The only well designed D&D-esque games are 1e, the various

>>49699715
You forgot Rules Cyclopedia

>>49699715
Well, you're not wrong...

>>49699715
>LotFP
>not dogshit

Choose one.

>>49699715
>the various OSR variations like LotFP
So every single OSR variation is well designed
good opinion there

>>49699715
If by 1e you mean AD&D 1e then you are mistaken.

Also, calling 5e well designed might be overselling. it's better than 1e, 2e, or 3.5 but it's so conservative in it's design it's more "not actively bad" than it is "good." There's so much that they could have done better and they just didn't try, and I know why they didn't try, but it's still a shame. There's just so much room for improvement.

File: 1355683654676.jpg (126KB, 1224x552px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1224x552px

>>49699715
>OSR variations

What the hell do you mean by this? OSR games are based on every iteration of the system. Some are even straight up clones.

Also, 1e is a bloated mess and you clearly haven't read B/X. Please shitpost elsewhere

>>49699715
Ooh, troll thread!

4e was great and people stopped playing it because they were brain-washed and not for any fault of it's own!

>>49700507

LOTFP is just B/X with a little change with the "thief" and something to make the fighter feel special.

You can play LOTFP without the stupidly-edgy modules, ya know.

At least he's not saying 3e/3.5e/PF is any good.

>>49699715
And the Little Brown Books, and B/X, and Blue Holmes, and BECMI.

(For OSR, a fucking lot more than LotFP, which is indeed good)

>>49699715
I used to think 5e was good too anon. Now it's glaring flaws are stupidly obvious. STR is more or less irrelevant, bounded accuracy is boring, and they essentially forgot the lessons learned about how races should be done from 4e.

>>49701420
Please expound on this some more?

>>49699715
>no 2e
Right into the bin.

>>49701420
>STR is more or less irrelevant
What? Magic items aside, STR fighters are king of combat.

>>49699715
Why play DnD when you can play something different?

>>49700852
...are there OSRs of 3e and 4e?

>>49701200
Off-topic but what are some good LotFP modules? The only bad thing I've ever heard about the system is the edgy modules.

>>49701747
The only thing edgy about Qelong are the Myrmidons, monsters that eat human women and rape human men to reproduce. Aside from that it's a pretty good hexcrawl.

>>49701447
>alignment languages and THAC0
>good system

pick one

>>49701783
That doesn't strike me as feasible at all, unless they're female.

>>49702124
Myrmidons are basically low-rent Xenomorphs, except the facehugger gets shoved up a dude's ass, and converts that dude into an adult Myrmidon from the inside out.

>>49701693
Fantasy Craft and Strike!, respectively

>>49701693
Not old school but I'd say Pathfinder for 3e and 13th Age for 4e. Even though the latter does a lot of things different it still seems to be in the spirit of how things are done.
I also love its living dungeons and how they were inspired by the Gygaxian underworld for those.

>>49702347
PF isn't good.

>>49700507
Wow. 1d4chan does not like LotFP which I've never played.
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Lamentations_of_the_Flame_Princess

>>49701821
>alignment languages
Shit. I suppressed this memory. Why did they ever do that? I don't know anyone who ever used that.

>>49702371
I never actually played Pathfinder, only retroclones and 4e/5e/13th Age.

>>49701821
Alignment languages aren't in 2e.

File: 1354005829048.png (119KB, 269x272px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 269x272px

I enjoyed 3.5 and PF. Sue me.

>>49702866
It's fine. Most of the stuff people complain about is high level stuff that 90% of games never reach.

The rest is usually taken of by the campaign itself.

>>49701451
Not just playing DEX char because you can add DEX to dmg.

Are you even trying?

>>49701747

Tower of the Stargazer is probably the most well-liked by reputation. Better Than Any Man is a huge, free, open-ended adventure. It's definitely worth downloading, even if only to take pieces of it out for other games. There are a few self-contained dungeons

>>49702454

Roll20's Old School Adventures campaign got a lot of mileage out of mocking the ridiculousness of "chaos hand gestures" as a form of communication.

>>49702892
>>49702866

It's perfectly easy to get a workable flow from 3.5 as long as players are well aware of limitations and such.

Like if casters are just throwing out blastey spells and not glitterdust or grease it's fine? And if players are a-okay with martials just full attacking/charging every round then that's also fine.

The issue I kinda keep coming back to though is that it makes tweaking or playing with the game outside of those parameters... kinda fuckey. Because I have no idea if what I'm doing is gonna make an encounter unwinnable or not and there's always the concern of the player finding a stupid loophole that makes him trivialize an encounter and having to talk about it afterwards.

Which is fine if it happens once maybe twice but if it becomes a continuous affair of me having to talk to people OOC that they need to stop doing something, even if they suddenly get really invested in it, then it really does start to feel like the system is actually getting in the way of the fun we can be having.

Basically: designing encounters in 3.5 is kind of a nightmare. And by that I mean: an encounter where you need to provide a real threat and not just a pretense that rocks will fall if you start fucking with me.

>>49702400
It doesn't even talk about the system. It's just some butthurt anon bitching about Raggi and saying his system is bad because anon doesn't like him.

>>49702454
If you only played 2e and later you didn't suppress anything; they aren't there.

