Have we reached the point where we can admit 4e is the best

>>52053305

fantasy art has been complete garbage since the Kamigawa series ended

Bait thread, but I can't disagree other than to say that 4E is the best edition but part of the reason for that is that it is only tangentially DnD. If it had been released under a different name -- Final Fantasy Tactics: the Roleplaying Game, for instance -- it wouldn't have had anywhere near the backlash.

It was unique and different in a way that 5E completely turned around from by making Inoffensive Nostalgia the Game.

>>52053361
Let us not forget that WotC invited this backlash by insulting unhappy customers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azcn84IIDVg&t=76s

"You don't like 4th edition? Well that couldn't possibly be because you have legitimate complaints, you're just a troll. Here's a dragon taking a shit on a representation of you.

>>52053446
Oh, don't worry, I place almost the entirety of the blame on WizKids. Between marketing it as something it wasn't, outright insulting the fans who were confused by what they got, and then releasing a product after a murder-suicide had basically completely botched their entirely online tools. Oh, and then releasing Essentials to spit in the face of the people that were already happy with what they had gotten in a desperate attempt to court the same fans they'd spurned.

It's honestly kind of impressive that 4E managed to stay at the top of the market until they stopped publishing content.

>>52053305
Even though my group is currently playing 5e, I still recommend anyone wanting to DM to look at 4e's DMGs since they are probably the best ones I've ever seen even excluding the actual rules. Just the information on building worlds, crafting stories, handling rewards and punishments. Hell, I'm still using a modified form of the Parcel system, I use Skill Challenges for all sorts of things, I use a lot of the principals of 4e's Solo monsters when it comes time to build boss fights, and really a lot of 4e's general design for combat and exploration.

>>52053473
It was also kind of impressive to see WotC piss away a level of market dominance unseen since the original NES in a desperate attempt to re-invent the wheel.

Also this article's author is blowing smoke, in my experience Pathfinder is the most popular RPG in live streams and actual play by far.

>>52053305
Mutants and Masterminds is the best edition of DnD you mouth-breather

>>52053473
>and then releasing a product after a murder-suicide had basically completely botched their entirely online tools.

wut now

>>52053534
>market dominance
4E outsold Pathfinder as long as new books -- can't say for certain this continued with Essentials, but rather the rest of the core run and all of the Power books -- were being published. Don't let the memes confuse you. And this is in addition to the hilarious fistfuls of cash that WizKids were making off of DnD Insider which pretty much every group had at least one person with a subscription to.

>>52053576
The online tools that were going to launch with 4E -- think of it like roll20 before roll20 was around -- was part of a domestic murder-suicide that completely fucked up the release of said tools. Hence why even after 4E was replaced with 5E, we still haven't ever gotten the online mapping and the like. Other anons can probably explain it in more detail.

>>52053576
Come on, anon, are you this new? Basically, one of the big things about 4e (and why all abilities and feats had those mmo-sounding keywords) was how you'll be able to play at a virtual table on WoTC site.
Well, apparently they trusted creation of online tools to ONE person, who apparently had no oversight at all. He later killed his girlfriend and them himself, and since he was the only one to work on the project (and there were no backups or something), virtual table idea died.
All that exists of it is character generation, I think it's still on their site, but you need a subscription to use it.

It was far from the only flaw of the edition, but it's so over the top, it's a good sign of just how inept Wizards were at making 4e.

>>52053305
>Caring what Geek and Sundry thinks

>>52053615
That wasn't my experience. From what I saw at the time, Pathfinder was flying off the shelves while the same 4th edition books sat around collecting dust until they ended up in the bargain bin.

I think the strongest evidence that Pathfinder was slaughtering 4th ed in sales towards the end was D&D Essentials. It was literally a response to Pathfinder and an attempt to win back the players that had jumped ship.

You can't lay the blame for 4th edition's failure (Yes, it was a failure. Sorry the truth upsets you but the proof is in the pudding. 5th edition would have been based on 4th and not 3rd if 4th was as successful as you say) on a botched online tools launch.

>>52053305

There is no 'best edition'. Opinion and personal preference is a thing.

And I say this as someone who fucking loves 4e.

>>52053696
PIDF, go home.

>>52053696
>5th edition would have been based on 4th and not 3rd if 4th was as successful as you say
Which is why 3rd was a major change from the mechanics of 2nd? Which is why 4th was a major change from the mechanics of 3rd?

>>52053696

Except 4e was a financial success? Both from WotC's statements and market figures we have access to.

>>52053696

5th isn't based on 3e. 5th edition is based on Feeling like D&D. >>52053361 nailed it.

5e... It isn't a bad game, but it's a game I hate because it took no risks and played it so obnoxiously safe. It has no identity, no drive, no creativity behind it. It's a bland, empty D&D shaped blob that you can project your preferred form of the game onto, and the mechanics are light and loose enough that whatever you try to do it will generally work with only minor issues.

File: Chaika003.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>52053361
>Bait thread, but I can't disagree other than to say that 4E is the best edition but part of the reason for that is that it is only tangentially DnD.

Bait post, 2e had "optional" war gaming rules, and the "balance" between the martials and casters was that ultimately martials would have whole armies of men to command in tactical combat.

3e abandoned that because WotC had no wargaming properties, so instead you ended up with Spreadsheets & Sorcery; the game of rolling dice to see if a fighter could successfully walk across a room, oh wow a natural 20, you walked across a room *slightly faster than you would otherwise have done*.

>>52053732
Actually I hate Pathfinder, I'm just stating facts. As of 2013, D&D was a distant 3rd to Pathfinder and the FFG Star Wars RPGs.

It took the launch of 5th edition to put Wotc back in the top spot.

5th edition was a winner because WotC literally did the opposite of what they did with the 4th edition launch. They listened to customers, focused on their core audience rather than trying to attract a new one and made a game that is a marked improvement over Pathfinder.

Face it. 4th edition was a failure.

>>52053822

Can you cite these facts? Because I've seen the opposite actually cited before. Let me see if I can dig up the sales figures.

>>52053756

/tg/ nerds shouldn't be using "how well it appeals to the normie masses" as a measure of success. That idea is disgusting.

>>52053822
>As of 2013
...so after 4E had stopped publishing new books, a company that was publishing new books sold more new books? Are you actually retarded?

>>52053853
>>52053882
4rries spotted.

Abandon thread.

>>52053914

Well, >>52053853 is a moron I'll grant you (as is anyone who sincerely uses the term 'normies'), but >>52053882 seems to just be using common sense.

>>52053914
You are bragging about the sales figures of a game that was still releasing new content over one which had not been publishing rulebooks for 3 years. This is the behavior of a man with donkeybrain. Especially since when 4E was still releasing books, they were outselling Pathfinder without even accounting for the massive amount of Insider subscriptions.

>>52053931
>>52053953
Wow way to abandon perspective when it's inconvenient for your argument. It never ceases to amaze me how triggered you 4rries get when "THA BEST DanD EDITION EVAR" is criticized.

Keep in mind you are discussing a product that the VAST majority of consumers weren't even aware that alternatives to it existed just a few years before those numbers were publised, and suddenly it's outselling D&D. Between editions or not,WotC managed to piss away a near total monopoly on the RPG market, one that had stood since the 1980s, in just 5 years.

>>52054078

Who said anything about criticism? I love 4e, but it had a fuckload of problems, both in terms of the game and in terms of its release, marketing and support.

I'm just kinda confused why you're lying, drawing conclusions based on false data, and then acting like the aggrieved party. Unless you're a troll. You're probably a troll. Damnit.

>>52053305

Good points about 4e:

>Clear, simple rules

>Easy to pick up

>Lots of innovation around making combat tactical, simple and effective

>Excellent balance between classes in most situations

>Books were well laid-out, understandable, high quality.

Bad points about 4e:

>Classes were effectively straightjacketed into pre-designed "builds" depending on your core stats.

>Classes were way too similar to each other.

>Effectively mandatory map play for combat.

>Problems with monster stats in the first couple versions (HP, defenses)

>Bad combinations of stats/skills/items/etc could create problems for characters.

As written it made a great introductory D+D, or a great version for more low-key, beer and pretzels groups, as long as they had someone guiding how their characters were designed to keep them effective.

>>52054453

I think you're mostly on point, but there are a couple of things I'm curious about.

>Classes were way too similar to each other.

Can you expand on this? I hear it said a lot but I never really understand it. I've played quite a bit of 4e and I honestly think that the various classes in it play more differently than the various 3.PF classes do. Even though it all uses the same basic format and power system, how those powers work and what they do always seems really different.

>Classes were effectively straightjacketed into pre-designed "builds" depending on your core stats.

Do you mean just in terms of the choice of features you pick from your class? Because yeah, those were stat locked, and that limited your power selection, but it never felt so narrow I'd call it straight-jacketed, unless I'm missing something?

>>52054507
Yeah, ditto. And while there were certainly "better" options to pick for character optimization, I played with some absolutely retarded players that managed to just pick a bunch of garbage that sounded cool to them, and they never really had issues with their picks. It is staggeringly difficult to make a useless character in 4E after placing the Array in place for your class. You might not be as crazy strong as someone who knew what they were doing, but you're still not going to be dead weight.

