After years of it being dead, I finally played this game, and

>>53490414

To play devils advocate for just a moment, that you had a great experience with it doesn't invalidate the experience of others. If people really have immersion as fragile as they claim, shattered whenever they have to actually interact with a mechanic, then I feel sorry for them.

But on the whole, awesome you tried it and glad you enjoyed it OP. It really is a damn shame that such a gem of a game got shit on for so long, and yet recently it seems like more and more people are realising just how good we had it with 4e.

File: 1494541904950.gif (2MB, 450x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x252px

>>53490414

I felt the same about 5th, anons and friends badmouthed it to hell and back and it turned out to be a lot more fun than they made it out to be

>>53490414
4e isn't a bad game, it just didn't really feel like D&D to me. I think it works a LOT better as the Adventure Board Game series they made out of it. Those are some pretty great games.

>>53490414
Fun fact: There isn't actually a "bad" edition of D&D

They vary in quality and gameplay function, but they're all good, or at least passable, RPGs

>>53490558

I'd say that's arguable with 3.PF. You can run good games of it, but it requires scrapping significant chunks of the core system of the game to have anything even resembling balance or a functional system for gauging encounters.

When a system does more to stifle a GM than it does to support them, I'll describe it as bad.

>>53490414
Congratulations, you realised that /tg/ is populated by autists who rant about everything they mildly dislike as if it murdered their parents because it's amusing to them.

3.5 is a passable system that can definitely be used for fun games. I'm still going to piss all over it and call it the devil's spawn whenever I'm posting on here, because it's fun to be autistic and I'm bored.

>>53490557

Can you expand on that? I hear the comment made a lot, but people rarely say why it didn't feel right to them, what elements of it seemed dissonant.

It always interests me, because in my experience 4e isn't nearly as different from 3.PF as most people seem to think, it just clarifies things and expresses them directly rather than obfuscating them.

>>53490557
I'd argue that with as different as each edition of D&D feels in execution of one another, the only one that should 'feel' like D&D at this point is the first one.

D&D is no longer a game concept, just a brand. If the game is fun, it can not feel like D&D all it wants. I'll still play it.

>>53490414
Welcome to the fold, brother.

>>53490581
Ahh, but the strength of 3.5 is that you can scrap huge portions of the system and still have a fully functional game. In many ways it basically functions as 3 different games in one

That said, never play core, core 3.5 is hot garbage

>>53490607
It's just really really obvious that they wanted to expand their audience with 4e and get people who've been playing World of Warcraft but never touched a tabletop RPG in their life.

To that extent they clearly succeeded. 4e has probably the shortest lifespan of any edition but it looks like it brought in the most amount of players since the original box sets were sold everywhere.

But the extent to which everything was simplified and streamlined...take the Wizard for example. It didn't feel like you were "casting a spell", it felt like hitting a button and watching an effect happen, then setting a cooldown timer for the ability. It was very Game-y, at least to me, and not so immersive.

Also I share the common complaints that Character Building became WAY too bloated by the end of its lifespan and that Encounters dragged on WAY too long due to the tactical nature of the combat.

>>53490661

>But the extent to which everything was simplified and streamlined...take the Wizard for example. It didn't feel like you were "casting a spell", it felt like hitting a button and watching an effect happen

And what about the game created this feeling? What is the difference between spell slots and a limited selection of Daily powers that lead to the change in your experience of playing the game?

I don't mean to press, but it is a subject I'm very curious about, examining exactly why 4e got the reaction it did, in the nuances and the details rather than in broad strokes.

>>53490414
Gronards gonna Gronard, bro.

I enjoyed the hell out of 4E. Easiest edition to DM for in my opinion, and the player classes were a blast. It was like Final Fantasy Tactics in table top form! When one of my players ended up not enjoying his class, I house-ruled some ancient powersuit and that replaced his class powers with parts.

Of course, most people in my area were on the 4E hate-wagon and refused to give it a try, so I ended up DMing PF, too... Fuck PF. Fuck it hard, with a sharpened stick. Okay, maybe it wasn't the system that was the problem, maybe it was the players, because when I said 'Core Only' they heard 'Bring whatever 3rd party bullshit overpowered races, classes, and magic items you can find! I don't fucking care'.

