As of late, I've noticed that D&D 4e has been getting

>>52721990
You wanted to shill 4e, but too bad! This is another thread where we hate 3.PF, all of D&D, ourselves, each other, and the whole of existence.

>>52721990
That's mostly because it's a decent system, but also because 5th went back to effectively 3.5 edition rules, so now there's a three way split between people that play 3.5, pathfinder, and 5th yet it's all effectively the same, stale game.

Players want something new but also different, and they aren't getting it.

>>52721990
For me personally I barely got to try 4e when it came out because my group decided they didn't like it after a single session so I didn't really have an opinion. I rediscovered the game recently and have fallen in love. I've always enjoyed tactics games and 4e is really the only tabletop rpg I've played that scratches that itch. 3.PF is bloated and broken, and 5e just feels boring.

But beyond that, I really enjoy 4e's take on D&D lore and the 'Points of Light' setting that puts a strong focus on exploration, mystery, and the unknown. I feel inspired every time I read 4e setting fluff; a good example is that article on gnolls that most people seem to like.

Honestly with the way modern RPGs are going I doubt we'll ever see anything like 4e again, at least not on the same scale. It makes me kind of sad, but at least the only obstacle to playing 4e right now is a lack of players.

Like everything WotC does, /tg/ both hates and loves 4e.

File: download.jpg (12KB, 190x265px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 190x265px

>>52722386
That's not true. I've never seen anyone complain about Pic-related. It's actually quite enjoyable. A good hour-long card game that's got enough strategic intrigue to be interesting, but is simplistic enough that you can play it with normies.

>>52722059
>5th went back to effectively 3.5 edition rules
No it didn't. Healing is based on lower power 4e. Resting is based on lower power 4e. Ranger and Paladin casting are largely their 4e class abilities.

Also points of light was garbage for people who need a power fantasy.

>>52721990
We all realized how shitty 3.5 was, and by extension how retarded it was to rag on 4e for not being 3.5

>>52722454
Points of Light was exactly that. It had many good points. A lot of people loved the Raven Queen's lore, and other facets of the setting, but ultimately... meh.

Because it didn't feel DnD to the masses. If it had warcraft name attached, back in the days when blizzard ventured into tabletop, it would've sold like hot cakes.

I like the system, but tactical pushing and movings and healing surges are not dnd for me.

>>52721990
"Slowly I turn"

>>52721990
Because it's a fairly good system that simultaneously fails at being D&D.

>>52722454

>Also points of light was garbage for people who need a power fantasy.

How does a bare bones structure that let the GM fill in the gaps any more of a power fantasy than other more established and rigidly structured settings?

>>52722454
Why do I see people shitting on "power fantasies" on /tg/? What's wrong with them? Isn't D&D supposed to be a power fantasy about being big damn heroes killing big damn villains in fantasyland?

>>52724357

Some people are pretentious and pretend they're better than/above such things, acting like it makes them superior and, in a way, creating their own form of smug, up their own ass power fantasy.

>>52721990
>i wonder why.
the 2 main reasons why 4e has come to be so scorned here is, in my opinion, a mix between a botched launch with lots of unfulfilled promises (see: dnd insider, for example) and the fact that they changed too much too fast. had they released 4e and 5e in reverse order, so that the changes were more gradual, it might have been a different story.
then people went on and found their own reasons to hate it so they didnt just have "shitty release" and "not 3.5" as arguments. and since there are enough flaws inherent in 4e's system there were many reasons to be found.

i still think it's better than 3.5 and always has been

>>52725418
It made a tactical RPG even more explicit about it's miniature wargame-derived nature. What it did not address was the game in any situation other than combat.

4E was a very, very good approximation of an old-school SRPG. If you played it that way it was great. If you expected epic stories around the mighty feats you pulled off that did not involve killing things, you were playing the wrong game.

>>52725501

>If you expected epic stories around the mighty feats you pulled off that did not involve killing things, you were playing the wrong game.

I'm not sure what you were doing wrong, my group never had any trouble with this.

It's not like 3.5 did more on that side anyway, beyond 'I win' spells and a clusterfuck of bad rules that generally served to slow the game down while the GM looked them up, tried to puzzle them out and then just ignored them.

>>52722495
If you can do it reliably and tack it onto something else useful(Dungeoncrasher, whizzards), forced movement in 3.5 is arguably stronger than it is in 4E due to negating or enabling the full attack mechanic, plus healing is a total fucking non-issue for the vast majority of the game because of how efficient wands are.

>>52722454
>No it didn't. Healing is based on lower power 4e.

...no it isn't. 5e healing surges are extra healing. 4e Healing Surges were a cap on all healing. Including magic healing.

>>52721990
People are realizing that it was really good after being forced to suffer the 3.5isms of 5th Ed.

Nerds hate change, so they hated on it. But looking back, with the benefit of hindsight, it's obvious that a great deal of what in introduced was far superior to how 5th Ed handles things.

>>52722454
>Also points of light was garbage for people who need a power fantasy.

What.

How does a basic skeleton world designed for the DM to flesh out as they wish interrupt a player's power fantasy? You'd think it would be much better for power fantasies than places like Forgotten Realms, which are bloated with powerful NPCs that steal the spotlight from PCs.

>>52725501
>If you expected epic stories around the mighty feats you pulled off that did not involve killing things, you were playing the wrong game.

I think that's less a problem with the game, and more a problem with how you interpreted the language of the game. You felt like the language was more 'gamey' so you decided it was more focused on tactical combat.

In reality, there 4e and 3.5 have the exact same potential for storytelling, since pretty much all of that is something the DM weaves around the rules.

Its been long enough that people who played it in their teens can get nostalgic about it now.

>>52725501
>I never played AD&D but I swear to god it was always about killing shit
This is how I know all you know of AD&D, whether 1e or 2e, is Meme of Horrors

>>52721990
If you actually follow the rules, it's unplayable. Every round takes forever just to calculate modifiers because everyone is throwing them every which way. The business model was fucked, putting formerly core classes into later versions of the PHB.

It failed because it deserved to fail.

>>52727161
Stop blaming games because you have dyscalculia. It takes no effort to track that shit if you aren't retarded.

>>52727161
>Every round takes forever just to calculate modifiers because everyone is throwing them every which way.

Yeah, maybe if you have legit brain problems, sure.

>>52722495
But there was a Warcraft 3.5 book, and it didn't sell well.