>>52054507

>I've played quite a bit of 4e and I honestly think that the various classes in it play more differently than the various 3.PF classes do. Even though it all uses the same basic format and power system, how those powers work and what they do always seems really different.

There's two sides to that -

First, you're right, a fighter and a rogue did play different from each other. But pretty much every rogue would play the same, unless they're using some other pre-designed "build" for the class.

Also, the progression paths for each class were exactly the same in terms of progression of "at-will, encounter, daily" powers. That was a great breakdown of different powers, but having them all progress the same rate was a big missed opportunity for differentiating the different classes.

>Do you mean just in terms of the choice of features you pick from your class? Because yeah, those were stat locked, and that limited your power selection, but it never felt so narrow I'd call it straight-jacketed

I would say the way it was designed was definitely a straight jacket. A wizard with Con as their secondary stat has some pretty pre-defined options vs a wizard with Wisdom as their secondary stat, or they'll be pretty sub-optimal. Maybe not crippled, but it's certainly pointing in a direction saying "this build chooses this power".

>>52054574

I play almost exclusively in low-op games. I look at guides to ensure what I'm taking isn't pure garbage, but other than that I choose whatever seems fluffy and fun and it works fine.

>>52054607

>But pretty much every rogue would play the same, unless they're using some other pre-designed "build" for the class.

I think it depends how much support the class has. With well supported classes, like the core ones, there are enough powers available that three or even four characters of the same 'build' might not actually share a single power between them. I can see your point when it comes to later classes with much less powers, like Runepriests, but having played with people playing the same class/build that I'd played previously, and seeing them do things very differently... idk. It might be to do with expected levels of optimisation, if you're optimising I imagine things are a lot more restrictive.

>>52054639

The fact that there are 3-4 distinct builds, maximum isn't an endorsement of "huge diversity" - especially when those boil down to spamming a few specific powers over and over again.

>>52054662

>there are enough powers available that three or even four characters of the same 'build' might not actually share a single power between them
>three or even four characters of the same 'build'
>of the same 'build'

>>52054706

Good point, there's very little chance that you could actually make that many versions of an archetypal rogue that don't share a few powers in common.

>>52054738
I'm failing to see how this is a problem.

>>52054771

If you're content with characters being about the same each time you play, it's not.

>>52054796
You realize that that's part and parcel of traditional D&D and 3E was the one that fucked that beyond repair by not thinking about class roles, right?

>>52054738

Loading up CBloader, let's check that. There are... five different sets of rogue features, 3 Dex/Cha, 1 Dex/Str, 1 Dex/Int. Now let's check the level 1 encounter powers, and see how many there are which rely on each stat.

We have 7 that rely purely on dex, 3 that rely on Cha, 3 that rely on Str and 1 that relies on Int.

The latter one seems to fall into the same trap mentioned above, some classes not getting the same amount of support... But even then, as a Dex/Int rogue you have a choice of 8 level 1 encounter powers. Well, 6, since glancing at it they're a ranged variant. But even then, you could make six members of said class and never take the same level 1 encounter power twice.

And that's for the least supported build of, admittedly, one of the better supported classes in the game.

>>52054854

And how many additional splatbooks does that require?

>>52053305

4th edition was the best version of 2.5/3/3.5's "MUH BUILD" Diabloclone gameplay.

>>52054867

I'm not sure why this is relevant? I have no idea, anyway. The only thing you really need for 4e as a player these days is cbloader.

>>52054878

When there's 1 specific build that's pre-designed per class at a time, that isn't "variety".

>>52054884

...But there isn't. There's one set of features and, as demonstrated, a huge variety of powers you can choose from for each of those sets of features. And that's even before feats, multiclassing, themes, paragon paths, epic destinies, magic items...

>>52054867
>Handbook that Rogue Came In
>Martial Power 1&2
The first book everyone should have, and since you're only using splats for powers, you can pretty easily just download a PDF and write the power you take. And only Martial Power had two, the rest are simply a single book per power source.

Or, you can download CBLoader or use your Insider subscription to have access to every bit of published character options.

>>52054884
I don't think you know how 4E works.

>>52053305
I think we can all agree that each and every edition of D&D has aspects that are fun and well designed.
>2E is not too difficult to learn, character creation is quick, and until the higher levels of play most of the classes are pretty well balanced and capable
>3E has tons of options and an incredible depth of customization possible, allowing for incredibly diverse and interesting characters to fit nearly any concept
>4E has really well-balanced tactical combat, all classes are just about equal in strength and usefulness in and out of combat, and monsters are quite condensed and easy to run
>5E is simple to play, class archetypes are pretty nifty, advantage and disadvantage are a great way to do away with fiddly modifiers, bounded accuracy is pretty solid, and magic items are finally optional and the game math works just fine without them

The best edition of the game would include all of the best things of every previous edition, but that's pretty hard when some of them are mutually exclusive. Fast character creation is great, and so is having a huge number of starting character options, but you can't have both.

There's also the fact that every edition has large, glaring flaws that come with the territory. 2E has rather limited options and it's hard to evolve and change after your race/class is chosen. 3E is horribly imbalanced and you need an Excel sheet just to track where all your feats and spells came from. 4E doesn't do enough to distinguish the classes from one another and there's a lot of feat taxes and magic item treadmills going on. 5E has very little content and casters once again become the gods of the system, easily keeping up with the warriors in terms of damage while being far more useful outside of the fight.

I run two games using a heavily modified 5E as a base. Weaken utility magic, give martials out-of-combat utility options, add more mid and high level content for everyone, revamp monster statlines, that sort of thing.

>>52054902

Or you're just pretending criticisms don't exist.

>>52054884
Behold, either a braindead Paizo fanboy, or a troll. I'm not certain which is worse.

>>52054904

> 4E doesn't do enough to distinguish the classes from one another

As requested earlier in the thread, can you expand on this? Is this just everyone using the AEDU power system, or is there something else to it?

>>52054904
>every edition of D&D has aspects that are fun
I'd agree with you except for the part where I didn't enjoy any aspect of 5E whatsoever. It's like that game was tailor made to piss me off.

>>52054922

Or someone who actually played 4e.

>>52054920
That's not a criticism, that's just straight up bullshit that nobody who played the game would ever say.

>>52054662
>>52054738

In other editions your rogue only gets to pick between two-weapon-fighting feat chain and pretending the wizard's spells don't obsolete being a skillmonkey.

>>52054947

Played for years. Yes, it's absolutely true.

>>52054940
Given the "arguments" that you are putting forth which are laughable untrue as the various people that have and do play 4E are explaining to you? Yeah, definitely not.

>>52054955
I don't believe you at all.

>>52054957

So far not a single one's been disproven.

>>52054968

>>52054854
>>52054895

>>52054964

Try playing it yourself then.

File: 3cb.jpg (53KB, 960x547px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x547px

>>52054955
>Hello, fellow 4E players, I am also a 4E player and have logged over a thousand hours in my Dungeons and Dragons Online play-tracker. How about them Daily Powers?

>>52054977
I did.

>>52054973

Yeah, 1 -2 builds per book - even giving specific "builds" in the books.

Way to prove I was right.

>>52054994

I'm not even sure what you're talking about at this point, other than talking completely out of your ass?

>>52054994
>someone HAS to take specific powers if they take Brutal Scoundrel/Artful Dodger! Those other powers don't exist at all!
Way to prove you're an idiot who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about, I guess.

>>52054994
>complains about power options that can be used to better a certain build's theme
>clearly waiting until level 5 to be allowed to trip something without impaling yourself on their spear is more flexible

>>52055006

>The fact that they labelled and designed specific builds is totally meaningless

>SO MUCH VARIETY... of 2-3 different options. For the most supported class in the entire game. And if you're an Avenger or an Artificer, fuck you.

>>52055045
>For the most supported class in the entire game.
That's not Fighter or Warlord.

>>52055045

Except that's a lie, as proven in the thread?

Sure, some less supported classes have it hard. Runepriests are one of those badly off, with four powers per choice and only two of those that fit their stats for most things... But they still have three sets of features, those powers do meaningfully different things and you have all the other customisation mentioned above.

>>52055073

No, being locked into a fairly specific progression for 30 levels with 1 "paragon" and 1 "epic destiny" (ie, maybe 3 bonus powers each along the way) isn't variety.

>>52053305
It's still 2nd edition without Players' Options (or like one page of C&T)

>>52055094

But you aren't. I have no idea where you're even getting the idea, because its flatly not true.

Even in the *least* supported classes in the game.

And, as an aside, that's still more actually choice within a particular class than you got in 3.5.

>>52055094
If you're defining variety by whether fucking retarded 3.X multiclass monstrosities can exist, of course 4E isn't going to look like it has variety. Question is, why should I give a shit about what you're saying when it's obvious you've only played 3.X and have zero understanding of what D&D is outside of 3.X?

But that's not B/X.

>>52055117

It absolutely is true. Stat focuses and progression pretty much limit you to the one path in most cases.

There's basically 1 choice you're supposed to take, 1 optional "generic" power and 1 that's the wrong option for your build.

>>52055094
>every class in the game has distinct options
>every class in the game has options to make them distinct from another member of that class

So, you taking power attack at 1st level or were you going archery with point-blank shot instead?