>>49702371
>opinions
>because I'm incapable of adopting house rules or playing with good folks at my table

Every. Fucking. Time.

Good thread, op, good thread you fuck.

>>49704636
Sure, if you like Stockholm Syndrome.

>>49699715
>the various OSR variations like LotFP
Sweeping generalization, therefore necessarily wrong.

>5e
Depends on your definition of "well designed".
It does fulfill its design goal of being so aggressively mediocre that nobody can take immediate offense to it, but as far as the actual "game" part goes, it is designed very far from well.

Is there really anyone who gives a fuck anymore?

Chainmail + OD&D is very ballin', and has something like four different combat resolution systems. Only problem is that they don't all cover every extreme.

>>49705485
As far as RPGs are concerned, "won't burst into flames and die on its own" is automatically the best an RPG gets in objective terms.

>>49705545
Evidently.

>>49701451
Nah. Rapiers are 1d8 weapons. All finesse weapons add dexterity to damage, as do ranged weapons. You could argue that polearm STR users who get their hands on Polearm Mastery are pretty good, but if you're going for a feat a dex combatant is still going to outclass you using Sharpshooter, which is effectively fucking broken, and they're still going to be very powerful in melee.

The only benefit to STR is... I guess two-handed weapons? But comparatively they're just not as good as they used to be. There are also shit all for STR saves and skills, compared to DEX, which is now king.

>>49701420
What do you mean about "How races should be done"?

>>49705696
The other benefit to strength is using barbarian rages and that juicy barbarian capstone

>>49705696

I'm seriously, seriously not seeing how polearm and great weapon fighters are outclassed by jack shit.

>>49705727
He probably means +2 this, +2 this or that. As is, 5e subraces have an ugly tendency to be one trick ponies.

>>49705559
>As far as RPGs are concerned, "won't burst into flames and die on its own" is automatically the best an RPG gets in objective terms.

No "system's mechanics support game's premise" is a step above that several games have achieved.

>>49706329
That's a given for basically any edition of D&D except 3e so I didn't bother mentioning it.

>>49706341
Er, no. 5e definitely failed. 4e is wonky at best. No idea about pre-3e.

>>49706308
But that matters less in 5e thanks to the hard stat cap

>>49706413
>But that matters less in 5e thanks to the hard stat cap

Well, you're doubly fucked over: one by picking a race that is inherently inferior to feat-humans (starting 4 levels behind), and one by being another 4 levels behind by having ill fitting stats.

So its a pretty big disadvantage, and unlike 4e, there's no attempt to make ill fitting classes work.

>>49706533
And yet a 5e dwarf monk is still in a much better place than a 4e dwarf monk

Hell, in 5e, you can make a half-orc wizard work. No way in hell to do that in 4e

>>49700922
>people stopped playing
They did? theres a general always up, and you can still find games on roll20 tho

>>49706608
>And yet a 5e dwarf monk is still in a much better place than a 4e dwarf monk

Neither get a bonus to the main stat (DEX). They are the same amount of "worse off".

Except of course 4e monk is ahead in 5e monk in not being terrible.

>Hell, in 5e, you can make a half-orc wizard work. No way in hell to do that in 4e

Bladesinger.

>>49706608
This is just straight up wrong.
A lack of + 1 to hit wont break a character

If you still believe the to hit is god shit, i hate to break it to you but that was a meme.

>>49706358

>muh opinions
>I hate being wrong, so I won't state what I feel the premise of 5e is
>nor will I state how I feel it fails

>>49706639
Are you sure dex is the main stat for the monk?

>>49706717
5e has no premise. It was not designed with one in mind. It is about as schizophrenic as 3.5.

5e was not designed as a game. It was designed as a product to sell to people with widely differring tastes. As such, it only has the bare minimum functionality most people would expect of an RPG. Because if 5e was good at anything, i.e. it supported a particular premise, there would be people upset at it not being good at something/supporting a premise that they want it to, dividing the fanbase.

>>49699715
would you be so kind and elaborate on your criteria for well-designed?

>>49706762

>5e was not designed as a game.

False.

> It was designed as a product to sell to people with widely differring tastes.

True.

>As such, it only has the bare minimum functionality most people would expect of an RPG.

The absolute best an RPG can ever hope for is "bare minimum functionality" and the vast majority never reach that level. Don't know what to tell ya, though the fact that you know nothing of D&D before 3e shows you to have no real idea of what you're talking about to begin with.

5e's just plain D&D, ie S&S with the usual touches of Lovecraft, Hammer Horror, Greek & Christian myth, and so forth.

As you admit you don't like any form of D&D, you must come to terms that nothing could possibly have pleased you to begin with.

>>49706762
>lowest common denominator
this isn't bad by itself, it's just... mediocre. truth be told, i find D&D and its direct derivatives in general pretty mediocre. i mean it's not terrible but... if would have never guessed the game had that much of a lock on the market if someone just showed me the rules (under the asumption of me not knowing anything about D&D).

>>49706762
Could you elaborate more on your distaste of the system? Or does your loathing preclude that?

>>49706732
Yes? Basing it off of another stat in either game leads to your monk either never hitting and having low damage, or having pitiful AC.