But yeah, I've been running some 5e lately and that's fun, too.

>>53490661
>Also I share the common complaints that Character Building became WAY too bloated by the end of its lifespan and that Encounters dragged on WAY too long due to the tactical nature of the combat.

This much is true to a degree. I'll argue that more options is always better, but there was a lot of stuff released that was pretty garbage top to bottom. It was off putting for new players to have so many options that were all equally as lack luster

As for combat time, this got much better, and the tactical application was intended design. It was a different type of game that tried to capitalize on the grid based system that the 3.X mini line built up. In this, it worked wonderfully, but it wasn't everyone's flavor of fun.

>>53490690

Being fair, 'Core only' is one of the worst ways to run a balanced game of 3.PF.

>>53490690
Never play core only with PF, it's garbage

Not to say you should allow every kitsune or android or whatever the hell a lashunta is into your game, just be wary of the disparity in power between the core classes

>>53490661
All that being said: I still have all of my 4e books. There's a LOT of great fluff you can use completely divorced from the Edition. I also really liked some of the box-sets they sold. Both Monster Vaults are great and Madness at Gardmore Abbey is a genuinely fantastic adventure.

>>53490680
Functionally, they do work the same, but they were also a LOT more constrictive. You couldn't mess with a spell by casting it from a different Spell slot to affect its power, things like spell scrolls felt less like rare magic items and more like One Use Power Cards, and they were also presented in the exact same manner as Martial Abilities. It made mages and warriors feel really similar, and that's just weird to me.

>>53490414
My friends and I play 5e and it's fun. We're all filthy casuals, but as long as we enjoy it I think it's alright. It's a good excuse to enjoy each other's company.

>>53490703
>As for combat time, this got much better, and the tactical application was intended design. It was a different type of game that tried to capitalize on the grid based system

You're correct in this. That's why I love the Adventure Board Games.

>>53490724
A good DM who knows what they're doing can make the game just as fun to play as a regular adventure style game too. But I suppose that takes being able to stomach the game feeling like a game than a story with dice rolls.

>>53490714

So it really was the presentation and structure, more than the mechanics, which tangibly changed your experience? That's really interesting.

I might have been too dismissive of similar complaints before, 'it's just formatting and layout' etc, but that such things might have a real effect on how people perceive and interact with the system is worth exploring.

>>53490714
4e fighters were more similar to 4 wizards than 3.5 fighters were to 3.5 wizards, but 4e sorcerers are far more different from 4e wizards than 3.5 sorcerers are from 3.5 wizards, and in my mind, that's the difference that matters more. Because standing back and throwing arcane magic is always going to feel different from standing right in the front lines in the middle of the melee, but making one ranged spellchucker feel different from another ranged spellchucker is far more impressive

>>53490744

I've always found it kinda confusing how loathe some people are to accept the 'game' part of Roleplaying Game, especially in D&D, which has always been a very gamey system.

>>53490745
>>53490747
To be fair, it's been a long while since I've taken a real good look at 4e. And I'll be completely honest: I played a lot of 4e. I used it to get my friends and current group into D&D. We play 5e now, and I run it real deadly and they love it.

>>53490599
>3.5 is a passable system that can definitely be used for fun games.
Why play it when it's the worse edition of the game and there are literary free to play, better versions?

>>53490714
>Functionally, they do work the same, but they were also a LOT more constrictive. You couldn't mess with a spell by casting it from a different Spell slot to affect its power, things like spell scrolls felt less like rare magic items and more like One Use Power Cards, and they were also presented in the exact same manner as Martial Abilities. It made mages and warriors feel really similar, and that's just weird to me.

Essentials did try to address this with the sorcerer, who got to boost spells; not in the way wizards could before with metamagic, but still gave a shot at giving the "tinkering feel".

There were also a bunch of feats that let you make tradeoffs as a wizard IIRC, but they were kinda poor from what I remember.