>>52724319
Beacuse there's no Elminster to tell you what to do and how to do it, and then have Drizzt do it anyways while being way cooler than you can ever be. Anything other than that is snowflake power fantasy, obviously.

>>52721990
can anyway get CBloader to work? i keep getting the encryption error.

I'm curious to look into 4e, I skipped over it entirely when it was relevant because I was playing Fate.

Do I want original books or essentials? Also, is there a particular trove for it I can check out or should I just hit up the usual PDF share threads?

>>52728404
should be able to find pdfs. Either version is good, but I like the originals better. Better flavor, better options, uncucked Paladins...

>>52728404

Essentials is (For most classes) a lot more simple but also more limited and doesn't scale well outside heroic.

>>52728404
Essentials sounds like a sort of best of compilation but it's new material. It was an attempt to respond to the stated complaints of people that didn't like 4e and it's noteworthy thing was taking away maneuvers from fighters and replacing them with better generic attacks plus stances. It failed to win over a single person who was mad at 4e, and people who already liked 4e preferred the material that won them over in the first place.

It's perfectly ok material to use in a game, but if you want to get why people liked 4e just read the PHB1 warlord.

>>52724319
>How does a bare bones structure

It's easier for a DM to pick stuff that's good and ignore stuff that's bad, then it is to create uniformly good stuff apropos nothing.

That's the advantage that the Realms has.

>>52721990
4e was always best in retrospect because before MM3 math it sucked. Core 4e is a garbage experience with a lot of great ideas.

>>52729003

Core 4e has the Warlord and that's good enough for me.

Boss monsters were pretty lame tho

>>52729003
>>52729187
Everybody's really excited about MM3 math on a business card, because it helped a ton, but MM1 was honestly pretty adequate. And MM2 was noticeably better than MM1 (minions more threatening, mainly).

>>52722059
>5th went back to effectively 3.5 edition rules

how retarded can you be?

>>52722454
>>52729614
>5e Internet Defense Force

>>52722439
Shit game, too many french people.

>>52724357
Roleplaying games are all about amateur dramatics right now, everything else is badwrongfun. If you care about say, mechanics, you should be playing video games instead apparently.

>>52730230
What if I say I care about amateur dramatics being mechanically supported by the system we're playing? Is that roll-playing? Is that still a thing?

I just don't understand the hate for it. I mean people are getting upset about others wanting a different style of game from them. It's literally getting upset over a difference of opinion/taste.

>>52721990
Actually, it's just a resurgence of 4urries wanting their game to not be dead.

>>52731082
Wrong but you can go ahead and be retarded.

Let's look at the monster roles and how to conflate them. Elite artillery? Check. Solo brute? Check. Solo brute soldier? Check check check...

All in all, great fun, if you knew how to play. If you don't, well you get the constant complaining you saw here day in, day out on tg. SSDD

>>52731344
See, the fact that you assume people don't know how to play a wargame that has such basic rules that you can't fuck up anything unless you go out of your way to do so.......oh wait, that's a lie. There's plenty of trap options and stupid choices in 4e, its just that they're much better hidden than other games.

>>52731377
I'm not assuming anything. I can just state my stance without an agenda, you know? It doesn't matter to me if anyone likes 4e or not, just tossing my opinion out there, too!

File: 1485885724179.jpg (144KB, 900x577px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 900x577px

>>52721990
It's partially because people are playing D&D on online services like Roll20 more often. 4e was originally going to be made to play online as well as the table but the Online Devs working on that shit dropped the ball and the online portion of the game was never released. Now that people have tried playing 4e online people have started to give it a chance. One of the main complaints about 4e at the time was it was too video gamey and not as fun to play on table tops.

Another reason why people have started liking 4e is because people got bored playing 5e with it's snail pace content release schedule. I've been playing 5e for 2 years and with the little they have released, the game has become repetitive. If you play one class variant you pretty much played them all and there's not enough character customization to make characters feel that different as well as 5e just toning things down to point of making the system a little to bland and boring.

>>52732003
>but the Online Devs working on that shit dropped the ball
Way to understate a murder suicide. And it was literally one dev working on it, who didn't comment his shit so that others could take over if anything happened.

File: 1289127871207.gif (491KB, 742x418px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 742x418px

>>52721990
>As of late, I've noticed that D&D 4e has been getting some recognition as a fairly good system here in /tg/

Guys, I am going to run my first 4th edition game for a party of fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard, and I have like 4-5 encounter ideas, but I don't feel like it warrants a separate thread, would hate to bump something off the board.

Would anyone be willing to brainstorm through the nuances of those fights with me? I'm trying to make sure I understand all the minion/artillery/lurker/elite/solo stuff.

>>52733213
Go ahead, I'm listening.

What levels are they? Anything notable about their abilities?

>>52733232
Great, thank you very much for your time.
They're not particularly optimized. They know their roles and know what sounds cool
-a 2 handed specialized fighter
-a rogue with a shortsword / dagger, classic assassin type
-a wizard with lots of slows and control
-a cleric - our most shy player, wants to just hang out with others, drink beer, and help out, not necessarily a huge roleplayer, doesn't mind staying in the shadow, stays in the back, no melee skills
-everyone has 3 at wills at level 1 because I wanted to give everyone even more options for fun (human wizard has 4)
-I printed everyone a sheet with easy reference to all their abilities; they're all board gamers primarily that just got into playing with me, so aside from their character sheets they also have easy cheatsheets of abilities

They all start off at level 1.

I'm trying to engage them into the narrative. The first fight will be more "narrative" than "tactical" - i.e. they manage to break away from an execution squad, get the upper hand quickly; the rogue has the opportunity to free himself with his dexterity, the fighter can just rip the ropes apart and smash his executor's head in, the wizard has a time to throw out a prestidigitation, etc. In this fight, I predict sticking with more of a "theatre of the mind", since their executors aren't meant to put a big fight at all.

They run away from their pursuers, their only clue leading them to an old armory, where they may manage to stock up on gear taken away from there. when they spend a few minutes there and gear up, they will trip over some of the living equipment in there. I plan on a single big armor as a Brute and 2-3 living swords to act as his support, trying to strike into fleshy backs of the wizard and cleric.