>>49706817
D&D is only so popular because it's the only rpg with a decent amount of cultural penetration. It's better than most rpgs, especially in terms of production values, but better rpgs do exist, both generic (SW, GURPS, etc.) and setting specific (WoD, Shadowrun, shit-tons of others), it's just that they're aimed at very specific types of player, and D&D makes a half-decent compromise game that anyone can play.
RPGs in general are shit, though.

>>49706857
Are monks still MAD?

>>49706898
In 4e, no, in 5e, they have a bit low HP for a melee character, which means you'd probably be wise to pick up some extra CON if you can, but otherwise, no.

>>49699715
>and Fantasy Craft.
You were so close, ya dingus.

>Why do filthy casuals keep liking D&D all the time instead of my super special snowflake indie storygame/autistic OSR clone tactical simulator I found in the dark recesses of RPGdrivethrough?

>>49706915
>the only D&Ds not in OP's list are 2nd and 3rd edition derivatives

The 5e devs actually do listen to the players, see the revised UA ranger and their playtests have been more transparent than PF's.

>>49706925
And OD&D and the Basic line.

>>49706893
One reason for D&D's success that people overlook is really that it has actual guidelines for the DMs to follow, while nearly every RPG ever made just goes "meh, wing it bro!" Just compare the cancerous emptiness of X Storyteller's Guide of WW vs the tons and tons of useful stuff in the 1st edition AD&D DMG (or the 4e one, also good).

There is also the acquisition element, while less successful RPGs turn their nose off acquisition, awarding XP primarily for participation and items as a facet of the character.

Simple arrogance is the reason these other RPGs will never surpass D&D. They consider themselves too good for

>>49706659
It's -1 to hit, -1 to AC, -1 to reflex defense, makes it very difficult to quality for both of the important 4e wizard feats (enlarge spell and spell focus), and the feat support is terrible to the point of non-existant

>>49701747
Avoid anything made by Raggi like the plague, and know that anything by Zak S. is probably really amazing. Aside from that, it's around average.

>>49706945

Sure, it's not optimal for the mainline AoE blaster/controller wizard build.

But as I was saying in >>49706639 Half-orc is actually one of the most optimal races for the Bladesinger wizard.

>>49706639
No, they are not

A dwarf monk in 5e can have the same dex as an elf monk in 5e, it takes longer for them to get it, but once they get it they're in almost exactly the same position as the elf monk stat-wise

A dwarf monk in 4e will always be 2 points of dex behind the elf monk, and will never have the damage output or accuracy of the elf

>>49706967
Bladesingers are only wizard via a technicality. In practice they're further from a standard wizard than a swordmage is

>>49706963
Do people hate on him because they're fat wheezing autistic fucks and he gets to hang with porn stars?

>>49706974
Yet they could have used those stat boosts on, say, feats, so that's a huge fucking hit. Moreso when you remember how scarce feats are.

>>49707002
His content's good, his personality's shit.

>>49707025
But that's false

I mean, it's sort of true, but an elf monk also wants constitution, and will probably spend at least one "feat" on a constitution boost, and once that happens the elf and dwarf are totally even

Besides, there aren't many feats that are very good on monks, pretty much just mobile and alert

>>49706939
^ a bajillion times that.

People on /tg/ have usually been /tg/ing for so long they've completely lost touch with the world outside their hobby, and by extension, no longer have any memory of what was ever like not knowing how to /tg/. This causes them to constantly gloss over one of the very most important reasons for D&Ds popularity, which is simply: it makes a good, concentrated effort to appeal to newbies. The importance of stuff like that cannot be overstated, and one of the greatest examples is the DM Guide.

Think about it. People are always criticizing D&D of money grabbing by having a separate DM Guide because most other games make do with a single chapter (if at that), but that's exactly where the value is.

The D&D DM Guide is a few hundred pages of essentially NOTHING BUT advice for very new GMs. People who have not only never played before, but don't even have a concrete idea yet of what that ENTAILS. It sounds so trivial to /tg/, but it's really crucial stuff.

I don't recall any other system's DM Guide ever actually bothering to explain to me, for example, WHAT IS A CAMPAIGN. What's a munchkin and why is it bad? How is different from a Power Gamer? What do you do when someone disagrees on the rules with you? Is it "allowed" to make up things that aren't in the rules? Do you have to use miniatures?

Yeah, some give token advice, but since all they've got is, you know, one chapter, and the obvious unspoken assumption that the reader knows all this anyway, it tends to be really lackluster in comparison.

D&D assumes whoever is reading the books has literally never played an RPG in their lives, and they are written accordingly.

>>49707060
You claim experience but the real reason is that most of the consumer-base, including most people in this thread, are simply too stupid for many RPGs.

The authors chose to not write at several intelligence levels lower than their own, and fucked up from the get-go.

It's the reason my favorite RPG annoys the shit out of me, it was written to be understood by adult toddlers.

>>49707132

>most of the consumer-base... are simply too stupid

It is a poor shepherd who blames his flock.

>>49707060
>>49707132
What the fuck do you think /tg/ers are?
You're autistic manchildren.

File: 800px-Gombe_Stream_NP_Jungtier_fressend.jpg (275KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 800x1067px

>>49707132
>Psh, the ignorant masses of this world
>My genius is wasted upon their "jobs" and "education", truly I am a superior specimen, having mastered the GURPS supplements as I have

>>49707178
Toddlers and genuises alike hate GURPS.