File: DnDShelf.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>53490766
Here's my D&D shelf. Not included are my 4.5e Essentials books

>>53490661
>But the extent to which everything was simplified and streamlined...take the Wizard for example. It didn't feel like you were "casting a spell", it felt like hitting a button and watching an effect happen, then setting a cooldown timer for the ability. It was very Game-y, at least to me, and not so immersive.
But that's literally every edition.

The only real difference was that 4e wasn't up its own ass about padding out the text of what it did.

>>53490747

This is the thing which always confuses me when people claim that 4e classes are homogenous. In terms of actual play experience, they're significantly more different from one another than the equivalent classes in other editions, they just look more similar on the surface. It's weird.

File: 1485511318514.gif (446KB, 300x186px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 300x186px

>>53490826

>>53490704
>>53490711
But there is no fucking balance. There has never been balance. I was just trying to make my life easier so I wouldn't have to keep track of all the bullshit that opening up the floodgates allows. It's not like I don't own a good chunk of the official material anyway (for a system I despise, I own enough of their goddamn books), I'd rather not have to keep track of the mountain of book work that some players come to the table with.

Because, you see, I did try to let the players loose and to make whatever they wanted. What they came back with made me hate life, if it were only Kitsunes and shit like that, I could deal but... Custom monstrous races from the Advanced Race guide that were nightmare fueled fetish bait, feats from some dark corner of the internet that they swore were legit, deities that allowed clerics to take the best combinations of domains, spells with names that made my eyes roll into the back of my head... Yeah, no. Never again.

I know that if I took a chainsaw to half of the shit, there is a completely serviceable system in there... But why? It's not like I enjoyed 3.PF enough to put forth the effort to do that, and every time I tried to someone who bitch and moan about it 'not being fair'.

File: Mearls.png (36KB, 830x349px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 830x349px

>>53490414
How does this picture make you feel, 4rries?

>>53490826
>>53490834

It's easy to go 'hurr obfuscation', but the anon is speaking sincerely and explaining his experience, which is something you rarely get around a topic that gets so heated. It's worth considering whether such things are more significant than we'd otherwise think.

Personally, I'm always a fan of technical language and incredibly clear rules, just for ease of use, but it's wrong to assume that it's the only way of thinking, or that games which have avoided doing this just did so through incompetence. There does seem to be a real, tangible appeal to the more poetic approach, even if the gains are somewhat ephemeral compared to the loss of usability as a result.

I'm not sure if it'll change my general approach or preferences in the attempt to write my own game, but it's still worth thinking about and if you could achieve a compromise, preserving ease of use while also providing the layers of fluff that seem to help some people engage with the mechanics indirectly.

File: DnD Tactics.png (16KB, 818x137px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 818x137px

>>53490880
Wait, shit, wrong picture.
>Even WotC literally states that 4e is not true DnD, and it should have been called DnD Tactics

>>53490865
What I'm trying to say though is that the difference is there only because the guy himself imposed it onto the game.

He's complaining about push button magic as if that was a problem unique for 4th edition. When in 3.5, pathfinder, and 5e, they all worked the same way. When you get down to brass tacks, it boils down to the same thing.

I use my standard action to use an ability, of which I have limited resources, which is referred to in the game's fluff as a spell. I will get this resource back after a suitable period of rest.

>>53490905
Mearls hated 4e when he was in charge of 4e, why should that have changed now?

>>53490905

Mike Mearls thought Essentials was a good idea. His opinions can go back to sucking off Wizards, along with the rest of him.

>>53490865
>It's easy to go 'hurr obfuscation', but the anon is speaking sincerely and explaining his experience, which is something you rarely get around a topic that gets so heated. It's worth considering whether such things are more significant than we'd otherwise think.
>Personally, I'm always a fan of technical language and incredibly clear rules, just for ease of use, but it's wrong to assume that it's the only way of thinking, or that games which have avoided doing this just did so through incompetence. There does seem to be a real, tangible appeal to the more prosaic approach, even if the gains are somewhat ephemeral compared to the loss of usability as a result.
>I'm not sure if it'll change my general approach or preferences in the attempt to write my own game, but it's still worth thinking about and if you could achieve a compromise, preserving ease of use while also providing the layers of fluff that seem to help some people engage with the mechanics indirectly.