>>52055141

...Except the above example of the least supported Rogue build had six encounter power options at level one. Others had nine. What are you even talking about?

Are you assuming optimisation? Because if you're doing that you're dumb, since we already acknowledged that but also pointed out that in low optimisation games, you can generally choose whatever looks cool and still have a functional character.

>>52054951
>Actually blowing spell slots on knock and find traps in AD&D
>Thinking you can use knock anywhere with a mile of people in 5e
The only reason to dual wield in 2e was if you hated life, the only reason to dual wield in 5e is if you don't feel safe about your ability to hit the first time, and you likely have something better to do with that action.

>>52055141
The only classes that's true for are all Y shaped, and even then most of them are supported enough for it to not be an issue.

>>52054926
>Can you expand on this?
Sure. In my experience it came down to three aspects:

1) Like you mentioned, the AEDU system felt arbitrary and didn't fit particularly well for certain power sources. Arcane might have done better by having more Daily powers instead of Encounter, as a callback to older editions, whereas it makes little sense for Daily Martial abilities to exist in the first place. Psionics does get a pass though for being wildly different and better for it.


2) Every class within a role has a passive that does the same thing, although sometimes in a slightly different way. Strikers get a damage bonus of some sort, Defenders mark nearby enemies, Leaders get a healing power that consumes an ally's Surge, and Controllers get something that lets them crowd control their enemies.

3) Some powers are either exactly the same or nearly the same and appear on multiple class lists. I remember seeing an at-will attack power that was on three different class lists with different names but the same rules. In addition, a lot of powers tend to be just pure damage with perhaps some minor effect that's rather generic and not especially tied thematically with the class' identity.

Personally I think every Power Source should have handled AEDU differently. Martial should be just At-Will and Encounter powers, no Daily powers, but they get more Encounter powers and can mix and match their uses in battle. Arcane should be just At-Will and Daily, with more Daily powers and perhaps some kind of recharge mechanic with different conditions based on their Role. Divine should be a mix of At-Wills, Encounter powers that are martial maneuvers, and Daily powers that are spells, with their Channel Divinity as a rare magical Encounter power ability. Primal would have their At-Wills determined by what Daily rage/shape they enter.

>>52054931
That's okay, you're allowed to have a different opinion. I love Advantage, not everyone does and that's okay.

>>52055171
Mage hand is a cantrip, anon.

>>52055198
>2) Every class within a role has a passive that does the same thing, although sometimes in a slightly different way. Strikers get a damage bonus of some sort, Defenders mark nearby enemies, Leaders get a healing power that consumes an ally's Surge, and Controllers get something that lets them crowd control their enemies.
Is this a criticism? Especially given that as you said, each of these ends up getting applied often in a different way. Especially the difference between the various Defender's method of marking targets.

>>52055198
>I remember seeing an at-will attack power that was on three different class lists with different names but the same rules
Which then gets modified by class features, combat styles, and feats, especially class-specific ones. A power that inflicts 1[W]+(Stat) damage and slides the opponent 2 squares can do just that - or, in the hands of a Fighter with proper feat support for it, can send that same enemy back twice as many squares thanks to bonuses to distance AND knock them prone at the same time.

>>52055217
Mage hand doesn't open locked anything and doesn't disable traps.

>>52055287
Wrong on both counts.

>>52053305
>Have we reached the point where we can admit 4e is the best edition of d&d yet?
That point was in 2008. It briefly ceased being the case until DM's learned how to deal with essentials, but it's back again.

One of the things I like about 4e now is that with its emphasis on maps and minis, on movements and area attacks, it's got a lot in common with board games. It works as a pretty good bridge between tabletop board games and tabletop RPG.

>>52053696
>5th edition would have been based on 4th and not 3rd if 4th was as successful as you say)
Why did 5th have to be based off of another edition at all, instead of.... you know.... being a new edition that actually innovates? That's the most insulting thing about 5e. Not that it isn't 4e, I wouldn't want it to be 4e any more than I want it to be 3e..... I wanted it to be something new, but it wasn't.

>>52055498

This doubly sucked when the playtest packets had so much promise. Which was all scrapped in favour of things that were safer and more familiar.

>>52055513
It's a great example of why fuck open playtesting. I can almost guarantee you that 90% of the feedback was, "This is all interesting and stuff, but... what if you just merged memories of old editions together instead of doing something new?"

>>52055671
>merged memories of old editions
>editions
>plural?

What editions? I Count a sum total of one edition making up the genetic code of 5e.

>>52055699
Memories, not anything necessarily concrete.

>>52053777
How is that a bad thing?????

File: ohwait.gif (1MB, 288x198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 288x198px

>>52053777
>5th isn't based on 3e

>>52055396
>You can use your action to control the hand. You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial. You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it.
Mage hand does not open locked anything unless you have the key or are an arcane trickster.

>>52055806
>4th isn't based on 3e

>>52055699
5e did keep some 4e stuff in char building, like how it did skills.

>>52055813
He did say UNlocked

>>52053305
Let it goooooooo
Let it gooooooooooooooooo

>>52054607
>But pretty much every rogue would play the same, unless they're using some other pre-designed "build" for the class.

Isn't this just saying "they all play the same unless they don't"?

I mean there's crossbow and non-crossbow rogues for starters, and then you have a bunch of racial variants. And rogue is one of the less flexible classes if you optimize, because they have one path being the best by a large margin.

>>52055891
You're a faaaaag
You're a faaaaaaaaaaaag
You can't accept the truuuuuth

>>52055671
Something new? The Players Handbook looked like they ripped it from Prima's Guild Wars Strategy Guide. WoTC saw the success of the Baldur's Gate/ Icewind Dale/ Neverwinter series, figured that's where the real money was, and tailored the rules to that. But by the time they were ready to release, the MMO market was glutted, so their halfassed offerings rimmed their way into obscurity. They sell people like you whatever they have in the back and you eat it up because "you're a good gm, you can make it work". Now they bust out with the nostalgia version, but sink a fair amount of work into more software run to that version, a forgettable pasteboard piece of shit called Sword Coast Legends. And no one asks why they tailor the software to the new versions of the rules. They own old versions of the rules, why not use those, as they are common knowledge in the CRPG community at this point? Because they want to be an MMO company, but they think rules changes are the way to innovation, and they aren't. They may have a monopoly on rules, but they don't have a monopoly on CRPGs, but they want both revenue streams. So they fuck the rules because you can't do anything about it, then try to shove them into shitty MMOs and CRPGs and get your money twice.

>>52055913
As an old school grog, reminder that 3e builds and feats were Diabloshit.

4e's main problem from my experience was that when people really knew the system, (Most of my play from 4e was with a bunch of comp sci and engineering majors when I went to Cal.)

If the gm wanted to make a challenging encounter he had to tailor it to the strongest build in the party, leaving anyone who went fluffy and didn't optimize in the dust.

Also the nigh-absolute requirement to use a grid and battlemap.

It also lead in practice to a lot of build talk and the system lead to less 'I slash the goblin' and more 'I'm going to burn my daily here, the rest of you hold off on your cds'

Don't get me wrong the system was tactically a ton of fun. It just felt really poor if you try to take it casually or play loose with the combat; something that you could do easily in 3.5 or 5e.

>>52056255

The problem is that if you did tactical or casual in 3.x it pretty much fell apart when anyone started to actually play intelligently.

>>52056020
This. And 2e ruined the game with it's proficiencies and secondary skills and books of splats.

>>52056268
Well yeah 3.5 had its issues quite a bit. But it was easier to specifically challenge a player playing something like a wizard or a cleric. 4e was so deeply defined in its combat that you couldn't directly focus to a players weaknesses or challenge them.

In 3.5 you'd be fine with players trivializing an encounter cause you could just move on. With 4e the encounters couldn't be trivialized in similar way. They'd be trivial because you (the dm) designed them wrong, not because your players outsmarted you.

>>52056320
What the absolute fuck am I reading?

>>52056353
A really shitty way of saying 4e's combat was too crunchy.

>>52056305
>2e introduced proficiencies and secondary skills
lol at OSR autists forgetting that UA existed well before 2e came out (and that they were optional rules)

>>52056320

>But it was easier to specifically challenge a player playing something like a wizard or a cleric

No? Not unless you were specfiically doing absolute horseshit like "lol the goblin steals your spellbook while you sleep" which doesn't work for divine casters so even then!

>4e was so deeply defined in its combat that you couldn't directly focus to a players weaknesses or challenge them.

I mean you could you just needed to use the right monsters and stat blocks.

>In 3.5 you'd be fine with players trivializing an encounter cause you could just move on

... as opposed to 4e where you couldn't?

> With 4e the encounters couldn't be trivialized in similar way

In that there aren't save or die/save or lose spells? Yeah I guess but I don't see that being a bad thing.

> They'd be trivial because you (the dm) designed them wrong, not because your players outsmarted you.

I don't follow? I mean yea a bad encounter design can happen but like this issue is worse in 3.5 since it also leads to near impossible encounters unless PC's start to cheese everything or you just GM fiat it.

>>52056255
>Describes word for word the biggest problem with 3.shit
>Claims it is was what made 4e bad

Whaaaa? One of the things I loved about the shift to 4e was that the difference between mid-optimization and high-optimization wasn't so much as to make mid-optimization characters utterly useless background figures, allowing people to play casually, while in 3e, if one person optimized, then EVERYBODY needed to optimize, unless they wanted to play green arrow to the optimizer's superman.