>>49707060
>>49707132
>>49707173
>>49707178
>>49707208
That smug condescension. You be you.

>>49707178
Anon, only the pseudo-intelligent, like most of /tg/, think that jobs and education are wastes of their talent.

The really intelligent appear closer to Autists, because they're alienated by just how low they have to go to not seem arrogant to everyone else.

>>49707219
Projection.

>>49707178
>>49707234
They're certainly useless in the real world.

File: that'swrong.jpg (17KB, 244x207px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 244x207px

>>49707234
Truly intelligent people don't seem autistic, because intelligent people are well-adjusted human beings who are capable of feeling empathy (autists aren't) and predicting the actions of others. Since most autists are incapable of working, they are way closer to pseudo-intellectuals.

>>49706893
>Savage Worlds, WoD, and Shadowrun are all better than 5e
Your problem is simply shit taste.

>>49707292
You just defined intelligence as well-adjusted. That's a non-standard definition, but one based on perception. That's pretty accurate, but also you confused seeming autistic with being autistic.

People who are very intelligent are people who:
Effortlessly learn and retain information
Have a high amount of self-cultivation/knowledge
Make decisions competently and easily

They are not well-adjusted to western culture by default, because it views that level of competence as arrogance, meaning that they have to adapt other, negative characteristics to balance it out to be well-adjusted.

>writes medium length post
>accidentally closes tab

Eh, whatever, I'll just keep it short.

>>49706974
5e Dwarf is behind for the at least 12 levels. That is more than half the game, assuming you even get to, or play past 12.

If it's fine for half the game to be behind in damage/attack for the 5e dwarf, why do you think that the 4e dwarf being behind by 1 bonus point (in a game where bonuses are actually much, much easier to come by) is a big fucking deal?

>>49706985
Still wizard.

Honestly, the whole "well, unoptimal race+class combo in 5e works just as well as optimal race!" is pretty stupid, because
1. That's only true after 12
2. The methods they used to guarantee that have their own drawbacks
3. There's really no inherent value in having the ability for any race to play against type be a good thing, since you could easily argue that it diminishes the race's identity.


+1. In 4e you could easily just refluff your race as whatever anyway. In the monk's case, you could go with Dwarven soul revenant, and lose basically nothing, in the Orc's case, maybe some form of genasi to make muscle wizard.

>>49707345
>why do you think
Because in that game, the bonuses are much, much more important. While in 5e they keep everything "bounded" to where they can't be as important.

It might seem non-obvious, but if you look at the monster manual's it's readily apparent.

>>49707345
This is retarded. In 5e an "optimal" race takes a feat a "suboptimal" race takes an ASI

>>49707336
This negative perception is probably only relevant in America.

>>49707336
None of these traits, by themselves, would be considered "arrogance" by anyone, Western or not. Bragging about them would be seen as arrogant. Mocking people for lacking them would be seen as arrogant.

I'm beginning to think you yourself might be autistic, because you're showing a glaring lack of understanding of how people in general, not just society, think and work.

>>49707370
>None of these traits, by themselves, would be considered "arrogance" by anyone

But that's wrong, anon. You might not be very introspective or aware of your culture, but I'm not attacking you. You should let go of your defensiveness and projection.

If any single one of those traits was used to try and offer advice or help someone, they would, regardless of tone or situation, be considered arrogance in Western culture. The truly intelligent often counter-this with their particular adaptation, such as feigning humility.

>>49707390
>If any single one of those traits was used to try and offer advice or help someone, they would, regardless of tone or situation, be considered arrogance in Western culture. The truly intelligent often counter-this with their particular adaptation, such as feigning humility
The "adaptation" used by the truly intelligent to not appearing arrogant is not acting arrogantly, because the two things are completely separate. It's flabbergasting that you seem so completely incapable of imagining that.

The idea that highly intelligent people are somehow held back by it is literally just a sour grapes meme spread by people who aren't geniuses but are incompetent enough all around to feel they have nothing else to go by. Someone who is truly spectacularly intelligent, unless they're ALSO autistic or otherwise specifically impaired, will 99% of the time be socially savvy.

>>49707353
A +1 is a +1, bound accuracy or no. Bound accuracy only means that the upper limit is lower on both the attack and defense sides, not that somehow a +1 is more or less important on a d20. Both editions scale your attacks, but in 4e your scaling is +1 every 2 levels, in 5e it's +1 every 4.

If anything, because of the bonuses being so hard to come by in 5e, having 1 less in there is comparatively worse, since it is a larger piece of your to hit than in 4e.

>>49707363
Yes, at 12, 16 an 20. Until then, the optimal race is ahead.

>>49699715
Design is irrelevant. RPGs are about having fun. 2e has the most fun to offer, and is therefore objectively superior.

>>49707345
The point is that it happens at all

If you're starting at level 12 or later, or rolling for stats and get a random 18, you can pair practically any race with any class with almost no downsides. It's far more flexible than racial choice in 4e, where picking a race that receives a bonus to only your classes primary stat, and not their secondary, is a risky move. (humans being the exception)

>>49707424
>The "adaptation" used by the truly intelligent to not appearing arrogant is not acting arrogantly.