>>53490934
>Man in charge of a shitty game thought that the game was shitty
Woah. Makes you think.

>>53490880
>use nature domain for the guy with a scimitar and a shield.
Does he even understand what a druid is?

>>53490905
>>53490968
We're having an actual discussion about the differences between the system here, we don't need you to come along and shitpost and derail it into another edition war. Shoo.

>>53490905
The devs didn't know what the fuck 4e was about. the fans were the ones to crack most of the code and unfuck the system mechanically in the early stages. I don't take the opinion of a group of people who don't even understand their own game with any sort of seriousness.

>>53490865
In the old days before we could really quantify game speak, this sort of thing passed. But anymore it feels like a simple nod to the old days for the wrong reason. Admittedly that is my strict opinion on it, and others are entitled to their opinion. But that they're so quick to dismiss a game for having no narrative depth when the system only provides a game framework and leaves the fluff to the players and DM is quite telling in my eyes. It's not like D&D hasn't ever been about combat, puzzle solving and looting from the get go.

>>53490905
A man paid to talk up whatever current project he is working on talks up his current project, while trying to downplay his previous project, in order to both convince players of his old product that this one is better, while also trying to convince people that didn't that the problem you had is totally fixed. You could totally see this shit when 4e was being marketed, even if Mearls wasn't the face at the time. "You know all those arcane rules in 3.5 that sucked? You know all those balance problems? WE FIXED ALL OF THEM!" I wasn't around when Wizards got D&D and made 3e, but I'd be willing to be the same tactic was used.

In short: Mearls is doing his job as being a shill.

They shilled for 4e when 4e was what the bosses wanted sold. He'll shills for 5e when 5e is what is the product for making money. And you can be your ass that if Mearls is still around come 6th edition, he will throw 5e to the lions to prove that 6e is the new hotness and you need those new books.

>>53490972
Mearls has a weirdly strict idea of how D&D should be played

Which, it should be noted, is not how anyone actually plays it

>>53491008
*He's retarded and his opinion should be ignored.

>>53490880
>cyclical intiative - too predictable
I'm in a game where the dm likes to use some new variant initiative every game and sometimes doesn't even bother with it at all, and I gotta say I really miss cyclical initiative. The alternatives are a fucking mess

>>53491043
I just use a battle wheel, but I'm practically playing my own system at this point.

>>53490993
The CharOp forums were the best thing about 4th edition because of all the metaphorical codebreaking.

To use a video game analog, it was like discovering skiing in the original tribes. Suddenly the game was alive.

>>53491080
which is why there's so little to discuss now

With no new material and the game functionally "solved" as is, there's very little left to talk about, it's like /co/ with Megas XLR

>>53491110
Most hilarious to me is Player's Handbook 1, original printing. Ranger's could conceivably do Infinite Damage with the right equipment and build.

>>53491110
Unfortunately. And since wizards hamstrung the ability for the game to grow outside of their control, there is never really going to be a revival.

>>53490880
I wonder what me means by action typing and removing bonus actions.

Simplifying the game is always welcome, but I feel like bonus actions would be just replaced by "bonus actions by another name", or worse, free actions that aren't exclusionary, leading to every character doing as many of those as possible in a turn.

File: Bored Spiderman.jpg (28KB, 560x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 560x400px

>>53490880
>cyclical initiative is too predictable
I don't think there is a D&D player alive who particularly likes the way initiative is handled in any edition of the game. The issue is that everyone needs to go, you can't have too many people on the same team going at once or things get wacky, fast people want an advantage in going first, and doing the mechanical aspect of initiative is boring and unfun and people don't like doing it. These four things pull against each other and leave you with something simple that works and you're done with it quickly.
>fighter subclasses are too bland
And who's fault is that?
>warlock and pact boons
Sure. Whatever. Who cares?
>Ranger modeled on the paladin
Mearls has been ruining D&D for almost ten years now and still going strong. He is adept at recognizing a problem and then choosing the exact opposite solution from what will actually fix it.
>Druid needs more shapeshifting
Gee, sort of like... I dunno... that game you murdered in 2010?
>Action typing is too fuzzy
Again, your fault. Refer to the better game you killed on how to do this.
>Bonus actions are too clear, we need to 'smart design' a new way to do extra stuff each round but find a way to limit it that isn't just creating another thing by the same name that has worked fine for decades
neck yourself Mearls

>How does this make you feel?
Pic related

>>53491123
It was a team effort (you needed a buff, the target needed a debuff) and it was more of an "arbitrarily high because you only have less than a few % to miss, and can reroll your misses 3 times anyway".