>>52056373
Players (in my experience) didn't mind when an encounter in 3.5 was trivialized or done quickly.

4e's encounters had to be structured in a way to challenge everyone and to be a tactical game to it. With 3.5 you never felt like you 'had' to make an encounter tactically interesting.

4e's encounters had to be almost games in themselves.

>>52056423
Skill challenges were still a significantly better implementation of skills than 3.5's. Advantage/Disadvantage is merely a shallower version of them and could easily be retooled as part of skill challenges.

>>52056377
I had the opposite experience; Since the crowd I played with was into the numbers and enjoyed challenging encounters it led to stuff like:

'That's not how you should build your character'

'Do this for your action instead'

'You're not doing your role well enough and its hurting the party'

With 3.5 carrying around a green arrow didn't hurt the party at all and it was perfectly fine as long as the player was having fun. Someone running a sub-optimal build in 4e meant that the party was weaker and couldn't have as challenging encounters thrown at them.

>>52056449
Oh yes; without a doubt.

3.5's skill system is a clunky relic of the past.

>>52056451
>Someone running a sub-optimal build in 4e meant that the party was weaker and couldn't have as challenging encounters thrown at them.

You and the people who keep replying to you are going around in circles.

The "green arrow" in the 3.x party absolutely made the party worse and not able to handle harder challeneges. You just didn't care because 3.x is so busted anyway that CR is meaningless, and hence encounters themselves weren't worth the effort. So you didn't put in any, and so it didn't matter that they got invalidated. Throw a few dozen orcs at them, the wizard will just pull some bullshit if I overshot it anyway.

In 4e, where encounter building actually works, you can't do that. If you overshoot, PCs may actually die. So you (and the players) can't no-effort it as much.

Mind you, I think you are still MASSIVELY overstating the power differences between optimized and unoptimized in 4e, unless we are talking a sort of negative optimization versus hyperspecialized hybrid builds. In which case, houseruling a few numbers (extra feats and stuff) works wonders, since you actually have the math pretty clearly laid out in 4e.

>>52056367
UA was a mistake.

>>52056451
>With 3.5 carrying around a green arrow didn't hurt the party at all and it was perfectly fine as long as the player was having fun. Someone running a sub-optimal build in 4e meant that the party was weaker and couldn't have as challenging encounters thrown at them.
Translation, in 3e, a sub-optimal character is 100% useless, and therefore is no different than the character not being there at all, but in 4e, they could still contribute but did so at less than 100% optimization.

>>52056573
>hating on UA
Without UA, we wouldn't have on-print textual proof that osr autists are wrong about 3d6 in order being the annointed, holy rolling method of our lord Gygax

File: criticism_of_4e.jpg (53KB, 318x750px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 318x750px

This is basically how the edition wars played out.

I like thing
>How fucking DARE you?

>>52053839
the head developer of 4th was fired every year.
what does that mean to you?

>>52056692
Office politics. Mearls whined until he got his way (which lead to essentials, which lead to the death of 4e, which lead to 5e with him in the lead now).

>>52056692
(baseless speculation)

Meat grinding a single position over and over sounds like something a dysfunctional company does when it needs a scapegoat. It's a sign of really shitty accountability and nepotism, not necessarily a failing product.

I wouldn't be surprised if WotC had some process management issues. There are some horror stories floating around about how the company used to pretty much make decisions based on who was fucking whom in the 90s.

>>52053305
>the best edition of d&d yet
That's kind of a ridiculous statement. It's fun and in some demonstrative ways better than 3e/PF, but it's by no means without its flaws.
Personally, I think Gamma World 7e treatment of 4e's rules is by and large better than 4e.

>>52055806
It's as based on 3e as it is on 2e and 4e. You should do comparative read-throughs of each PHB, you'll likely see more points of comparison than you'd expect.

>>52053822
4e's sales were pretty good for the entire run--the problem was that the actual net profits were marginal.
4e was ultimately a failure because of how inefficiently the D&D division was structured, and because they were heavily competing with themselves for shelf space. They had a big release *every month* for the lifespan of 4e, each produced virtually 100% in-house. That's untenable when by the very nature of things you're going to start alienating potential users after a certain point, who feel like the barrier for entry is too high; that they have to buy too many books, or learn too much to play.

That's why they decided to wipe the slate clean a bit with the more approachable Essentials line: classic, nostalgic "Red Box" branding that tried to bring content design back into consolidated and straightforward class concepts and taught the game with a choose-your-own-adventure booklet.
What was left of the D&D team learned something surprising that diverged from their vocal "core" community: Potential new players don't care if the 'character engine' content's not as good as the rest of 4e, or if 4e has more tools for players and DMs; that in the end a majority of people actually preferred more simple and sweeping choices in making a character.
That fact is the single biggest influence by far on the design of 5e.

>>52056708
Come the fuck on. I HATE Mearls, but this is preposterous. Probably he manipulated his way, but the higher-ups had some negative feedback to justify their actions.

>>52056457
>3.5's skill system is a clunky relic of the past.
why?

>>52056763
>when it needs a scapegoat
we can agree you need a scapegoat when things are not doing well..

>>52053806
There was also the fact that if a caster as much as got sneezed on, he lost his spell, and he wasn't allowed to change his mind mid-turn unlike the fighter. There were spells that did pitiful damage over multiple turns that existed purely to shut down a spellcaster.

>>52053647
Here's another wowshit WOTC property with its "streamlined" faggotry and "keywords" and "fancy art"; Magic The Gathering

>>52056769
>you're going to start alienating potential users after a certain point, who feel like the barrier for entry is too high

This is the issue every RPG runs into. You either go well, but produce a lot of stuff and eventually collapse, or don't do well... and that's bad.

>That's why they decided to wipe the slate clean a bit with the more approachable Essentials line

isn't a more simple explanation that they wanted the other customers back?

>>52055045
>And if you're an Avenger or an Artificer, fuck you.

...even artificers, a much less supported class, had plenty of options.

I mean, I've built melee artificers or ranged artificers. Those that focus on healing, those that focus on summoning, those that can do a lot of positioning thanks to the Trap (As in deployable, not trap option) powers and Mark of the Storms giving knockback...

>>52055198
>Leaders get a healing power that consumes an ally's Surge,

Actually, Artificers don't. They get ones that consume no surges but cost surges to refresh. This is really key as it allows they to shuffle healing surges about between allies rather than just healing.

>>52056782
>we can agree you need a scapegoat when things are not doing well..

That's not necessarily true. A scapegoat can be found when there is poor management, unhappy employees, rising expenses, or even just organization problems. You can sell a lot of product and still have internal issues.

I'll be terse. No company with good management turns over the same position five times.

>>52056769
Having no less than 4 PHBs was already a mistake and worse is, it was a mistake they knew about; setting PHBs in 2E were great and all but the five million core boxed sets and core books were also massively cannibalizing sales from each line.

Which 4e managed to one up by multiplying the core books instead. At least I didn't need Domains of Dread to run 2e Darksun. I almost certainly needed PHB2-3-4 to run a game of anything in 4th.

>>52056879

3.5 also had that. It had just as many PHBs.

>>52056879
>I almost certainly needed PHB2-3-4 to run a game of anything in 4th.

You needed a Builder/CBLoader. That's it.

>>52057063
>You needed a Builder/CBLoader. That's it.
>Needing a computer program to play the game
This criticism, however, extends to the nightmare that is building anything in 3.5, not just 4th, since I basically needed tools written by the power of internet autism to figure out what anything did too.

>>52057122
>Needing a computer program to play the game

You don't really _need_ it, just like you don't _need_ all the books. But having it cuts out the books, massively simplifying the process.

Also, stop being a dirty luddite hippy and embrace technology already you damn grognard.

>>52053305
PF master race

>>52057153
Or I can play 2e or 5e.

I'm okay using tools sometimes. Needing tools, however, is like punk music that can't be done accoustic: it's probably overcomplicated and could stand to be pared down a bit.

>>52057187
Hey, whatever floats your boat, grogman.

>>52053305
4E had a dream. Everyone has powers so casters do not totally outclass everyone else.

It tried, but it did not stick the landing. Rather than pursuing further, WotC went back to basics for 5E. This does not make 4E good. The feat stuff, the boring encounters, and the fidgety math that was only fixed later on in the series still isn't enough to make it the polished, balanced, entertaining ride they were shooting for.

Blame people for not stealing and refining the style, but do not blame people for passing it up.

>This is not to say it’s the best version of D&D ever, because edition wars are simply disgusting and despicable, and will not abide here.
Jesus fucking christ somebody kill me, when did cowardice get turned into a virtue?

>>52057405
So you want the coward's way out?

I would never have gotten into DnD if it weren't for 4E, and they lost me with 5E. So as far as my wallet is concerned, 4E was doing something right.

>>52054940
Really badly, it seems

It's my favourite edition, I'm not sure if it's the "best", but I personally like it more than the other editions.

I especially love 4e Barbarians, daily rage powers were brilliant, and 5e barbarians are the most disappointing thing

>>52055223
It is a criticism, though I'd understand completely if you disagreed with me. I'm not an authority on 4E, it's all up for debate.