(cont)

>>52733491

When they get out of there, they will realize that the armory is connected to some sort of an underground road that connects two parts of an otherwise very hard to maneuver jungle. The tunnel is long abandoned and they'll meet a low-tier Myconid and a whole bunch of spores growing from walls. The Myconid himself is a pushover, but the problem with this fight is the spores, which are a bunch of 1-hp Minions that each, however, shoot a low-damage acid that has 2 squares of range - the damage is low, but if they prolong their stay or position improperly, it can accumulate and provoke more attrition. The Myconid himself is just a big shroom to fight in a very difficult environment. I was considering some sort of a gaseous, slow-moving cloud of vapor that would be another Minion-tier, but would explode onto all melees, so either the Defender would have to facetank it or it would have to be taken from a distance.

All of this is supposed to contribute to environmental storytelling, by the way. It makes sense in my head; I'd rather not have kobolds out of nowhere because we need a level 1 beat'em up. The Myconid is just there growing around a patch of mushrooms and just so incidentally happens to be blocking a path to safety.

When they emerge at the other end it will turn out that they were tracked by their oppressor's jungle man - think Kraven from Spider-Man - and his pet snake. The pet snake is supposed to be an Elite, and the jungle man is meant to be a leader with a bow, giving the snake buffs and ranged support. Should the large snake fall, the man will escape into the jungle, setting up for the party's nemesis or, perhaps, maybe, getting killed if the party plays it smart.

>>52730301
No. It's that a horde of min-maxing powergamers showed up, who instead of using the rules to try to make a character that rings true in the imaginary world that they have a hand at creating, use the rules to "win teh gaem." Furthermore, it was a lot easier to pander to that kind of player to sell half-baked supplements and new editions with a lot shorter turnaround.

>>52733678
>Too quick on the post...
This pandering changed the tone of the products available on the market, and basically pushed the people who were into RPGs for any other purpose to the fringes, where we are scrabbling to hold on to the scraps of what tabletop used to be.

>>52733491
>The first fight will be more "narrative" than "tactical"

Sounds like a good spot for a skill challenge. The rules in the DMG are rather ill explained, so use this:

http://www.runagame.net/2013/08/4e-skill-challenge-example.html

> I plan on a single big armor as a Brute and 2-3 living swords to act as his support, trying to strike into fleshy backs of the wizard and cleric.

Add some interactable terrain/doodads, like weapon racks/shelves, armor suits, things the characters can use as cover or tip over on to enemies/to create difficult terrain for the animated armor. Maybe make it so the animated armor can pick up weapon racks and throw the weapons at them as a (possibly AoE) ranged attack. Read up on improvised actions, use the table in the rules compendium if you can find it.

>The tunnel is long abandoned and they'll meet a low-tier Myconid and a whole bunch of spores growing from walls. The Myconid himself is a pushover, but the problem with this fight is the spores, which are a bunch of 1-hp Minions that each, however, shoot a low-damage acid that has 2 squares of range - the damage is low, but if they prolong their stay or position improperly, it can accumulate and provoke more attrition.

You may want to stat them as traps instead, but minions work too I guess. I feel like this could possibly be cheesed by ranged weaponry (or just by running away; it doesn't sound like the myconid would be too keen on giving chase), so make sure the tunnel has some twists, turns and stalag-... whatevers to use as cover for the shrooms.

>When they emerge at the other end it will turn out that they were tracked by their oppressor's jungle man - think Kraven from Spider-Man - and his pet snake

I feel like the snake should be a constrictor, wrestling with those is fun for the whole family.

Also, maybe have him set a few log/pit/wire/noose traps around. Maybe have the snake grapple and drag allies into spike pits or hold them still while a log trap swings down.

>>52733734
>Read up on improvised actions, use the table in the rules compendium if you can find it.

I actually found these, not sure how good they are, but they are pretty nice http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?307923-4e-DM-Cheat-Sheet

>>52733734
Fantastic, thanks for the link.
All of those sound like great advice, will consider them. I'm just hoping not to cause a TPK immediately, but that can probably be adapted on the flow.

The spores are supposed to be minions because the idea is that while they can be killed from a range, you have to first position yourself in such a spot where you will be clear from danger, and then you are not using actions killing the myconid. Yes, the entire Myconid lair is basically done as a labirynth of extremely cramped corridors. The gaseous cloud is supposed to be there as an additional pressure thing. It's meant to be somewhat tricky and attrition based, but not necessarily a fight to the death. Just to ease the players to the idea of movement on the board and enemies.

>>52733705
I dunno. I admit that it felt rough there for a while. But I think that kind of wound down a long time ago. As the central driving force of gaming culture, I mean. Honestly, think it was winding down by the time 4e was released. I think the (understandable but not altogether accurate) impression that 4e is the kind of game you described was one of the reasons it didn't catch on better. I have more access to to more variety of games (including those focused on story or character or world or what have you) now than I have at any time in my life as well as more access to people with whom to play them and talk about them.

I mean, that culture and mentality never went away and you still see products that do a good job of supporting it. Pathfinder is great for making wacky, twinked out characters if that's what you're into (and can be if you're not so long as you don't get a bad mix of gaming philosophies). But I don't feel that the players who like immersion and story and whatnot are an oppressed minority now. Honestly, I question whether we ever really were as much as we thought.

Honestly 4e is incredibly fun.

Most of the problems with having insanely long fights got solved by MM3.

I personally prefer playing with an essentials only campaign because most of the core archetypes are covered effectively and there is way way less rules bloat especially now that the 4e tools are less available.

Nerath/Nentir Vale is an excellent setting that avoids most of the problems of FR simply by the fact that it has been barely detailed. In some ways it feels like an old school pre-Wars Greyhawk setting.

The major problem I have with 4e is that it's almost mandatory to play with a battlegrid. That's not inherently a problem but sometimes it's fun to play with Theatre of the Mind and personally I think 5e is stronger with that.

All in all I like 4e and and 5e for different things

>>52733678
>>52733705
I played Pathfinder for a bit and they always seemed to be shoving new (broken, as always) rules and classes and feats and spells out with first party material, and third party was always a shitshow.

That said, I wouldn't really know about OP shovelware. I quickly jumped ship from Pathfinder to GURPS.

>>52721990

I think 4e's biggest flaw is that they were pandering to the wrong crowd. They thought they had a good idea to capture the video game / MMO market by making their game very tactical with lots of options, but in doing so they threw out the aspects that their existing market wanted. You don't market trucks to soccer moms, even very nice trucks.

Also, kind of petty and random but I found all the first-person flavor text extremely annoying and pretentious. Like I can't be trusted to think of how a tripping attack might look.