I also find the idea of a ranger, empowered by a cleric (or possibly by the warlord telling him to believe in himself) going absolutely fucking bonkers with two swords on an orcus who is held in place by the epic level wizard.

>>53491182
>*find the idea... epic level wizard exactly what I want out of my high level games

I wish someone merge my two favourite editions: B/X and 4e.

>>53491320
I remember an OSR being described that way but I don't remember which... I think it had "Hack" in the name... Dungeon Hack?

Either way, I like both B/X and 4e but there's a lot of ways a combination could go.

>>53490414
No, fuck YOU, OP. You have shit taste in games and you will probably die alone.

>>53491534
See >>53490984

>>53491182
That's the core difference between 3.5 and 4E right there.

In 3.5, you optimized your beatstick to blow things up on their own. Any aid on top of that is nothing but a cherry on top because it's unreliable unless it's a prebuff.

In 4E, you pick and optimize your Striker to take advantage of your party Leader, who is in turn optimizing around the kind of party they have, and their core strategy always involves the rest of the party.

Not that there's anything wrong with the former - I prefer my Warblade charging in and WARBLADE SMASHING the giant ogre and turning it into a pile of goo in 1 round, solo, to the kind of protracted engagements 4E lends itself to, if not by a whole lot - but it really does tell you where both games' priorities are.

>>53491725
>defender optimized to keep heat off striker
>leader optimized to keep defender standing and make the striker strike harder
>striker optimized to take advantage of defender's defending and the leader's leading
>controller optimized to make sure enemies don't overwhelm or stop everyone from doing their jobs
Man I miss that degree of fine-tuned teamwork

>>53491725
>but it really does tell you where both games' priorities are.
One was decidedly about the group of heroes that worked with each other, the other was about individuals who each did their own thing.
3e really tossed out the group focus for individuals, and I think the game suffered for it.

>>53492023
Destroying class roles from day one didn't help.

>>53492182

This is one of the things which super confuses me when people complain about 4e, going on about how 'roles' are so artificial and an MMO thing.

Except 3.5, by design, was built around the exact same roles. They just didn't tell you what they were, and fucked up the execution to the point that some classes couldn't fulfill their role and others could effortlessly fulfill multiple simultaneously.

>>53490414
It's almost like you played the game after it was already filtered and tweaked and most of the primary enormous issues had been mended or modified.

>>53492245

Launch 4e had issues, no doubt, but I'd hardly describe them as 'enormous'. Core RAW is still a better and more functional game that 3.PF.

>>53491174
What better game?

>>53492284
Than core 3.PF? Sure, what isn't? But better than 3.PF period? I don't think so. I pretty much swore off 4E until it fixed my complaints with the system and went right back to playing 3.5 with shit I actually liked.

>>53492284
Things at start were too tanky. The game was nothing but tactical combat but the tactical combat sucked. It tried to do only one thing and at start it did that one thing terribly.

I'd say at start it was more broken than 3.PF because what it tried to do didn't work. Later on it was less broken because it was just boring tactical combat exercises and it did a solid job at that. It was better designed later on as a Game (with rules, balance etc) than 3.PF. Wasn't really a fantasy adventure game though.

>>53492413

> Wasn't really a fantasy adventure game though.

Why not?

>>53492445
Because they didn't give that any focus. They were so focused on the game part and trying to get it right that they forgot what kind of game they were trying to make.

Damn shame.

