see what's wrong with this considering that they work.

>defiling does almost nothing

A healing surge in damage to every ally within 20 squares that cannot be reduced or immune'd in any way in a game where you're already scrambling for surges is not 'nothing'. If anything it's incentive for players to want to kill any defiler in the party beyond the obvious.

>preserving is trivially easy

True

>themes and the rules for "fragile" items just plain don't do what they're supposed to

The only problem themes have is that min-maxers will chose what gives them the best bonuses as opposed to what's appropriate for their character, but that's a player problem, not a system problem.

Fragile items don't break things often enough.

> the abstracted supplies takes away the survival emphasis

Untrue, emphasis shifts from tracking every ration to finding a safe place to sleep and avoiding environmental hazards/monster fights that will kill you before you can rest.

>the whole thing still feels like an MMO.

Buzzwords.

>>49260897
I think he was referring to how arcane defiling gives a very weak benefit compared to its cost

>>49261037
Ah, in that case he's right. The free reroll thing is awesome but not awesome compared to the toll it takes on your party (at least it doesn't unless you take PP paths, feats, and the Dragon King ED)

>>49261115
And it means you're just not going to have anybody playing an arcane caster unless they love getting shat on by NPCs and other players alike. In previous editions arcane magic did things no other classes could do and so there was a temptation to be an arcane caster despite the risks and social stigma, but in 4e every party role can be filled just as easily by a non-arcane character.

>>49261278
>And it means you're just not going to have anybody playing an arcane caster unless they love getting shat on by NPCs and other players alike.

Which is how Dark Sun should be.

>>49261325
Dark Sun should be "Oh, man, magic in this low-magic setting would be so useful! Do I dare to ride the line and try to conceal my incredible cosmic power?"

In 4e there's no incentive. There's no temptation. Absolutely everything an arcane class can do, a divine or psionic or even martial class can do just as well. Half of the equation is gone.

>>49261400

Not quite true.
Arcane classes are the only ones that have the potential to be Sorcerer Kings (though I'm miffed they don't have a psionic requirement) and the 4e arcane classes are the absolute best at dealing with a multitude of enemies and laying on tons of wonky status effects (a lot of them unique to certain spells). They were best at summoning before druids came along.

I'm getting off track. Point is, arcane casters get shit on for being defilers because defiling is fucking evil, so if they don't conceal it, they get stoned. Mechanically, no, they're not automatically better than everyone else, which is a good thing for the game as a whole. If that was the only reason a player would make a defiler your game's better off not having that defiler (and probably that player) in the first place.

File: I don't like thing.png (298KB, 500x628px)

298KB, 500x628px

>>49225534
Why argue against you? There's literally no point. You'll keep your wrong opinion to the grave and continue to scream about it until the day you die. You got exactly the response your post warranted.

TL;DR, see image.

>>49222213
One of my dads friends created the original Meenlock that was in the first Fiend Folio.

>>49260513

Then stop posting stupid shit that's only relevant to WotC era D&D.

>>49237894
>millennials
Millennials are people that came of age within a few years the year 2000. Most millennials are in their thirties. If you're going to gripe about 'kids these days', at least try not to fuck THAT up.

>>49259435
>invincible superheroes
I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the exaggeration.

>>49265342
It's just plain wrong.
A random fucking town guard is a level 3 soldier in 4E. Orcs go from, again, level 3 all the way to 8.
A party that isn't quite ready for those level and equipment-wise will be chewed up and spat out

>>49261400
If you take it into epic, the Avangion and Dragon King epic destinies are really, really good. Avangion in particular is probably the best leader epic destiny in the game

>>49225534
*sure

>>49267091
I'm sure that town guard has plenty of experience in bringing criminals to justice, throwing them in prison, or striking them dead in the street.

>>49260804
Yeah, it sure does feel like an MMO.

>Fucktons of classes, some of which are useless
>Fucktons of spells, many of which are useless
>Entire megabytes of pages devoted to builds that outstrip everything
>A mountain of splatbooks
>Tons upon tons of skills that grant synergy bonuses
>Crafting is required to get the best weapons in the game (and crafting is borked)
>Having to track tons of content all at once
>Metric tons of loot from everything you kill
Hang on that's 3e

>>49259700

Then just say that 4e had shitty monster designs.

Besides Strike!, are there any other knock off games of 4e?

>>49273414
OP as fuck

>>49273238
Unchained heroes is sorta 4e like (although it tries to sell itself as a PF supplement).

13th Age sort advertises itself as such, but it guts the tactical movement.

4e has exploding skeletons, your argument is invalid.

>>49273506
Those things were awesome to pull on parties! Used them once and every time thereafter they dove for cover when they killed the undead.

>>49260513
because you're not realizing you are reporting different people and as such your reports are getting dismissed, faggot