>>52729672
>complaining about 5e defense force in an obvious 4e shill thread

>>52735130
>They thought they had a good idea to capture the video game / MMO market by making their game very tactical with lots of options

It's funny because MMOs universally require 0 skill.

>>52735196
This!

Either you go on auto-pilot to complete raids or you get your ass kicked because you weren't high leveled enough sorta like 3.PF

>>52735130
>MMO crowd
But thats just the MMO boogeyman.
Tactical combat isnt "the MMO crowd"
The reason i got excited about 4E is because someone told me its Final Fantasy tactics the Pen and Paper RPG.

>>52735130

Speak for yourself. As someone who loves RPGs, the clear layouts, standardised formatting and easy to understand rules were a fucking blessing compared to so many other games with awkward, unintuitive and generally crap layouts with little to no usability features whatsoever.

>>52735587
It really is.

>>52735642
"It look pretty so it's gud."

>>52728775
>the hurr all gms suck analogy
The funny part is that only on /tg/, well known for being a cesspit of people who literally do not even play the game or do not have groups because they are socially dysfunctional, do you find this rampant opinion that GMs are shit until proven otherwise.

>>52735657

You are a fucking imbecile if you think a clear, easy to use layout is 'it looks pretty'. It is a matter of pure practicality and set a good example that literally every other RPG could benefit from.

>>52735747
>>52735657
If anything, it looked pretty ugly, practicality aside.

>>52733534
I would toss in a repeating trap/environmental effect or 2 at the Kraven battle to keep them from being focus fired down.
I'd also recommend you keep the battlefields varied, different height variations, rubble, equipment strewn about when appropriate.
>>52735642
>standardised formatting and easy to understand rules were a fucking blessing compared to so many other games with awkward, unintuitive and generally crap layouts with little to no usability features whatsoever.
This. Both player and GM have easy to read and understand at a glance formatting, and players do not need to learn multiple sub-systems in order to enjoy different ways to play the game. Shit like that is enjoyed by /tg/ for a reason.
>>52735758
And why is that?

>>52735801
>And why is that?
It was very bland looking, and the art was bad imo.

I still think it was very practical. Rules language /power layout >>>> natural language/"paragraphs with a bolded name"

>>52735837
Practical sense sorta leans against ostentatious displays.
>art was bad
I disagree as it was the first time since early 3e that every race had a fairly distinct style that you could recognize at a glance.
Dwarves maintained strong geometric symmetry in their design, for instance, Tieflings tended towards bold, dark colors in clothing that was unrestrictive, Dragonborn's armor and building design was emblematic of scales.

>>52735837
>>52735899

When it comes to art it's very much personal preference. I really like the more modern digital art we see these days, I think it's a lot clearer and cleaner, while a lot of the old school art people seem to fawn over just strikes me as rather cluttered and muddled.

>>52730201
That's what makes it a great game. You get to kill all the French people.

>>52721990
Is that some of the the fourth edition iconic character trying to resurrect the 3.X Iconic fighter?

>>52728289
Because it didn't feel like wow. Just same old dnd.
>Oh my elves are purple instead of white oh wait, I already have drows.

I liked 4E but that's because to me it felt more like FATAL than 3.5 did.

>>52721990
>4e has been getting some recognition as a fairly good system here in /tg/ almost 10 years after its initial release. I wonder why.
Because nobody masturbates over 3.5 "system mastery" any more.

>>52722454
>I don't know what I'm talking about: the post

>>52735194
>Shilling a dead game
That word doesn't mean what you think it does. Hey try sunshine. It might help your critical thinking processes.

>>52736613
>>Shilling a dead game
That is not dead which can eternal lie...

It was a version of D&D that dared to innovate, which turned off a lot of people. Now D&D is just holdovers from the 70's, held together more by nostalgia than good game design. I won't claim that 4E was perfect, but it did what it set out to do very well.

>4e is because they wanted to ripoff MMOs!
I say this as someone who has never really enjoyed 4e: No, they wanted to fix a lot of criticisms of 3.5 while.

- Every class has a competency floor in combat, thanks to the universal AEDU power system. Plus, Role design which is simply a codified acknowledgement of relationships that have always existed D&D. So long as you understand your class' brand of efficacy you will have something you can do.

- Eliminating saving throws, which was one of the ways spells were so much more reliable, in favor of additional static defenses. Plus more flexibility in how those defenses are figured, which helps broaden the sorts of ability scores or defenses of characters across classes and roles. Further bridging the gap or everybody getting some "effect on a miss" powers.

- The stream-lined categorical skill system, and how you were simply trained or untrained, meant it took less work to allow a character to have a presence in a variety of out-of-combat scenarios.

- Every power is more self contained and has an explicit structure baked into to it; virtually no cross-referencing needed.

- The item property/accuracy bonus system helped make more weapon types are viable and fun across a campaign's lifespan.

- The Paragon/Epic choices mirrored the narrative weight of character defining PrCs without having quite so much inconsistency or abusability.

And on top of all of that they have an updated Feat system, which was the most interesting and defining elements of 3.5.

4e's problem is a UX one. In the interest of clarity 4e is quick to communicate everything in explicitly mechanical terms, but that just leads many people to engage with it in the same restricted and sterilized way. Other games are more verbal and thus convey more trappings in their explanations of things, which means there's more consideration by players of those things. Players have to chew more gristle, and they glean narrative as a fringe benefit.

>>52736274

Looking back over 3.5 rules because i started playing with an oldfag grognard irl. It actually looks like a solid game even thought I remember otherwise. I think monsters that couldn't be critically hit and monsters with spell resistance were underused.

>>52739782
>4e's problem is a UX one. In the interest of clarity 4e is quick to communicate everything in explicitly mechanical terms, but that just leads many people to engage with it in the same restricted and sterilized way.
So you're saying gamers are too dumb to be given just the facts?

Whew.

>>52741500
>I think monsters that couldn't be critically hit and monsters with spell resistance were underused.
>Critical Hits
>Mattering
>Spell Resistance
>Mattering
The rules are shit. Damage doesn't matter when the Wizard can invalidate encounters with one of dozens of spells that don't allow SR.

>>52741536

This was weirdly proven true with 5e. For some reason, a certain portion of the D&D fanbase craves obfuscation, for systems to conceal things from them and not be direct. Its fucking weird IMO.