>>53492360
Depends on how fed up with 3.pf's flaws you were.
I was mightily fed up, but couldn't get people to try other fantasy games.
>>53492470
Anon, that is a non-answer.
You haven't actually said anything of substance.

>>53492470

Can you expand upon what you felt was missing?

>>53492470
At least it's dead now and mistakes became learning experiences.

>>53492470
What do adventures culminate in? Big heroic battles. So they put a lot of effort into making big heroic battles fun, and left it loose as to how the DM brought the players there.

as someone who started with 4e, I really enjoyed the granularity and breadth of options available for combat abilities, but also understand the problems with the system, especially with combat and lack of role-playing incentive.
I do wish 5e had a few more options for combat abilities, especially for martial classes

>>53490414
Look here, I say a lot of stuff, okay?

You guys come here asking for opinions, I give them.

Not my fault you don't have the guts to try it out yourself.

>>53490414
I've been defending 4E for years, everybody got butthurt over the edition change and the power gap between martial and spellcasters being reduced so they demonized it for no good reason.

>>53492505
I was less fed up with 3.PF bullshit than I was with 4E padded sumo bullshit. That was unironically every bit as bad as getting stuck as a sword and board Fighter in 3.0.

With a Druid in the party.

>>53492927
The problem I had with 4e was people not being able to decide what they were doing.
In my first campaign, when battles went too long and it was clear we would win, enemies would either run away or surrender, which usually led to more interesting situations, like our bargaining with an orc war chief and holding a black dragon hostage.
Then again, that DM was a 1/2e grognard who didn't have all his npcs fight needlessly to the death.

>>53492927
>4E padded sumo bullshit
I have no idea what this is

>>53493016

The MM1/2 monster math sucked. Monsters had way too much HP but didn't do enough damage, so fights were non-threatening slugfests rather than interesting tactical engagements.

>>53493016
Low enemy damage, high enemy HP(relative to then-current damage levels) and AC. It's hard to hit them, to put a dent in them, and they don't hit you back very hard. Fights get dragged on for multiple rounds longer than they should take - and I already prefer combat to be one and done, so it was like pulling teeth.

>>53490745
Of course presentation affects experience. That is why UX design and usability engineering are such big topics in software development.

The same goes for TTRPGs. Quoting from a G+ group:
>This was where I learned that (although it sounds like a dumb tautology) the selections you put in front of players affects what choices they make. The Slayers d20 includes pretty much every type of character from Slayers with full d20 writeups, so the races section in particular includes all the ones that the source material pretty much only used as gags. In the Slayers books and anime, the protagonists are almost all human, but the creators themselves wound up having a party with no humans. That isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself, but I'm guessing it wasn't what the designers of Slayers d20 intended.

>>53493032
So what fixed that. MM3? Essentials?

>>53493032
A cheat sheet in mm3, if I'm not mistaken.

File: printablemm3businessfront.gif (27KB, 1050x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1050x600px

>>53493124
>>53493140

MM3, summed up with this image

>>53493124
The fixed math first popped up in some modules, then was brought in to MM3 on forward to Monster Vault.

>>53492210
>They just didn't tell you what they were, and fucked up the execution to the point that some classes couldn't fulfill their role and others could effortlessly fulfill multiple simultaneously.
Yes, so the people complaining about how roles are artificial never even knew about the existence of roles in 3.5, because how would they?

>>53493232

True, but that makes their comments more a statement of ignorance than a real assessment of the traits of the system.

>>53493165
I remember an anon actually crunched the numbers in the MM3/monster vault and found out this was mostly bullshit. The major differences in post MM3 monsters, particularly solos, is that they were less vulnerable to being disabled and had more options/modes of attack in battle. They were just straight up designed better

>>53493300
Yeah. I'm just saying that their reaction is a logical consequence and not really confusing at all.

>>53493307
I've done the same math, and yes, that card is fairly true, but often not completely spot on. It usually comes within 2 points of attack/damage/defenses, and is a rough/ready measure of hp.
Even then, that is not the static math, but a way to create enemies on the fly while maintaining a sense of balance for the level.