Well, not exactly, anon. It's more than not acting arrogantly, it's intentionally changing their behavior in a way that distracts from the default, perceived arrogance. More of a counter-behavior.

You're right, in order to accomplish that they have to be socially savvy. Although I won't throw around fake statistics as I have traveled and met a lot more people than the average person and find it funny.

>>49707440
I don't think you understand anything outside combat numbers.

>>49707440
Anon, the monsters are designed for bound accuracy in one, and not in the other. Meaning, literally, the +1 =/= +1.

It's far more important because encounter design assumes it in 4e.

Is that where your confusion is?

>>49707458
Or you could ... pick a fitting race and not suffer the loss of three fucking feats.

>>49707472
>as I have traveled and met a lot more people than the average person and find it funny.
You're literally doing the exact same thing as pulling stats out of your ass and shitting into a paper bag and lighting it on fire.

File: 442787dc307f784797ff1b612ffae53d6e0c88d2_hq.jpg (65KB, 797x443px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 797x443px

>>49702866
Still in the cave, are you?

>>49707458
Sure, I'll easily concede that if you play above level 12, or roll stats and roll into an 18, race choice is less important in 5e than 4e.

>>49707481
That's basically a non-argument could be made for both games.

>>49707484
Explain how that makes sense. In 4e monster defenses scale at the same rate as player attacks (and vice versa). In 5e, monster defenses are all over the place.

This somehow means +1 != +1 in 4e.

How?

>>49707336
Arrogance is seen as ok if you have money. Being intelligent gets you money. I mean genuinely intelligent, not like all the retards here who thin they're a genius.

>>49707506
Except you don't lose feats, because even the optimal races will be taking at least some stat boosts to other stats aside from the main one for their class. An elf barbarian gives up a feat to get more strength, a half orc barbarian gives up a feat to get more dexterity

>>49707548
Maybe at really high levels (16-20). Barb feat is way more likely to go into GWM than into dex.

>>49707548
First you're losing out by not selecting a human's free floating +1/+1.
Then you're losing out by missing out on the level 1 feat.
Then you're having to burn feats to make up for the fact you picked something stupid.

>>49707507
>one guy pretends like his random iea is true 99% of the time
>the other literally says he won't make up a number
>"you're pulling stats out of your ass"
Hahahahaha!

>>49707520
>Explain how this makes sense
Okay. As a reminder, the starting argument is that +1 in a game where the +1 is needed to stay viable and use your Daily/Encounter powers effectively against enemies who constantly scale their defense (their target number or TN keeps going up) is of different importance than in a game where the enemies TN stays relatively constant through all 20 levels.

Imagine you have a game of Fate, and a game of 5e DnD. You get a +1 to your roll. In 5e, let's say this increases your chance to hit from 50% to 55%. In Fate, this can be up to 4x that change.

>>49707591
Fate has different dice rolling mechanics entirely, which is the source of a +1 meaning more there.

In 4e, your attack scales with monster defense. Both of you get +1/+1 to your attack/defense every two levels. The +5% is always going to stay a +5%.

>>49707590
Well, ok, but that's just because variant humans are bullshit good

>>49707532
Making money is surprisingly easy when you don't care how you do it.

>>49707591
You can get at least +1 with a feat -- an accurate weapon/implement.
On the other hand, for the "privilege" of playing a nonstandard race, you are giving up the level 1 feat you'd have as a human, plus your level 4 feat, plus your level 8 feat. That'd be the equivalent of giving up 5 feats by 4e standards.

>>49707602
Way to ignore half of the post.

You just answered your own question. The enemies literally scale up with you, meaning you need the +1 to stay at an even level with them.

In 5e, it's a 5%, but in 4e it's a -5% because your enemies moved up by 1, while you didn't, and the game assumes you keep up. In 5e, you don't have any daily powers to throw away.

>>49707612
I'm not a part of this weird feat response-chain with all the stupid assumptions.

>>49705768
DEX offers superior ranged combat, better skills that get used frequently, better AC for most classes, initiative, and a very common save. If you don't have feats, it's straight up better. If you do have feats, it's straight up better the majority of the time.

>Classes that must be played with DEX>STR or can ignore STR altogether
Wizard
Sorcerer
Warlock
Rogue
Monk

>Classes that strongly favor DEX vs STR unless you wish to limit your subclass opportunities-
Ranger
Bard
Cleric

>Classes that do equally well with DEX vs STR
Fighter
Paladin (Yes, seriously)

>Classes that favor higher STR to DEX while still benefitting from decent dexterity bonuses
Barbarian

Go ahead and join a new 5e game nowadays. Typically it's a rapierfest with grognard STR Paladins who don't like the idea of using a rapier, and the occasional barbarian. If polearm cheese is allowed, that sometimes happens. Strength is mostly a fluff choice, unfortunately.

File: mm3businessfront.gif (7KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 350x200px

>>49707639
>because your enemies moved up by 1, while you didn't

But you did! When they scale up 1, so do you!

Look, let me show you through an example (with numbers pulled out of my ass):

Level 1 PC +10 to attack, lvl 1 enemy 15 AC. Hit chance: 80%

Level 10 PC +19 to attack, lvl 10 enemy 24 AC. Hit chance: still 80%.

Now, let's lower your attack by 1, which is the result of having 1 less bonus in your attack.