>>52741557

the critical hits don't matter, but it means that they also don't take damage from sneak attack dice. i didn't see a lot of spells that didn't have spell resist or saves, but i haven't played in a while and i didn't look over everything. I remember the game would start breaking down around level 5 if you let a wizard do what they wanted, but with more creative dm's I don't think that would be the case. I could be wrong though.

>>52721990
It basically did what I was trying to do with 3.P
I noticed that each class in 3.P got their own cool thing, rage powers, rouge talents, so on, but they just kinda sucked. Like most of them were kinda weak and only focused on one area, whereas magic was incredibly powerful and incredibly versatile. The magic system itself was actually quite nice, and had a lot of really cool tricks, so I thought why not just port that around? I tried giving every class spell like abilities that were thematic, knock for rouge, Ox's strength for fighter and so on, but it would have been a massive undertaking. DnD 4e did all that with utility powers.

>>52741572

I'm waiting for the community to realize how strong healing is compared to the rest of the spells. Almost every spell that isn't a variation of fireball or cure wounds isn't worth casting in combat ever. Bless actually does nothing.

>>52741585
Actually, yeah, around level 5 and 6 is when the game starts breaking down. There's an fan ruleset called e6 that caps levels at 6 and after that, XP gets you a new feat.

There's a surprising amount of versatile spells that don't allow SR. A few big ones are Grease (1st level, so you're drowning in it at levels 5+), Glitterdust (General purpose debuff, and a brutal one too), Wall of Stone (Higher level, but good battlefield control against non-flyers), Black Tentacles (Good control), Forcecage (Put them in time-out), Time Stop (obviously good), and Summon Monster I-IX can easily flood the battlefield with actions.

And creative GMs can't really curb the wizard without gimping them AND only throwing weak enemies so the fighters can keep up without a wizard by their side. It's a real mess.

If you're married to d20, I suggest 4e D&D or Fantasy Craft.

>>52741572
It blows my mind. People want to have to muddle through things. I've had people get livid over me correcting something EXPLICITLY incorrect before.

>>52741676

I'm completely fine with 5e. The other guy wants to DM a game of 3.5, so I am playing a wizard in his game.

>>52741718

I think it's part of the reason people like 5e. Instead of the muddled, hard to use mess of 3.PF it's a less muddled, easier to use mess which is still bland and vague enough that you can reinterpret it into whatever your preferred form of D&D looks like. It only really exists for people to project their nostalgic/idealised version of 'What D&D is' onto it, even if the game they remember never existed.

>>52741593
Actually, thats a question I've been meaning to ask, and I might as well ask it here instead of making my own thread.

What were the largest attempts to 'fix' the 3.P imbalance issues? Don't get me wrong I know its a mostly pointless endeavor, and it would be much easier to pick up a new game, this is more of a historical question. What sorts of things did people try?

>>52741861

The easiest fix is banning certain bad content and sticking to a certain tier of classes.

Look up the 3.5/PF tier list, it rates classes based on their abilities. As long as everyone plays classes within a certain tier/tier range, the game works a lot better. Tier 3/4 is my preference, although some people prefer tier 1/2 so everyone can play busted as fuck fullcasters.

>>52741880
Yeah I know about that, I was more thinking some mad man out there had the same idea I did about trying to retool the classes to be more powerful, and also had the autism to actually try and go through with it.

>>52741861
Epic6 (levels cap at 6, every 5,000 XP means a new feat0
Ban core and use Tome of Battle + Expanded Psionics as a replacement
Tome of Awesome re-write
"Only classes of X tiers"
Pathfinder
4e

>>52741918
>Pathfinder
Does Pathfinder do anything to help the situation?
From my limited experience with it it seems to make fighters better at fighting but does nothing to help fighters and other non-magic users compete with the versatility and power level of spell casters at mid to high levels.

>>52742423

Pathfinder is a thin coat of paint over 3.5. It started out as a glorified set of houserules which improved some things but created other problems and generally didn't fix any of the real issues the system suffered.

>>52742423
You can't take a shit in pf without some rules lawyer asking if you have a feat for that. It's a horrible mess at this point and from what I can gather a fair setting. At least they're actually interested in "fixing" 3e so that's something, a noble but doomed effort imo.

>>52742423
>From my limited experience with it it seems to make fighters better at fighting
It doesn't. For example, feats in 3.5e were split up into two, such as Improved Trip turned into Improved Trip and Greater Trip, meaning that a martial now needs to pay two feats for what they would've gotten for one in 3.5e.

It also makes casters better at casting. In 3.5e, specializing in a school meant you had two banned colleges that you cannot ever cast spells from, even scrolls or wands. In Pathfinder, specializing gives you additional bonuses (Foresight is a particularly broken example, allowing you to roll an additional d20 3+INT times per day for any roll, such as overcoming SR) at the cost of still being able to cast your "opposition" schools, but paying two slots instead of one for them, and you can cast from wands and scrolls with no penalty, and you take a paltry -4 on crafting item checks for those opposing schools.

Pathfinder is objectively worse for martial/caster disparity than 3.5e.

>>52742423
Kiiiinda. Mostly from the buttload of options that came later on. Like rouges are still shit, but now you can just play a vigilante or slayer and be a not as shit rouge.

>>52742593
Don't forget that druids and clerics also remain incredibly powerful.
Even with the changes to polymorph/wildshape, a druid can easily become a competent melee combatant. In 3.5 you got all the stats that came along with your new form, but natural Attacks had one good attack and all others were -5 to hit. In PF you only get a bit of strength added, but natural attacks are categorized as primary (full bonus)/secondary (-5 as in 3.5) and most animals mostly have primary attacks. So you end up pretty even or slightly below what a 3.5 druid could dish out, however your animal companion is also way better.
Clerics are kind of harder to get a handle on, but depending on your domains, which give free spells, which might not normally be on your list, you're still plenty powerful.

>>52742806
Oh and don't forget CMB/CMD, which actually sucks for martials, since to do anything that's not "hit it", you have to invest loads (well, feat chains were already mentioned), get turned into a one trick pony and then get buttfucked by the system's math.
You see, what makes monsters monsters (high native Str, loads of HD and bigger size) also makes them very resilient and sometimes outright impossible to affect with your cool combat maneuvers, but in turn they can do the same easily to you.
Heck, if you're fighting a dude or monster that trips you, you simply stay down, because otherwise you only get showered with attacks of opportunity when you stand up (and in the case of greater trip, fall down, which makes standing up even worse)

>>52722454
I used to hate the 4e setting and cosmology till I read the comic.