>>52055253
Sure, it still doesn't make them feel that different from each other though.

>>52056817
That's semantics. Artificiers have a healing power that costs a healing surge from a party member. Whether you pay that cost immediately or from the target you heal is immaterial.

>>52053305
Nope. Still disagree with you, just like the past dozen "is 4e the best D&D" threads.

>>52053552
>MnM gameplay
Ugh. I have more fun at the dentist. No thanks.

>>52053361
>Final fantasy tactics RPG
It's shit for FFT though.
>Not MP based.
>The math is all dynasty warriors/Diablo.
>Lacks a swappable class system with universally dualclassed characters and equippable move/reaction/support skills.
>No facing or zodiac compatibility mechanics
>Dnd stats instead of FF stats.
>You can't attack someone's attributes.
>Iconic FFT abilities aren't available to the jobs that should have them.
>Rolled damage
It's vaguely similar, but it's garbage for an FFT campaign. Considered it a few years back.

>>52058436
>It is a criticism, though I'd understand completely if you disagreed with me. I'm not an authority on 4E, it's all up for debate.

I mean, it essentially boils down to "these things that are in the same group because they are supposed to behave similarly, behave similarly".

>Sure, it still doesn't make them feel that different from each other though.

Because it's not the powers that have to feel different, but the classes. I'm pretty sure TWF Ranger and Tempest Fighter share a bunch of powers, but they are really different in how they play.

>>52058559
Have you also considered that you may have autism?

>>52053473
You forgot about their realms customers who mostly buy dnd as "the forgotten realms RPG", who had no recognizable stuff for that franchise they liked for 90% of the edition.

Also those of us who were unhappy with the shitty, trust damaging business decision to revoke access to our purchased PDFs.

They didn't make the best decisions regarding PR, for a few years.

>>52058580
You may as well be suggesting Batman as a replacement for Spider-Man comics.

They both beat up kooky villains.

But they're not the same thing.

>>52058570
>I mean, it essentially boils down to "these things that are in the same group because they are supposed to behave similarly, behave similarly".
Well, that's exactly my point. What if I don't want every Defender's schtick to be "Mark a nearby enemy and punish them if they so much as look at an ally funny"?

>>52053853
>normies

>>52058644
You play Paladin or Aegis, since they mark multiple enemies and/or from afar, or the Aura defenders.

>>52058644
Then you shouldn't play a defender.

>>52058625
You are an autist for wanting to transplant a single player game that gives you a huge amount of content to grind through into a tabletop RPG 1:1.

>SIMPLICITY

4e is simple as most of the mechanics made sense and required little rules lawyering, even if sometimes the fluff didn't make sense. Although why he compares 4e AoO to 3e AoO confuses me

>STRATEGY

There was a lot of jockeying around and careful planning due to the amount of numbers and modifiers one had to account for but as another poster said, it made mapping a 100% necessity

>CREATURE VARIANTS

No denying that 4e had more monsters at the end of its run than 5e, but given time 5e will probably catch up. Also not sure why the author went from comparing 4e to 3e in above, then here compare 4e to 5e

>COST

Pure trolling, who would have thought books from 10 years ago and an earlier edition would be cheaper than its current up to date edition?

>>52053354
fpbp

I will never stop loving kamigawa

>>52058695
Not everything need be transferred over, that's just putting words in my mouth. But enough needs to be faithfully transferred over for it to be recognizable.

4e is its own SRPG. It's a shitty system for an FFT campaign.

>>52058787
Everything aside from maybe facing and magic items you brought as examples of 4e lacking would be fucking terrible in tabletop, as they are mechanics made with single player in mind. Notice how all the FF homebrews that allow job switching are fucking unplayably broken. Because it's not a team game. It's a solo game.Mana didn't even work as anything but an afterthought in FFT. Stats and numbers not fitting the game 1:1 are banal bullshit nobody sane (read: not on the spectrum) would care about.

It's recognizable to everyone but you. It's why so many people latched on to the whole "4e is FFT tabletop".

>>52058675
Don't forget Vigilante Justice ghetto-defender.

>>52058570
>I'm pretty sure TWF Ranger and Tempest Fighter share a bunch of powers, but they are really different in how they play.

Now I'm reminded of all those braindead trolls that kept popping up on the official forums.

>I want a Fighter with two weapons. But I don't want to play a Defender, I want him to be a Striker Fighter.
Oh hey, sounds like a Ranger might be better for you. They focus on damage dealing, and have a good two-weapon build.
>But I want to play a Fighter, and I don't want a nature theme.
Well, you can take Dungeoneering instead of Nature, and reflavor the more primal abilities.
>But I want to play a Fighter!
Well, you could have him call himself a Fighter, class names don't float over your head like in MMOs.
>BUT. HE'S. NOT. A. FIGHTER!

I remember there was a time anyone just vaguely asking for help about Fighter builds barely got any responses at all because everyone assumed it was just trolls again.

>>52058993
Jokes on them, tempest fighter || ranger is actually amazing.

>>52058720
>but given time 5e will probably catch up
Not at this rate it won't. We're nearly at the point where 5E's been out - and gotten just about nothing - for as long as it took for ToB to come out from 3.5's release, or for Essentials to have come out after 4E's release.

>>52055168
Really, 4e is the kind of game where you have to actively try to make a character as worthless as your average 3.PF Rogue. To a point it's actually harder than making a broken character.

The only truly broken 4e character I remember ever seeing was using some suspicious rule interpretations to get a free action burst attack to trigger on itself indefinitely, and that was literally it's only trick.

>>52058941
or shielding swordmage

>>52059031
Not... entirely true

I remember one unfortunate game where someone chose to be a controller and played a Bladesinger

We haven't used any Essentials classes since then in that group

File: 111113c[1].jpg (91KB, 293x394px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 293x394px

>>52053305
>I think we can all agree it has pretty art, at least
4e art looked like concept art for a shitty korean mmo

>>52059081
I try to pretend the Bladesinger doesn't exist. It, Cavalier, and Binder are the only three classes in 4e I believe are absolute garbage. Unsurprisingly, all three are Essentials classes.

Albeit Bladesinger I think is fine if you don't play it as a shittier Wizard like the class write-up tries to trick you into doing. It's much better as a Dex-based Striker with Int secondary.

Cavalier is basically a shittier Paladin. It has the same mark punishment, but uses the aura thing Knights have. Unfortunately, the Paladin mark's range was the only thing that made it worth it, along with the feat support which the Cavalier also doesn't have. Mearls also took mount feats away from the Paladin and made them Cavalier exclusive to try to trick people into playing it.

Binder is just garbage. It's a squishy ranged controller with a class feature that only triggers on killing enemies or standing in melee range of something that died. All for being worse controllers than the Striker class they come from. Hexblades are better.

Special mention goes to the Vampire. I don't think it's bad, but it's incredibly limiting and only gets like..2-3 power choices over 30 levels. The surge mechanic is weird, but fine if you have a beefy defender or Barbarian to top off with.

That said, I don't think all the Essentials classes are bad. Some of my fondest gaming memories were with a Blackguard, a class that was basically a Paladin geared towards being a Striker. Frostcheese Blackguards are pretty great.

>>52059180
I like that the bladesinger has some fun nova turns.

And I like that the Cavalier hybrid makes any CHA class into a melee powerhouse.

But yeah, Mearls&co proved with essentials that he can not into coherent design.

>>52059180
Unfortunately the bladesinger gets a class feature that lets it use intelligence for MBAs

so in actuality, the Bladesinger should be played as a STRENGTH-based striker with a dex secondary.

I'm more offended by the Knight. A class that tries to trick you into doubling-up on an NAD as a defender, the role that needs good NADs more than any other. And inspired Mearls to nerf a perfectly good feat (melee training) in an attempt to force people to play Knight like an idiot

>>52059226
General D&D musings: I honestly think constitution just shouldn't be a stat. Dwarves could just get +HP as a racial ability (like in 5e), or could be rolled into Strength, since all the STR melee guys are supposed to have good HP as well anyway, and now you can do that without giving them higher hit points, just by virtue of being STR based.

Of course, it doesn't mesh well with 4e's 3 NAD setup.

>>52059180

I feel like Assassin belongs on that list somewhere.

>>52059271
Assassin is functional. It's only real issue is it's damage mechanic is backloaded, and by the time you get it stacked up to match other Strikers, the target's usually already dead, or close enough that the extra damage is basically wasted.

The Executioner subclass gives it something else and generally works better.

>>52059291
I like the idea of the backloaded striking actually, I just think he should be doing something else on the turns he isn't blowing up the shrouds (you can also just blow the shrouds up immediately, it's not like you are rewarded in any way for hoarding them, without feats, and with feats you get to carry them over anyway).

>>52059291
It's also just insanely frail, being a melee class that gets wizard HP

What do I need to get started with 4E?
Does it have much free content like 3.PF or 5?

>>52059358
Well, you can get the content for free, does that count?

Probably read one of the starter sets to get the handle on the rules, then use funin.space as the compendium. and CBLoader for rules related to character options.

>>52059387
A-are you suggesting piracy?

>>52059416
No.