File: Anything can Happen Anythyding can Hadplen.jpg (113KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 960x640px

>>53490414
>It wasn't perfect,
Which is what /tg/ wants. Prefection basically- Regardless of how achievable that is.

Reality is people play what they find fun, regardless of flaws.
>It wasn't perfect, but it was fun.
Which is exactly what you have done. Now apply the same argument to 2e, 3x,pf,and 5e.
Fuck there are people that still play 3.5 even when the slightly more fixed version of pathfinder is available. THAT I don`t understand, but there you have it.

Seems like the only thing that's happened here is that YOU don't understand how /tg/ works. Also. Why would you take advice from /tg/? An opinion coming form a person that took /tg/'s word at face value? Not sure anyone can trust YOUR opinion on anything.

File: fddaeb3fb28af6f32b5ba0996b0d20d4.jpg (2MB, 1733x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1733x1000px

>>53493307

>The major differences in post MM3 monsters
Monster Manual 3 monsters have more standardized defenses (mostly; they still flip flop back and forth on what the AC of an artillery monster is supposed to be), and deal much more damage than Monster Manual 1 and 2 monsters.

The extra damage is quite important, because it means that encounters consisting of Monster Manual 3 monsters can challenge a party as well as a much higher-level encounter against Monster Manual 1 and 2 monsters. The latter encounter would be bloated with higher defenses and higher hit points.

>particularly solos, is that they were less vulnerable to being disabled and had more options/modes of attack in battle. They were just straight up designed better

Solo monsters are still quite weak for their XP values because, for all of the anti-control abilities loaded up them, they are *still* exceptionally vulnerable to the right control effects. For instance, to my knowledge, not a single monster in the game is outright immune to attack penalties. Therefore, slamming a solo monster with a tremendous attack penalty (e.g. from a psion's Dishearten) is a very good way to neuter it for a round.

>>53490474
What game is that?

>>53493550

DOOM 2016

What's the problem with essentials?

>>53493801

It's redundant. The classes in it don't add anything new to the system, and are almost entirely just less interesting rehashes of core classes, wasting books just when 4e seemed to be coming into its own and really experimenting with class design.

Instead of some really cool and new ideas, we instead got worse versions of the old ones that nobody wanted.

>>53493801
It was catered towards players who had no interest in ever touching 4E. Fucked up the balance something fierce and added several of the worst classes we've ever seen.

>>53493830
> The classes in it don't add anything new to the system

I like the ides behind them.

The execution was shit. But experimenting with the AEDU formula is not a bad idea in itself.

Also, maybe instead of 3 new fucking wizards you could have done something more unique.

>>53493433
/tg/ has a highly inflated opinion of their own importance, believing that 4chan still matters, and that the 'gets shit done' meme was ever true.
For some reason, it never occurs to anyone that, just like every other rp site on the internet, most people here spend all day talking about games because they don't actually play.

>>53493885

Still, it came at cost of extended support of things like the Runepriest, which was a damn shame.

The Runepriests had a lot of good ideas, not particularly well implemented but they could have been so much better with a bit more support and experimentation.

File: Every mmorpg ever.webm (200KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 640x360px

>>53493016
Webm related.

>>53493601
Is it any good? Looks like the Wolfenstein reboot (which was amazing imo)

>>53496786
>>53496788
What the fuck

>>53496788

If anything it's better. Doom 2016 is fucking phenomenal. A true return to form for the series.

>>53490659
So like Bethesda games?

I've been playing 4e since it came out, with a group of friends who are rpg aficionados, although not like me.

Even if I am not that great of a fan for D&D (I prefer other games) and d20, I have to say that D&D 4e is the best of all variants I have played in close to 18 years (D&D Basic, AD&D, 3e, 3.5e, 3.75e aka shitfinder, 4e, 5e).
For a DM, 4e is heaven. And my players love it so much more than any other game edition or system.

>>53497502

This is a similar position for my group as well. Most of us will straight up say we don't like D&D, instead rotating through other games, but if we want to get down to some fantasy adventuring 4e is our go to. It just works better than the others.

>>53497502
Having DM'd 5e, 4e, and Pathfinder myself, as well as other systems, I have to say 4e is easy to DM but has limited options.