>>52721990

I loved 4th edition, after getting a start in 3.5. I remain eternally bootyblasted that they never made a bunch of FFT clones with 4e rules, I'd have given them all my money twice.

>>52727241
>>52727263
Not even remotely. If you're keeping track of every buff, every effect and every passive power, you're recalculating every time you make an attack, making it even more of a cluster fuck than 3.5 because it was designed to be used with an online utility that never materialized. I guarantee that you aren't fully implementing the rules as designed.

>Dyscalculia

And stop being a faggot, while you're at it.

>>52743305

You have never played 4e. Literally all the numbers are right there on your sheet. It is so amazingly easy I am astonished you could even make those claims.

>>52742423

Honestly no. Pathfinder originally was more of a side grade balance wise since it inherited 3.5's core issues (2 skill points per level for martials, busted wizards, etc) but lost 3.5's splatbooks. Not saying those splatbooks aren't entirely busted, and really several of them really carry 3.5, but the shear volume of options let busted things slip through the cracks.

Pathfinder now is significantly more broken than 3.5 ever could be. The core rules keep letting dubious things slip in via rules bloat, while the thin little setting books are typically not well looked over and let shit like Sacred Geometry slip through. Besides those, we have things like wizard subschools with swift action supernatural subschool, crafting that doesn't cost exp letting players with enough downtime super deck out their party, traits that let you replace the attributes behind skills so wizards can now diplomance, Master Summoner, and more.

File: 1490321935948.jpg (162KB, 557x830px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 557x830px

>mfw I started playing 4e as my first ever table top RPG a few years ago and still love playing weekly with that same group now

>>52743140
What comic is this?

What i did for all Spellcasters in 3.5/Mathfinder is I implemented a ten-point Fatigue system. All spells after third level generate half their level's worth of fatigue. If the ten point limit is reached, you can still cast spells at a cost.

The fatigue system represents a manner in which the Spellcaster's own body as the focus of the spell is being stressed. Casting a spell of any level afterwards generates damage equivalent to your relevant spellcasting modifier times the level of the spell.If you are below half HP, the damage you endure is doubled.

>>52745693
Fell's Five, I'm betting

>>52745866
that's the only one there is, unless "comic" meant "webcomic" and even then, i can't think of any set in points of light or 4e type stuff.

>>52741771
I know this is supposed to be a strike against 5e but honestly, isn't this sort of the roleplaying game ideal?

>>52743288
I skipped 4e because I just followed my DM back then and he led us from 3.5 into PF.

I've been seeing a lot of vindication for 4e lately, so I'm wondering, if there was an active playerbase, why didn't anyone ever make 4e clones?

>>52747704
>why didn't anyone ever make 4e clones?

As someone working on an attempt at a game based on 4e, I can safely answer that.

4e is a lot of work to write for. Same reason there is very little 4e homebrew more complex than a race or theme. You need to write a LOT of stuff.

Like, take a 4e class for example. In the core book alone, each class has two possible subtypes with a unique class feature. Each level from 1-30 needs a power for each of those subtypes as well as 2 powers that either of them can use. At this point you are looking at over 100 powers for a single class just for a corebook.

>>52747991
This is why "have scaling powers" is an absolutely legit criticism for 4e. Lots of those levels have filler powers that are just updates to the power from 5-10 levels ago, which is vindicated by having to fill in that space.

If you'd homebrew for 4e, just add new paths to existing stuff instead of making an entire new class, that cuts down on a lot of hassle.

Of course, you can't do that if you are trying to make a clone.

Speaking of which, the "4e-like" games I know of so far are 13th Age, Strike! and Valor. There was also Unchained Heroes (I think) for PF that I remember being pretty 4e-like.

Anyone has any more?

>>52722362
You're so wrong, you don't even know it. Stop being uselesslessly autistic and try something intellectual for once.

>>52748540

>This is why "have scaling powers" is an absolutely legit criticism for 4e. Lots of those levels have filler powers that are just updates to the power from 5-10 levels ago, which is vindicated by having to fill in that space.

Yeah, I will agree there as a massive 4e fan. 4e really should have had ALL it's powers work like it's at-wills. As they scale up as you level. Have a level 5 power upgrade at 15 and 25 for example.

>>52748605

You could try explaining why he's wrong rather than just name calling, if you want to try something intellectual and actually have a debate.

>>52748633
He doesn't, he wants to shitpost, ignore him.

Closest thing to a 4e thread we got, I wager.
I have a group that is some 8 heads large.
>I know, shoot me now, but they are all solid people that I trust and have walked thru the fire
What is the best way to challenge them in combat? Because the XP budget is fuckhuge, I don't know if I should lean on large numbers of minions to harry, or rely on a solid core level+1/2 foes to slap leather with, and minions to round it out.

>>52721990
probably just the /v/ posters coming over since 4e is basically a video game.

>>52749192
If this were /v/ then we wouldn't be having a discussion, it'd just be a bunch of spastics throwing around bait in the vague hope that somebody bites.

Y'know, kinda like what you're doing now?

>>52749174
IMO a few solid core foes + a few minions is the best way. The primary purpose minions serve is giving the bad guys more actions than the good guys, not to be the whole encounter.

>>52749393
Well, I never meant just minions in the encounter, but I mean, I have a LOT of fucking xp in the budget.
At level 3, I could fit like 11 minions and 4 standard foes, or I could do 7 standards and 5 minions.

>>52749423
use more elites

>>52749494
That's a lot of elites.
Tempted to make all the elites controller arcanists to enrage the handful of 3eaboos in my group
Everyone else, having come from WoD/DH/SR/BESM, will have no idea

>>52747704
Tons of work for a class at first; as well as needing to be extremely clear and concise. Consider that 4e's biggest chapter in the Compendium is the one explaining combat. Even after you've laid the basework for a 4e-like, you still need to delve into each class for minutiae. Oh, and 4e needs things like marks, high damage possibilities, crowd control and buffing and enabling for its ideas to work.

It's a ton of work, really.

>>52721990

As someone who thinks combat can be an incredible medium for roleplay, I found 4E to be the best system when it came to character creation, especially when treating powers as their mechanical abstracts, and filling in the fluff with character-specific details. Made for some great characters.

I've often thought it might be fun to scale down 4E character creation into a squad-based fantasy tactics game: sort of a middle ground between 4E and D&D Miniatures.