Yes

>>52059358
http://pastebin.com/85Hm56k5

funin.space is especially useful

>>52059416
just pretend you're in a buccaneer campaign and the crew of the Salty Cunt wants to be sure you've got the stuff and aren't a parrotshit spy from some nation's navy or trading guild.

>>52053361
>>52053777
This post-5e, "4e was actually good, guys!" contrarian shit needs to fucking end.

This "5e is rules light because there's no already written mechanics on how to make a saving throw versus wands while wet and falling down stairs in full-plate onto a floor made of bamboo, despite the RAW corebooks giving you options to go that deep into sheer autism if you really insist on it" horseshit needs to end, too.

>>52059531

You fundamentally misunderstand what was being said.

(4e was fucking awesome and this has been true since... Okay, not release, but I think the MM3 monster math fixes is the pretty definitive point the game went from okay to great, especially given them amount of content it had available at that time)

File: 17076757_1846032289017945_1109209539376316416_n.jpg (71KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x640px

>>52053305
>I played my first video game (Pong arcade version) in 1977. I began playing tabletop wargames and D&D in 1980. I grew up playing all the games in tandem, never thinking one was better than the other. D&D4E is written to attract an immense gaming audience, and I seem to perfectly fit in there. I bet there’s a good chance you can also relate.

>>52059531
>This post-5e, "4e was actually good, guys!" contrarian shit needs to fucking end.

4e's been good since release aside from the monster math needing some fixing.

>>52059991
The leshittwinkie crowd is worse than anything you would even find on /v/. Imagine if there were posters on /v/ that were dedicated to the idea that the xbox1 is literally not a gaming console at all, and that anybody who does not come to the same completely unsupported conclusion is an idiot.

>>52060275
But the Xbox 180 isn't a gaming system at all

no console is

File: average 4rrie.jpg (224KB, 892x1213px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 892x1213px

>>52053305

File: TF Scout Embarassing.jpg (54KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 300x300px

>>52053305
All

These

Grognards

>>52059416
Technically you really only need a starter set (free to download) and the CBLoader (was free, the "loader" part is fan made).

funin.space is a siterip, I'm not sure how legal it is. Honestly, considering that WotC is asking for a subscription for a service that they aren't actually supporting/updating, they can go fuck themselves.

All that said, the DMGs and the Monster Manuals/Monster Vaults are amazing reads for all aspiring DMs.

>>52053354
The what series?

File: s-l225.jpg (13KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 225x225px

>>52060479
>>52053354

OH!
I get it... 4th Edition. Ha.

>>52055913
>>52056020
>>52056305
my boys in here.

>>52056367
>UA existed well before 2e came out (and that they were optional rules)
exactly my proud learner's permit owner, they were optional, not baked in bullshit. now resume dancing around like you knew something useful.

>>52060778
>not baked in bullshit
NWP were an optional rule in 2e. They are literally only non-optional in one setting.

>>52053305
Did that man compare the price of Hardcovers vs. PDFs? Is he on medication of some sort?

>>52053305
My bad.
Disregard >>52061947 post.
I've opened his profile.
http://geekandsundry.com/author/jimmoreno/

>>52059270
Just have 3 stats, like the 3 nads.
Call them power, wisdom, and skill.

>>52053305
You can't really compare editions.

But you can compare the comics those editions spawned, and the Fell's five are the best yet written. It's dwarven work.

>>52053473
>Oh, don't worry, I place almost the entirety of the blame on WizKids
>WizKids

What?

>>52056320
>>52056255
I don't think we played the same game...

>>52059013
To be fair, 5e is *FINALLY* moving out of Forgotten Realms now, and into something more exciting:
Eberron

I enjoy 4th edition combat. I find it really fun to play and to DM for.

I didn't like that the game became entirely based on combat, with limited options for outside of combat spells or abilities. D&D has always been combat-centric, but at least you always felt like you had the ability to play a couple of sessions without combat.

Also, skill challenges as they were presented in the 4th edition DMG are awful. They are confusing as fuck for newer DMs and feel completely arbitrary. I also recall reading that if you run them the way the book intends, they are either a virtual guarantee pass or fail, since you're compounding chances of failure.

I imagine that 4e was fun for Adventurer's League, since that's majority combat.

>>52063632

From what I heard, though, 5e's Eberron materials are less than well executed.

>>52053305
>simplicity
>only compares 3.5, the most bloated game in existence, to 4e and disregards 5e
>strategy
>use a battlemat with squares
>creature variety
>ignores variant creatures in 5e, says 4e has thousands after you apply tables to them
>cost
>older books are cheaper
Huh

>>52063915
"Variant creatures" tend to be 'this monster has spells', and 4e literally does have thousands of monsters.

>>52063915

Geek and Sundry being shit doesn't stop 4e being awesome. I'll grant you that they're generally not worth listening to, but that doesn't stop them occasionally being right, even if they get there by the wrong methods. A stopped clock is right twice a day, and all that.

>>52064473
So 4e actually has thousands of individual Stat blocks and it's not just goblin:skinny and goblin:brawny? That's impressive.
>>52064697
I was more commenting on the quality of the article than the quality of 4e, since I know very little about 4e and the article taught me approximately jack shit about it.

>>52053305
It's not the best, but it is unfairly maligned, that's for certain.

File: catsup.jpg (27KB, 566x242px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 566x242px

>>52063915
>only compares 3.5, the most bloated game in existence, to 4e and disregards 5e
This implies that 5e is distinguishable from 3e beyond the corporate equivalent of a few table/house rules. What makes 5e bad isn't its quality, by all counts each minor difference from 3e is indeed an improvement, what makes it bad is the fact that, it didn't innovate at all.

>>52056769
>>52053777
It's almost like 5e is popular because it's minimalistic not in spite of it...it'seems not like anyone ever likes role playing as well, right?
>>52054904
This is by far the sanest thing in any thread discussing D&D at the moment. Also, the board games are based on a sort of shaved down 4e and they're actually really good for just messing around with friends (not to mention the amount of minis is ungodly)

>>52067296
How much does a game have to innovate between editions and still be the same game?

>>52067446

>It's almost like 5e is popular because it's minimalistic not in spite of it...it'seems not like anyone ever likes role playing as well, right?

Less mechanics doesn't make a system better for roleplaying unless you're an idiot who gets confused by numbers.

Then again, you didn't actually understand what was being said, so I guess it's to be expected.

>>52067473

It varies a great deal, but just look at other dominant franchises and series in their forms of media. Change over time happens, for better or for worse. Books, films, movies, TV, old things receive new iterations that are tweaked, which some people prefer and some people outright hate. It's just how things go. It's also wildly inconsistent. Sometimes an utterly derivative sequel will be loved, other times they'll be pilloried. Sometimes a re imagining will be welcomed with open arms, other times they'll be utterly rejected. While this has a lot to do with how well they're executed, it's still far from a certain thing either way.

>>52054904
With 5e out I don't think I can think of a reason to play anything before 4e.

I'd generally want to play 4e if possible and everyone is up for it, if not and it's going to be a bit more "beer & pretzels" I'd go with 5e.

Only thing good I can say about 2e is the delicious settings they experimented with that now collect dust in boxes somewhere in my house until I get the energy to toss them out, sadly.

>>52053305
>Have we reached the point where we can admit 4e is the best edition of d&d yet?

As far as modern D&D is concerned, it's the only edition I would actively try to run.

t. OSR guy

>legitimate complaints

roleplaying not ROLLplaying, hurr durr isn't exactly a legitimate complaint

>>52067473
It can tear the system entirely and still call itself the same game, see the switch from 2e to 3e, where suddenly you needed a full conversion guide to figure out what the hell AND the conversion guide was full of shit because the devs had no idea what the new rules really were.

>>52067487
Fewer mechanics for everything means the system is out of the way when you need it to be out of the way.

Literally the only two things I'd want out of 5e are skill challenges and toned down cantrips.

>>52071081
Why the toned down cantrips?

>>52071269
At-will cantrips don't sit well with me. I like old-school casters, and I like spells that are there to have a huge effect.

Mainly this is the main reason I like lock, their short rest slots are always maxed out rather than a ton of shitty magic.

>>52071472
Would you be okay with something like 4 cantrip slots that recharge on a short rest?

>>52071569
Mostly I feel like I'd be okay with combat cantrips being rebalanced to be level 1 spells; the only exceptions I'd make are for Blade Ward and True Strike (and EB for locks), but for the most part I still stick to core for this.

>>52071662
I mean, attack cantrips are sort of in a weird place that until the second or third "tier" they are worse than or equal to a ranged basic attack with a weapon, and you'd almost never want to use them. So like, crossbow wizards are still totally a thing.

I get that you are going for thematics though, I just find it kinda weird.

>>52072035
Except you can use your primary stat for them instead of using a secondary stat, so they tend to be much more accurate

>>52072056
Yeah but you only increase the primary stat above the secondary.... 1 level before you jump the first tier. And you still add your secondary stat to damage, while you don't add your primary without a class feature that allows you to.

>>52059531
5e is pure trash. do I have to bring up the multiple suptg threads about it?

>>52072099
5e is fine, it just looks like trash because the final product is worse than the playtest.

>>52072109
>5e is fine

No.
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/24293560/
It.
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/24303985/
Isn't.