Level 1 PC +9 to attack, lvl 1 enemy 15 AC. Hit chance: 75%

Level 10 PC +18 to attack, lvl 10 enemy 24 AC. Hit chance: still 75%.

The scaling on both sides means that the difference between your to-hit and his defense will be constant throughout the game. A -1 will be -1 and never more or less.

>>49707677
This reminds me of a funny time in Pathfinder where this exact guy and his dump-statted strength drowned because he couldn't swim in the freezing water after not being able to do a pull-up to get out from between the ice floe.

>>49699715
>4e
>good

>>49707721
How in the fuck does a level 1 PC have +10 to attack?

>>49707744
A 20 strength fighter with the unseelie agent theme will have +10 to attack rolls

+5 from strength, +3 from proficiency, +1 from weapon talent class feature, +1 from shadow-wrought weapon

>>49700922
That's the truth tho.

>>49707802
No it isn't, they either never started playing it, or stopped playing it because they want to play the new edition that's going to get new material, instead of the old one that never will

>>49706945
Most 4e classes have competency baked in. Specially the wizard, who is the best controller class hands down.

-1 to ac and attack COMPARED to an uber optimal tace wont make or break a build

>>49707729
This consequence of minmaxing pleases me.

>>49707817
Actually, most people just went back to 3.5. The truth really hurts.

>>49707729
The worse you can dump a stat in 5e (barring rolling) is 8. This means that the person who dumps str has 5% less chance to get out of freezing water than a common human.

A dire flaw indeed.

>>49707884
Usually people compare characters and not common humans.

>>49707882
Actually, that's the same as going to the edition that gets new material, instead of the one that never will.

>>49707353
>Because in that game, the bonuses are much, much more important.

Not really. You fell for the "in 4e +1 to hit is god!!!" Meme.

>>49707677
>If you do have feats, it's straight up better the majority of the time.

You are always going to be better off with polearm mastery or great weapons if melee unless you want a dex race + dex class. Ranged chars excluded.

>>49707912
Meme? Anon, do you enjoy missing with your Daily and Encounter powers? +1 to hit is better than every single other thing you can possibly choose in it's place. That's enough for everyone to call it the most optimal option, and many even rightly call it "god."

>>49707939
>people still velieve thus 1d4 chan meme

The math has been fixed since mm3. All you need is a post racial bonuses 18 and expertise.

Go look at the top builds, almost none of them waste points going for 20.

>>49707907
If it's a secondary stat it's going to at best be at +2. So that's a 15% difference.

The STR dumping character also probably won't be wearing heavy armor.

>>49707939
The charop community agrees that +1 race is a good thing and better than not having a +1 race.

However, I have never seen +1 races marked as gold, nor have I seen races lacking that benefit marked worse than black.

>>49707986
...No?

The top builds are all 20 in the main stat, because they're the top builds, the most optimized.

post-racial 18 is good enough, but not the best

>>49707990
>nor have I seen races lacking that benefit marked worse than black.

Shit, I got my ratings confused, I meant purple.

>>49708018

Wrong. Plenty of them rely on feat support, instead a mere +2. Some of the toppest DPR builds are for the half elf, or revenant, in classes that don't use their racial stats.

+2 is nice, but plenty of races have good enough extra features that they're still top tier for a class. For the longest time dwarfs didn't have a +2 to str, but they were still top tier fighters. Eladrin have so much feat support that they're still considered great fighters, even better than some races that do have the +2 to str.

and even then, picking an unoptimized race isn't a big deal at all, power and feat selection are much more important.

>>49708084
The only optimal build I can think of that does not receive a racial bonus to its primary stat is the battlecrazed charging fighter, which is a gnoll build

>>49708147
>I can think
you know you can still find the 4e optimization board, right? And before charge optimization shit, half elf was the top dpr.

>>49701821
There is literally nothing wrong with alignment languages.

>>49708192
>There is literally nothing wrong with alignment languages.
This.
I never got why people had a beef with alignment languages. I always felt they were neat.

>>49708182
I can not find any examples of top DPR or nova builds that involve being a half elf, and then using something other than constitution, wisdom or charisma as your main attacking stat

>>49708234
Just look for the ones that support my opinions, it can't be that hard to find one.

>>49708253
the point of the argument was that the +2 to racial stat isn't as big of a deal as other racial features anyway.

What's with 4chan and focusing on the first sentence of the post instead of the post as a whole?

>>49706812
>The absolute best an RPG can ever hope for is "bare minimum functionality" and the vast majority never reach that level.
If that was true, there would be no reason to ever play anything but freeform. Apocalypse World and its good derivatives (so no Dungeon World), Ryuutama, Tenra Bansho Zero and Shinobigami go way beyond "bare minimum functionality".

>the fact that you know nothing of D&D before 3e shows you to have no real idea of what you're talking about to begin with
It is possible to have a working understanding of RPGs without having to know every single one of them. You comment before that implies that you yourself know nothing beyond D&D.

>5e's just plain D&D, ie S&S with the usual touches of Lovecraft, Hammer Horror, Greek & Christian myth, and so forth.
I.e. a schizophrenic mess that invalidates itself by trivializing sorcery and tossing the sword onto the scrap heap?

>As you admit you don't like any form of D&D
I did not. I happen to really like 4e, along with various OSR games and reimaginings of 3.5.