>>52749783
I always tell my players to describe to the group (and myself) what their attacks look like, the only thing needed is to resolve the attack manner for dice purposes.

>>52747661

For some people, apparently. I prefer games with actually good an interesting mechanics.

>>52749783

This is something a lot of people seem to miss. It always strikes me as odd, when people act like roleplaying ends when combat begins.

Actions speak louder than words, and using your characters responses to crisis and their priorities in a conflict to express something about them is something I really enjoy, especially when a strong, mechanically engaging combat system gives my actions a real effect on how the fight goes.

>>52751003
>my group hates it when I describe my character fighting
They're competent players and competent roleplayers but I'm the only one who doesn't separate the exercises. IT'S THE BEST PART GUYS.

>>52721990
What are you talking about? 4e always had a noisy fanbase. Along with that came equally loud people who disliked how it did things compared to older editions. Then 5e came along as a non-retarded throwback and 4e died. There only thing that's changed is a lack of contention since 4e isn't The Game In Town anymore.

>>52751885
>4e always had a noisy fanbase
Anon, this is one of the first 4e threads in weeks.
What noise are you talking about?

>>52751794

If it wasn't such a fucking nightmare to make work I'd suggest giving them a shot at Legends of the Wulin. Once you get to the amazing system beneath the godawful editing, you find fascinating mechanics that blend the narrative of the conflict and the rules into a single thing. It's kinda fascinating, the crunch and the fluff are mutually supporting parts of the combat system, how you fluff yourself having real mechanical effects, and the mechanics having an impact on how you'll fluff your actions. It's fascinating.

>>52751922
Yeah, no shit, it's a dead game. My point is when people who do like it show up to gush, the voices of discontent are comparatively few and far between because most have moved on to other things.

>>52752026
It's also not the hot new thing to be contrarian about, which is what trolls thrive on.
I mean, look in this thread. The handful of trolls got few (you)s to speak of.

File: DwarvenWork.jpg (823KB, 700x1110px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 700x1110px

>>52745693
Probably the Fell's Five comic series by IDW that used to come out a few years ago. It's is a very good series, full of banter and action. Dwarven work.

>>52752091
You mean people who got shit on for not loving every single aspect of 4e ever? I remember how retarded the edition wars were: You were either a 3.faggot or a 4rry and there was zero wiggle room allowed. Personally I'm glad it's dead because 4e fans were by and large overly-defensive insufferable autists.

Same goes for 3.X fans, because I know you'd reach for that low-hanging fruit in an instant.

>>52752135
I still use lines, and the characters, from the comic if I need to describe how elves, dwarves and such get along.
>eladrin serve scorn the way dwarves serve beer: relentlessly, and always assuming you enjoy the taste as much as they do
>dwarves are the first, most blessed race, of course everything they make is the best, and anything good must be dwarven work

@52752203
>fishing for (you)s
Y'know, I had a nice long post detailing how you were wrong written, then I realized I was being baited.
Not bad, anon, damn near got me.

>>52752203
>Same goes for 3.X fans, because I know you'd reach for that low-hanging fruit in an instant.
I've only rarely seen a 4e thread and the few I saw were generally willing to help newbies get into the hobby.

The same cannot be said for 3.PF however because between the alignment threads, the martial v. mage threads, the lowkey "mage abuse what do?" house rule threads, and that one autist who shows up in every thread just to go on about triggered bitch anons or "muh popularity," it's really difficult to find a 3.PF thread that doesn't devolve into aimless shitposting past the tenth post.

>>52752242
It usually starts with the OP.

>>52752242
The edition getting more attention gets more contention and shitposting, huh? Whoda thunkit.

>>52724283
it only fails at being D&D if you arbitrarily define D&D as 3.PF

>>52752322
4e sold fairly well back when it first came out and it's popular enough to be in the top8 most games/players running on roll20. Yet how come 4e threads are so much better than most 3.PF threads? For that matter, why is 5e threads better than most 3.PF threads in spite of 5e being vastly more popular than either edition?

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

224KB, 892x1213px

>>52721990
>I wonder why.
Turn of the millenia underageb& scumbags are now "adults," and due to 4th ed being their first they think it was good.

>>52752438

It's funny you should say that, the guys I started playing 2e with in school all used to say the same sort of thing about 3e fans.

File: Wait What.gif (341KB, 200x198px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 200x198px

>>52722454
>Posts in a thread about a fantasy game in which normal people pretend to be warriors and wizards fighting monsters.
>Complains about "power fantasy"

File: 1412392718152.png (155KB, 258x263px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 258x263px

>>52752438
I've actually noticed the opposite. People who started with 3.PF and 4e are not very receptive to 4e (as 4e is a difficult edition to start with as a player) but those who started with 2e, or non-D&D games frequently love 4e. A solid half of my 4e table right now is pre-3e-era greyberads. I mean if 3e was Diabloshit, at-least 4e is Diabloshit perfectly executed.

I would love a new take on 4e as a side thing. It have a completely different tone than 5e.

What if the PHB is more verbose (5e) and the DMG is more practical (4e)? Would it diminish the (wrong) complain about the mmo feel?

>>52752378
Because 4e threads on 4chan are comparatively rare. We've already established this, sherlock.

>b-b-but muh 3.f-faggots!!!

Yeah, we've also established they're autists, so why are you trying to out-sperg them?

>>52752687
>I mean if 3e was Diabloshit, at-least 4e is Diabloshit perfectly executed.

It absolutely is. 4e is 3.5 perfected as it was played, while 5e was 3.5 perfected as it existed in people's imagination.

>>52749783
>I've often thought it might be fun to scale down 4E character creation into a squad-based fantasy tactics game: sort of a middle ground between 4E and D&D Miniatures.

Something like Strike! maybe? Just ignore the non-combat rules and run it pure combat.

Started with 1e. 4e is better than 3.x bs any day of the week. Sorry?

>>52752740
>Because 4e threads on 4chan are comparatively rare. We've already established this, sherlock.
That still doesn't explain why 5e threads are also relatively decent in spite of 5e's growing popularity. Hell, you'd think that after a point, 3.PF threads would eventually level out but it seems as though they've been getting worse, as well as more frequent.