>>52072144
You look like a 3.5 grognard complaining about healing surges being free healing

>>52072180
Nope. loved it. made not having healers actually feasible.

>>52072199
No, as in, your complaints are using posts based on non-viable information. Because the way skills work in 5e was between then and the release of the game

>>52063632
My group has been playing in Eberron since the end of 3.5. The most fun we had was with 4e. However I might be biased, as the 4e Artificer is far more competent than the final release of the 5e Artificer and moderately better than the 5e Eberron playtest Artificer.
If given the chance, I would gladly go back to 4e for this character and campaign.

>>52072449
4e does Eberron so well that it almost feels like Eberron was created for 4e, not 3.5

>Simplicity
I like crunch and complexity. Go fuck yourself.

>Strategy
Just like every other RPG that can do battle-mats with grids or hexes, and comes with classes or templates. Whooptyfuckingdo.

>Creature Variants
Yeah, I totally need 70 kinds of dragons and 666 types of devils... How about no.

>Cost
Not only are they comparing the cost of hardbacks to the cost of pdfs, a laughable thing in and of itself, but they care about cost in an age of piracy.

Yeah, I'll keep ignoring 4e except for when I want to plunder some idea, thank you very much.

>>52072654
The article is bad but holy shit you are an idiot.

>I like crunch and complexity. Go fuck yourself.

It has crunch and complexity, it just presents it in a simple format.

>Just like every other RPG that can do battle-mats with grids or hexes, and comes with classes or templates. Whooptyfuckingdo.

The point is that 4e does it _better_ than most (all?).

>>52058436

>That's semantics. Artificiers have a healing power that costs a healing surge from a party member. Whether you pay that cost immediately or from the target you heal is immaterial.

So you are saying that leaders should NOT have a way to heal team members? Because Artificer could also do that. It could expend those same tonics to either grant an ally a heap of temp HP OR a lot of energy resistance.

But healing is kinda a thing that you need in D&D.

>>52059306

If they'd been able to transfer shrouds/get bonus shrouds when a target died it could have been interesting.

>Murder minions, shoving a shroud on the boss every time you do so.
>Alpha strike the boss into the dirt after carving through some minions.

>>52063632

Ebberon is interesting, though I am very concerned about how well they'll handle a lot of it's themes.

Neither artificer is very good for producing Ebberon's 'Hey motherfuckers, every corner store sells a few minor magic items'.

>>52072487

I think a lot of the reason for that is that 4e and Ebberon came out of the same sort of thought pattern.

>Let's work out what D&D IS, not what it thinks it is.

3.5 loved it's magic items all over the place to 4e went and streamlined it and having more ability to go 'Here is a weird one off effect for non-mages' lets you pull off some fun pulpy stuff without 'And then I do it again. Forever'.

>>52072805
Well, they actually can with... liberal reading of some feats.

http://funin.space/compendium/feat/Inexorable-Shroud.html

http://funin.space/compendium/power/Assassins-Shroud.html

The argument I've read is that your target dies before your shrouds disappear, so you can move two on to the next.

>>52072867

Oh yeah, I meant as the baseline mechanics if you want to do a 'Backloaded striker'.

>>52072056
>casters desperately begging for the right to be SAD
kek, this only makes me want to ban attack cantrips more.

>>52071662
>>52072035
So you *want* crossbow wizards or casters who do nothing on some rounds?

>>52072907
Yes. You're already playing a fucking wizard you entitled fuck.

>>52072930
That's some fun gameplay. Also totally balances against fighters who get to basic attack every round while the wizard negates half the encounter for one then AFK's for three.

Wew, fun.

So for quick math
- Slots-wise, Land Druids and Wizards actually have more or less as many slots as their 2e counterparts once you account for short rest recovery; slightly less at high level, actually more at low
- Concentration limit is actually not quite as big a limit as some of the requirements and downsides of buffs in AD&D
- Spells, while they are massively weaker than in 3e, are not actually that much less powerful than they were in second; which spells are more or less powerful than 2e is kind of all over the place. Sleep is one of the few objective nerfs from 2e, but while its potential number of targets has gone down significantly, it doesn't have a level cap anymore, while sleep used to be completely useless once you hit level 4 unless the DM was throwing you a bone and adding henchmen to most fights so your level 4 Enchanter doesn't feel useless.
- Spells known and spells memorized still vastly favors the 5e caster
- Bards and Clerics has always been primarily light martials with spells, what 3e did to clerics and to a lesser extent druid was an abomination to begin with. What 5e did to Bards is still kind of questionable.

>>52072953
>afks for three
You have the ability to use slings, darts and crossbows, as you did in AD&D.

In fact better than you did in 2E because all your potential weapons use a stat that you want high anyway for both accuracy and damage, with absolutely no penalty to your to-hit based on the fact that you're playing a bookish wuss.

And that's at low levels, at high levels there are basically no encounters where you're running out of spell slots unless the battle is stretching beyond dev expectations.

>>52067487
>Less mechanics doesn't make a system better for roleplaying unless you're an idiot who gets confused by numbers.

As an idiot who does get confused by numbers and was introduced to RPGs through World of Darkness and its various iterations, 5e has been an absolute godsend. I'd always wanted to try a traditional fantasy adventure game since it's such a hallmark of the hobby, but the earlier DnD editions were way too dense and confusing. But I'm now playing a 5e game and it's going great.

I still only play 3.5

>>52073000
Right, so attack cantrips are a flavor choice, you can take it or leave it. Turning them into lvl 1 spells is pointless, since lvl 1 equivalents that have more differentiation than 'does ~2 less average damage to a single target, but has minor effect" is already there.

Removing them doesn't change the game in a major way (except for EB builds), but having them means that your wizard can go around casting spells instead of needing a backup crossbow from level 1. it's up to your group if you are ok with this.

>>52073122
Of course you do sweetie.

Now run along, mommy will have your tendies ready in a min min.

>>52072995
It wasn't fun in AD&D fluff or crunch wise, it wasn't fun in 3.PF and so I doubt it being fun in 5e. The only people who seem to like this are crusty old grognard GM's who enjoy player suffering.

Magic system has been shit in every edition before 4e.

*BUT! *

I guess part of it is how you perceive magic to working or how it should work. Older versions have come with kind of a pre-conceived thaumatology I never really liked, fluff or crunch -wise.

>>52073196
It was perfectly fine in 2e because most players realized that there was more to the game to solving problem than their fucking spellbook.

Wizard players who tune out when the solution to a problem isn't in their spellbook are the problem.

>>52053615
so the person designing the tools was literally involved in a murder-suicide?

>>52073232
Yes.

>>52053305
Nope. 4e is shit, the players are shit, and WotC is shit.

You can't even prove me wrong.

>>52054878
Because you can build anything you want from online information in PF and 3.5. In 4e you have to literally pay to play.

>>52053305
Nope. Hell, some people argue it wasn't even D&D.

>>52073295
funin.space

>>52073354
>illegally maintained fan-created site
>totally legit I swear

>>52053728

But muh innanet shouting matches!

>>52073365
Most content for 3.5 isn't under the OGL so the same argument applies there.

>>52073365
Keep moving those goalposts son, maybe you'll make yourself look correct someday

File: editionwars.png (2MB, 588x2350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 588x2350px

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” - Henry ford

>>52075093
While I am fond of that Ford quotation, it's not applicable here. Ford was saying that nobody would have told him that they wanted a car because they had never imagined the concept.

After he introduced the automobile, nobody pounded on his door for faster horses. They wanted more cars. Yet, after 4E was introduced, people demanded the old product, not the new.

>>52075337
Some people demanded the old product. And since neither paizo or wotc release sales numbers we don't even know how many.

>>52073267
You can't prove yourself right.

>>52059539
Not fixing that shit until MM3 is inexcusable

>>52076738

I don't exactly disagree. It's pretty obvious WotC didn't understand their own system until very late in the games lifespan.

>>52053647
Jesus Christ, absolutely no contingency plans? No hit-by-a-bus fallback? No source control or anything?

I'm actually shocked and disgusted, then again I know if anyone could organise a software development shitshow of that calibre it'd be Wizards. I mean, who else would it be?

>>52072995
>slings, darts and crossbows
Those are such non-wizardly weapons, though. Couldn't they just give us a staff that fires generic magic projectiles or something? Make it work exactly like a crossbow, I don't care, but make it *magical*.

>>52077921
Some retard would have decided that a magical weapon such as this could be just pawned off as any merchant would give a good price for a magical stick simply on the grounds that it's not a mundane item.

I've already seen munchkinnery relying on the idea that a 1st level Wizard can just sell his spellbook and buy a vast array of hound dogs and other servants for the starting gold to dominate all encounters.

Especially since, depending on what it shoots, it very well may have more utiltiy than a typical crossbow. Fire? Use it to light torches around, reverse Dumbledore style. Water? Shoot it in a thirsty man's face. Some generic "force" that, for all intents and purposes, is just like a typical projectile weapon? The magic inherent in the item still makes it a bit of a collector's item (probably requires no training to wield at all, either).

>>52078527

'Only magic users can wield it'

Rapidly reduces the value of it since there'll be limited demand.

>>52053305
> Good concept
> Not actually being DnD

I tend to agree.

> Not properly playtested
> Player Handbook 3 and other ridiculous expansions
> Awesome character creation program failed, shitty web-based replacement
> Essentials

It still deserves to die.