>>49706817
>this isn't bad by itself, it's just... mediocre
Precisely. And mediocre is not good.

>>49706833
Not particularly fond of reiterating my thoughts over and over, but here's the tl;dr:

>every lesson from 4e discarded
>everything interesting in the playtest discarded
>caster supremacy is back
>trap options are back
>meaningless token narrative support added

>>49708835
>every lesson from 4e discarded
So the format of he book is bad

>everything interesting in the playtest discarded
This is not true, but interesting things were scrapped

>caster supremacy is back
Sort of, and it never went away

>trap options are back
Completely false, and you are about to meme about the ranger next

>meaningless token narrative support added
So you kinda read the PHB and nothing else

>I like 1e
dumb nostalgia fags

>>49708918
>Sort of, and it never went away
4e

>Completely false, and you are about to meme about the ranger next
The Champion, whose sole purpose is damage, is easily outdamaged by the Battle Master.

>>49708959
Champion 17/Berserker 3 is the highest DPR build in the game isn't it?

>>49708966
Only sustained DPR.

Battlemaster has better burst DPR.

>>49708959
4e has caster supremacy.

Champion is not designed for anything but simplicity, Battlemaster is built for DPR.

>>49708959
Champion is not a trap even if what you are saying is true you mong

>>49699715
>4e

Just play a video game, dude.

>>49709032
Undoubtedly the strongest class in 4e is the fighter

It's the best combination of value in it's designated role, and flexibility with other roles. A fighter can be a single target defender, a multi-target defender, a striker or a controller, or any combination of the above. And they're still the best overall defenders in the game

>>49709041
I took Champion in one of my games and I regretted it because I never got to benefit from the increased crit range.

>>49709072
Combat has very little to do with caster supremacy and 5e needs a heavy hitter or else the mages are fucked.

>>49709084
This is the most retarded thing anyone has said in this thread.

My problem with 5e is that there is little variation between characters of the same class, even with archetypes. Feats are few and far between, and ASI is almost always the better choice, so there's little room for differentiation there. And with weapons, it's really either rapier for dexfags, a halberd/glaive (same thing lmao) for polearmfags, and a greatsword for GWMfags. The archetypes help make characters of the same class have differences, but even then you share so much of your kit.

I suppose my problem is just that I'm coming from Fantasy Craft, where you could make dozens of characters from the same class and have them all be substantially different, but to me 5e just seems boring and samey.

>throwing weapons in 5e
Very weak gimmick character or battle opener
>throwing weapons in my systemfu
Battlefield controllers, massive damage powerhouses, critical injury seeking debilitators, tank busters, angry monsoons of knives, ect

>>49704636
I mean, if you need to houserule the system into functionality, it's probably not good.

>>49709105
That's all champion gets until level 10 when it comes to combat.

>>49709119
That's because all the variability is in the spells

Which are arranged in alphabetical order instead of by level, or class, or school, or anything that would make sense.

>>49709119
It's ironic you bring up gimmick characters when your favorite system is Fantasy Craft.

>>49709149
And you just said "champion is a trap because I didn't roll a 19"

>>49709169
Champion is a trap unless you reliably roll 19s on your attack rolls.

>>49709160
Gimmick characters>the exact same as every other character

>>49709091
Okay, so how does caster supremacy manifest in 4e?

Also, why do you think casters can not hit heavy in 5e (see: sorclock, necromancer, or just shit like animate object)?

>>49709197
How do you not realize that this is a completely ridiculous thing to say?

And how is a champion fighter unplayable or unable to effectively fight?

>>49709316
>5% chance to benefit from your subclass of choice
>benefit from your subclass of choice whenever you want
Find the trap option.

>>49702321
If Fantasy Craft is an OSR of 3e, so is Pathfinder. The two came out at roughly the same time.

>>49709416
Except Pathfinder is shit and didn't fix anything.

>>49709239
Have you heard about roleplay? Of course all your characters are the same of you play them all the same, you fuckwit.

>>49708959
>>49708966
>>49708991
>>49709032
>DPR
>everything that's wrong with D&D (and much of its community) in a single abbreviation
Now, guys, that is really evocative of cinematic, epic combat, isn' it? Fucking cancer.
But, please, keep debating various builds more.

>>49709474
>Every single feature a class gets is combat related
>somehow we are supposed to debate the unique roleplaying opportunities it grants that it has a 19-20 crit.

>>49709474
Nothing wrong with debating the mechanics of a GAME man. Not every game has to be narrativistic. Stop treating what you like as the objective way RPGs have to be.

>>49709249
4e casters have additional utility materials dont have.

5e casters cannot hit heavy. Sorlock requires optimizing and burning sorcery points to meet a fighter or paladin, and the spells you list require a lot of narrative downsides and an open field (animate dead), or can be interrupted by a ranged attack and requires large objects hanging around.

>>49707917
I'm specifically referring to ranged combat, which is straight-up superior to melee by a longshot in 5e.

And again, without feats, Dex is simply straight up better. Trust me, I hate it too, but it's too obvious to ignore anymore. 5e had developed into a serious same-game in the community. I would argue even moreso than 4e. It has some cool concepts and clever ideas, but a lot of those are more common sense things that somebody should have thought of long ago than real improvements.