File: 1475589923561.jpg (19KB, 214x206px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 214x206px

>>52752687
From my limited experience
>Group's first game for all involved was 5e starter kit
>Some of group realizes 4e had way more material and is all available online
>Play that for a bit, nobody's used to TTRPGs yet so we're still playing 5e and 4e wrong
>Move back to 5e as I'm the most willing GM and have invested in it, since my second group is bad at tactics/reading and prefers it
>Now half the (extended) group(s) that is generally more experienced roleplayers but shit at games/strategy/reading the fucking book prefer 5e, and those that play lots of tactical video games like FF:T or Fire Emblem like 4e

>Other contact include various 5e players at pub games that play 3.5/pf who scoff at 4e and bleed over rules from 3.pf into 5, and one guy who played 3 with his parents since he was a kid and doesn't want to deal with 5e's slow release schedule and hates 4

>>52752687

>4e is a difficult edition to start with as a player

I've never understood this. It's always struck me as the absolute easiest one. Everything is laid out extremely simply. You can very easily play the game from your sheet with very little need to look things up or check rules minutiae. It's all very simple and straightforward.

>>52752803
You really do have tunnel vision, don't you? Clearly the answer can't be that 5e players on average are less buttfuck retarded than either group, oh no. Thanks for being a shining example of why the 4e base was so annoying.

>>52752930

You seem to be going out of your way to avoid acknowledging that 3.PF has the worst fanbase and that 4 and 5e are both basically fine.

>>52752956
I am directly saying in your face that you are both terrible and your "evidence" otherwise is a load of desperate shit.

>>52752930
>>52752995
If you park three cars in three different neighborhoods for twelve weeks and a car is only stolen from a specific part of town, it might just be a bad neighborhood.
>>52752995
You can't claim that 4e threads are good because they're "irrelavant" one post and then claim that 5e doesn't count even though 5e threads are generally equal to 4e threads in quality in spite of 5e's growing popularity.

You honestly just don't want to admit that 3.PF's fanbase is trash, probably because you're a 3.PFag yourself.

>>52753033
And so the 4e mega-autist cements his thundrous stupidity, and we come full-circle back to my first post: You're either for 4e or a dirty 3.faggot. You actually cannot comprehend any other position.

Btw your analogy was shit and your reasoning is staggeringly obtuse. I would love to get into all the nitty-gritty details were it not clearly a waste of time.

Herebis your pity (you). Congrats on your victory, champ.

File: 1474249028578.jpg (13KB, 280x272px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 280x272px

>>52753144
Translation
>Fuck, he got me, better hastily bow out of the argument while making myself seem like I've won.
Here's a pity prize.

>>52752687
Speak for yourself, I started with 3.5 and 4e is my favourite edition

>>52752930
They're not, though. It's almost impossible for me to get a legitimate mechanical discussion about 5E going without 500 "ROLEPLAY NOT ROLLPLAY" retards butting in no matter where I do it.

>>52752687
I find this is the case as well.

Many of the people I've played successful 4e games with started TTRPG with completely different systems. 4e worked for them because it wasn't a clunky, unbalanced mess like 3.5 was.

>>52755346

It's the ultimate truth of the 'Real D&D' arguments.

'Real D&D' and being a good game are mutually exclusive.

>>52742553
>You can't take a shit in pf without some rules lawyer asking if you have a feat for that.
It would be funny if this wasn't true. But it's just depressing.

There's probably a Sean K. Reynolds post about how casters have glorious Ease of Shit but martials just have to gut that shit out with Con and Athletics.

>>52743800
Your face is a disembodied Patton Oswalt?

That's weird, Patton.

>>52752438
Do you have the feat for throwing people through windows?

I somehow doubt it.

>>52752687
Can confirm your bias. Started with AD&D and D6 Star Wars. Love 4e. Play 13th Age for fantasy RPGs now.

>>52755608

'Throw Anything' was actually a 3.5 feat. It sucked, but I didn't know it at the time.

It was one of the few times I actually enjoyed the game, since it was with a GM who was willing to bend the rules in the name of fun. I was playing a Monk with the Drunken Master prestige class (yes, it sucked super hard) plus Throw Anything, but the GM let me go full jackie chan with improvised weapons, throwing buckets onto peoples heads to temporarily blind them and various other things.

File: dancewithit.gif (2MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x300px

>>52755629
Yes but 'Throw Anything' explicitly disincludes things with defenses. You need 'Throw Human' and then chain into 'Throw Humanoid.'

>>52755741
>Throw Anything
>( Complete Warrior, p. 105) [General]
>In your hands, any weapon becomes a deadly ranged weapon.
>Prerequisite DEX 15, Base attack bonus +2, Proficiency with weapon,
>Benefit You can throw a melee weapon you are proficient with as if it were a ranged weapon. The range increment of weapons used in >conjunction with this feat is 10 feet.
>Normal You can't throw a melee weapon without taking a -4 penalty unless it has a range increment (such as a hand axe or a dagger).

No it doesn't, but you do need exotic Proficiency (Creature), which you can easily pick up as that was something discussed in the DMG.

But Races of stone had Fling Ally and Races of Destiny had Hurling Toss for monks. Not to mention anything the Hulking hurler could do seeing as it doesn't need Proficiency in anything to throw anything.

>>52755880
True.

Verily, 3.5 was a shitbox of half-assed rules.

>>52755903
More like too many rules. More than enough to do literally any asinine thing you could think of. Errata over and over every time a flaw was found. The system honestly did work prefect- but prefect in the same sense as Taxes: Overly complicated with lots of little stipulation.

The over complexity was... kinda the problem. It scared a good many people and rightly so.

>>52755880
Then there was the setting sun school of martial adept maneuvers from the Tome of Battle, an entire school focused on throwing people. And, amazingly, it doesn't suck

>>52741572
Because you really want non-mechanical info to play a combat-as-war game

>>52721990

Ehh, the initial furor has died down and people are starting to recognize that it was fairly good at what it did.

I still don't really like it because I'm not really that interested in complex combat systems in my tabletop, I'd prefer it to just be quick and dirty because the part of the genre that attracts me is the dynamic problem-solving and freedom of having a real person on the other end of things dictating the world's responses to your actions. That's just my opinion tho.

Ultimately, it's hard to hate on something for sacrificing the D&D sacred cows when the sacred cows are such shitty cows for a large part. With the benefit of hindsight, people are starting to realize that. Doesn't mean it's good for everyone, or even a majority of people, but it has its niche that it does well.

>>52725501
>What it did not address was the game in any situation other than combat.
Just like 3.PF?