>>52056643
There's also a nuance that a properly optimized character can face level-appropriate encounters by itself, allowing 100% garbage character to subsist in a campaign.

It is nuances of garbage between DnD editions imho.

>>52053305
>D&D

>>52078690
Nopeasaurus.

There would still be plenty of people willing to put out a pretty penny for it. At least with Mundane Weapons, you can spread them out to the party and easily justify improvements.

>>52078527
>Some retard would have decided that a magical weapon such as this could be just pawned off as any merchant would give a good price for a magical stick simply on the grounds that it's not a mundane item.

It doesn't even have to be magical. It could be just wood worked in a mundane way that lets them channel magical energy into attack cantrips. Like spiral carvings and wirings and shit.

>>52077921
These weapons are fine and perfectly wizardly. What's the issue with not being a completely useless potterverse inbred posh asshole?

>>52080052
They are for people who grew up on AD&D I guess. Slings and darts actually would take a lot of practice and be questionably effective without some good strength and athleticism behind them. Crossbow is a nice simple "point and shoot" I guess though.

This still only makes sense in a world of silly spell slots and poorly designed spell damage. The idea that you can use a small amount of magic for pretty basic attacks seems a bit silly.

>>52054453
You see this post every thread, it attempts to present a "balanced" view but does so with a clear lack of experience with 4e and holding it to bizarre and arbitrary standards that other editions of D&D are given a pass on.

>Classes were effectively straightjacketed...
There is nothing straightjacketed about the way 4e sets up its classes. You are free to take any option you like, but unlike every other edition of D&D it's very explicit about which options will work well with which other ones. Other editions of D&D don't even generally give build options at all. As you level up you get X and that's it.

>Classes were way too similar to each other
To what standard? Would someone care to make the argument that a 3e druid and a cleric are so much more distinct from each other than say, a 4e fighter and swordsage?

>Effectively mandatory map for combat
Maps have been mandatory since Chainmail faggot, unless you like combat being a shitty mess where everyone argues with the DM about where their character is standing from round to round and he just pulls spell areas out of his ass.

>Problems with monster stats
The monster math was definitely improved post MM3, but it wasn't unplayably bad before. It's certainly nowhere near as fucked as 3e's math, or 2e's arbitrariness

>Bad combinations of stats/skills/items/etc could create problems for characters
HAHAHAHA OH WOW. LOOK AT THIS FUCKER.

One of 4e's strengths is just how impressively difficult it is to make a character that is objectively useless. No other edition of D&D has even tried to pull that off and ALL of them are full of ways to make your character a complete waste of space. Many of them are easy to do accidentally or do even if you think you're building correctly. And unlike all of them, 4e lets you retrain shit you did wrong.

Seriously. Fuck that noise.

>>52053305
How do I into DnD? I want to start, and a couple friends have expressed interest, but I've never done anything like it before.

>>52078527
This is getting pretty close to "Why is there still hunger when clerics can conjure food and water" territory.

>>52078849
Hey, all the PHB3 classes are awesome.

Except the Seeker

And despite being both very well made and very fun to play, the Runepriest got no support at all

>>52076817
He was probably one of those coders who comments absolutely fucking nothing so when WotC tried to find someone else they took one look at his code and were like "yeah nah, not happening" and WotC couldn't justify starting from scratch again.

>>52083217

It does make me sad. If they hadn't shit the bed with Essentials, what kind of interesting classes and new mechanics could they have added to the game with the time they had left? 4e was good, but it could have been so much more.

Anyone know if its possible to update the offline cb with content past 2010?

>>52085991

http://pastebin.com/85Hm56k5

File links and installation guides are all there

>>52086021
following the guide I don't have heroes of shadow content. Did I fuck up?

>>52086063

Possibly. Pay attention to the notes inside the cbloader files too, you need to install the segments and patches in a specific order for it to all work fine.

>>52063771
>with limited options for outside of combat spells or abilities.
You mean utility powers?

Why the eff does it not allow me to add an implement without adding a superior enchantment to it? CBloader pls

>>52086321
And rituals.

>>52083281
They did try again using some silverlight thing, but only the new online CBuilder got made.

>>52067473
>How much does a game have to innovate between editions
More than 5e did, that's for sure.

>>52076817
>>52083281

You also have to realize this was really the first big in-house software project. All the D&D vidya prior was licensed and done by actual software companies; digital literature was a knock-on of publishing. In all of Hasbro you probably had a handful of web coders and commo / database management IT guys, who might just be the same people.

So you have this guy coming in who is designing infrastructure from the ground up, creating a product that in no way resembles the rest of operations. He shits the bed, you have this pile of code and nobody in the organization that understands it. I guarantee at some point they turned to Carl, the IT guy who maintains the backend for inventory management, and asked if he could finish it. Which was then met with the uproarious laughter you reserve for innocent questions from the truly ignorant. The extant work becomes an albatross that no one will ever finish, so why not strip out the chargen module that's already functionally done and make it a stand-alone.

The epitome of squandered potential. Combine with the "sack the head of D&D design every year" and you have a clear pattern of mismanagement. If cardboard crack were not printing money, Hasbro would've likely shuttered WotC.

File: Billions and Billions of Maru.jpg (218KB, 515x549px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 515x549px

QUESTION: At what point can something be classified as undead? I'm not an RPG guy at all, but after rewatching konosuba and seeing aqua use turn undead again, it got me thinking "at what point does something become undead?"

Mainly, i'm unsure if zombies, like resident evil zombies, would be affected by turn undead. I assume that is something is reanimated then it can be classified as undead, but what if something is just infected, and then dies without actually really dying? I figured the resident evil zombies were the best example because everyone just became infected, although some were killed first.

I didnt want to make a thread just for this question, and I don't want to go to /tv/ or /lit/ and ask a "lord of the ring" general because both those boards are pure cancer.

>>52086831
5e's streamlining is great to the point where I totally would call it innovative enough to be its own thing.

It's just that it moved so much back from 4e it doesn't feel like it.

>>52087070
"Undead" is a somewhat arbitrary label, but in D&D-land it is usually reserved for beings that were previously alive but are now powered by negative/necrotic energy. A plague zombie would not be undead, unless the plague itself was magical (which, to be honest, it'd kinda have to be for the effects to make any sense, unless we are talking about 24 days later rage zombies).

>>52087159
Discussing your post just gave me more questions than answers im afraid. If you would entertain my questions, i would greatly appreciate it.

1. When is death considered to have taken place? When the heart stops? When the brain signals stop? When all electrical connections stop? When does death definitively happen?

2a. If someone is brought back to life via medicine from being completely dead, are they undead still, since no negative/necrotic energy was used?

2b. If someone is brought back with, I guess, holy magic, are they undead?

3.Is Turn Undead just a basic exorcism magic or does it do something else but give the same results?

>>52087289
1. The medical definition of "dead" is based on our doctors' ability to revive them. If we can revive you, you aren't dead. Right now you're dead only after brain function ceases, but it will certainly change as new medical advances come along.

2a. See 1. Doctors don't claim to raise the dead. If they can bring you back, you weren't ever dead to begin with.

2b. Revivify, Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection do not change the subject into an Undead. Animate Dead does change it into an Undead.

3. Turn Undead specifically works against D&D Undead, which are defined as corpses animated through spiritual or supernatural means. Corpses animated through infection by non-magical pathogens don't count. This also means "zombie" ants infected and controlled by Cordyceps fungi don't count either.

File: 1484292456132.jpg (60KB, 221x338px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 221x338px

>>52087397
Okay, I think thats all I need to try and work things out from here, thank you.

>>52053305
If you actually needed to post this I think we both know that you already knew the kind of responses you would get before you even started typing.

Or at least I HOPE we both know; you'd have to be some kind of fucking idiot to not know.

>>52087289
I'd just like to note that "death" doesn't exactly have to happen to transform into an undead. I mean, I think vampire hearts don't actually stop beating, do they?

For D&D purposes it just seem to be that you have to switch from being a positive energy powered life form into one powered by unholy/necrotic/negative energy.

>>52080197
Magic in AD&D isn't a science, and is physically and mentally exhausting, it's sets of rote rituals learned through pseudo-empirical methods by men with no awareness of the scientific method, which even in the most advanced settings is at least a century away. I would absolutely be fine sticking with the way 5e does memorization honestly, except making it take more time to memorize a new or replacement spell.

Also every edition had a spell point variant of some sort (which I can also live with) and my favorite caster of this edition is ironically warlock (besides EB itself which feels even more boring than martials' attacks)

>>52072746
>it has crunch and complexity
>The point is that 4e does it _better_ than most (all?).
laughingGURPSplayers.mp3

>>52088607
No offense to anyone playing GURPS, but it's not a tactical combat system. It has good expansions, and with some work on the DM side of things, it can be made into one, but it just doesn't work out of the box as 4e does, and especially doesn't garner the same type of gameplay at all.

>>52054904
Are AD&D 1,2 balanced? I was thinking of playing them instead of DnD 4. I want to make a game focused on dungeon crawling and recource management(i.e players carefully make their way to loot or they die). Which one should i pick anons?

>>52090291
Just play Bx.

>>52090411
Why is bx better than AD&D?