>>49709332
Ok, non of those have the necessary information to rule it a trap option. Where is the Vow of Poverty? Where is the intelligence damage? Where does the rules for the class not function whatsoever?

A fighter with no archetype isn't even a trap option, there is only better or worse choices.

>>49709455
Relax he just wants to have special abilities he can shout the name of as he attacks.

>>49709753
>4e casters have additional utility materials dont have.

Materials indeed don't have additional utility. However, I was wondering if casters had any additional utility compared to other classes, and what they were, in your opinion.

>Sorlock requires optimizing and burning sorcery points to meet a fighter or paladin,

It requires that a sorcerer takes 2 levels in warlock. Yes, it uses its class features to meet the output of other classes using their class features. I'm not sure how that invalidates it.

> and the spells you list require a lot of narrative downsides and an open field (animate dead),

Well, I was thinking I'd leave simulacra, wish and polymorph for later.

> or can be interrupted by a ranged attack and requires large objects hanging around.

I'd like to bring it to your attention that making a single large animate object is a markedly worse use of the spell than just animating daggers.

>>49709761
So you are bemoaning Sharpshooter. Just say you don't like Sharpshooter then.

>>49709753
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "utility"

Do you mean the out-of-combat utility powers casters never take? Do you mean rituals which anyone trained in arcana or religion can take with a feat?

>>49709808
There's more than that. outside of feats, DEX is straight up better than STR and used by EVERYONE because of the need to keep up with bounded accuracy versus AC rates.

>>49709084
If your rolls suck no class will save you.

>>49709994
Except Battlemaster lets you modify your attack rolls or damage rolls, so it will save you if your rolls suck.

And the rolls didn't suck, I just never landed a 19 specifically.

>>49710047
Not getting a 19 on your personal rolls is not a criticism.

>>49707677
That sounds pretty dire. Do you have any recommendations for houserules to mitigate this, or should I just think of including more STR saving throws?
What do you mean by "polearm cheese"? I love polearms.

>>49709988
>DEX is better than STR
Mostly true, since DEX is both offense and defense, while STR is only offensive. If STR provided some sort of soak (or ate CON), it would also serve as an offensive and defensive stat.

>Having to go DEX instead of STR to keep up.
Questionable. Plate + Shield gets you to 20 AC with similar investment to Breast (?) and Shield (15 STR vs. 14 DEX). Pure light armor doesn't get you there without chicanery.

Attack wise, given similar levels of optimization, STR puts out more damage with equal accuracy at the expense of range and target saturation. Comparing Sharpshooter ranged characters to non GWM melee characters is misleading.

DEX is a more important save than STR, but still marginal compared to WIS.

>>49710325
5% chance of a subclass yielding benefits is a criticism.

>>49710559
It's a bit weird considering 4e

Look at the daggermaster paragon path. Most notable for it's level 11 feature that gives an 18-20 crit range with daggers. It's usually considered the best rogue PP in the game, and pretty much only for that feature, it's powers are rather mediocre and the level 16 feature kind of sucks

The problem is not the 5% chance of a benefit, it's what the 5% chance of a benefit is compared to, not only from fighters, but from other classes as well

>>49710701
The other problem is that you are comparing a PP's benefit to what is essentially an entire subclass's worth of mechanics.

>>49710756
Well, champions also get an extra fighting style

which is... nice, but most of them don't stack too well

>>49709753
>have additional utility materials dont have
go ahead, elaborate. Because ritual casting is a feat, not exclusive to casters. And one of the complaints about 4e is that all powers (even utility ones) are all about combat.

>>49701508
Name an alternative D&D style game and I'll try it.
I'm sick of 5th edition and it's lack of tactics or customization.

>>49708192
>>49708225
>we speak a secret language that we know innately because we're nice guys who hate authority
>these other nice guys, the ones who don't love authority but don't hate it either? They can't understand our language. They do have their own innate secret language though.

If you don't understand why alignment languages are stupid, you probably have a sub-normal IQ.

>>49714073
try runequest 6 if you like tactical options.
if you need a shit ton of customization, i recommend GURPS fantasy.
otherwise, you may consider WFRP 1/2 for dark fantasy

>>49702765
I'm pretty sure that they are never knew anyone who used them but you know.

>>49714073
>>49715433
Better yet, play Classic Fantasy which is a supplement turning RuneQuest 6 into a AD&D like game.

>>49702958
>Not just using the same stat in strength so you can use a weapon with 2 max damage higher, AND have the highest AC in the party

The fuck are you going on about?

>>49700628
you may be right, i was REALLY hoping for an expansion pack or 12.

File: strike.png (86KB, 741x400px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 741x400px

>>49714073
Did somebody say they want tactics?

>>49718853
I will never understand why that tokusatsu RPG is being marketed as a generic RPG

>>49719018
It does do tokusatsu extremely well (along with mechs, magical girls and any "hidden power" genre), but I have used it for D&D-like and it also worked quite nice.

>>49718853
>>49719018
>>49719068
It should be called Shill!

>>49699715
The image in the OP is fucking hilarious in how utterly retarded he looks.

>>49719911
I missed you too brah :^)

>>49720446
It's from finding Dory

>>49700922
4e till death, only gets better with play.
Still the edition with the most template potential (in D&D).