Ah, about encounter length. That was our first and only complaint initially.

I then 'ditched' the monster manual, and never used a stock monster anymore. If I picked them as a reference, they now had roughly 50% of the original HP, slightly increased defences and attack bonuses and 30% more damage.
Encounters turned to grindy to exciting and bloody slaughterfests.

>>53497630
>4e is easy to DM but has limited options.
Such as?

File: 1412881668532.jpg (22KB, 358x392px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 358x392px

>>53490414
I don't think it was /tg/ who convinced you not to try it. If anything, /tg/ is one of the few online gaming communities that actually advocates for 4e. Granted /tg/ isn't one homogeneous hivemind, so there are people who disagree, but in my experience, compared to most other online gaming communities, 4e is downright embraced here. Maybe it was GITP that convinced you to hate 4e.

>>53490659
You can scrap huge portions of any system and have a functional game.
Even freeform with an impartial referee is a functional game.

As to why 3.pf is a bad game,
>http://revolution21days.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-d-has-lots-of-rules-for-combat.html
>http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36914/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto-part-3-penumbra-of-problems

>>53497979
Do you remember the lorem ipsum era?

For a few months, 4e discussion was FAIAP not allowed on this board because the janitor thought the best way to reduce edition wars was to delete every dragon magazine thread.

Ads was a POS sometimes, but they ruined 4e on /tg/ just to spite him.

>>53497871
Monster and encounter customization is samey and a pain in the ass. Other systems have more options and don't force 5 round encounters with poor hp balance.

>>53498072

Are you fucking kidding? With the math updates, monster balance and design is incredibly simple and straightforward, and it's easy to create enjoyable, interesting and balanced encounters based on the guidelines given. I've not seen any other systems do it better.

>>53497979
>If anything, /tg/ is one of the few online gaming communities that actually advocates for 4e
That's recently. /tg/ was the nexus of edition war shitstorms when 4e was still hot. You couldn't even speak the name without beckoning trolls and naysayers to trashtalk a thread into oblivion. It's only now that we've lost and live in the ruins of our defeat can the name 4e be spoken with any kind of fondness.

>>53498072
The encounter building system is built around 3-5 turn combats because any less is just a speedbump and any more is tedious.

You can still do this though, nothing stopping you from using more tanks or not level appropriate encounters, works especially well for "puzzle battles". It's one of the examples in the DMG2 I think.

>>53498021
>>http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36914/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto-part-3-penumbra-of-problems

>D&D’s communication of dungeoncrawling procedures became anorexic in 1989 and literally disappeared entirely from the 4th Edition rulebooks.

... are you fucking kidding me

>>53498072
>Monster and encounter customization is samey and a pain in the ass
Considering the sheer amount of tactical options baked into the game I find that doubtful. Many enemies are made to exploit positioning, numbers, terrains, zones, etc. entire categorises of monster types are made to be uniquely capable in each.

>>53498072
I've not encountered this problem even once in my career DMing for the system. Even after the math updates I did a few adjustments on my own to speed things up or slow things down where I felt necessary. I will admit my enjoyment of the design aspect in this regard is likely a reason for it, but building encounters, or even just enemies in general, is probably one of the more enjoyable aspects I've found of running the system.

>>53490998
>I wasn't around when Wizards got D&D and made 3e, but I'd be willing to be the same tactic was used.
/osrg/ likes to post stuff from that time. It's mostly (pre-launch) interviews where the developers straight up lied about the game to make it seem like it resembled previous editions at all.
That said, the reactions by the AD&D fans to 3e were pretty much the same as the reactions by the 3e fans to 5e.

File: 3rdEditionIsntDnD.jpg (358KB, 625x898px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 625x898px

>>53498338
>That said, the reactions by the AD&D fans to 3e were pretty much the same as the reactions by the 3e fans to 5e.
Are you sure on that?

>>53498241
As an OSRfag who likes 4e, I agree completely with that quote.

>>53498451
>the 3e fans to 5e.
*the 3e fans' to 4e.

>>53498481
... I guess it depends on the definition?

I felt 4e did dungeon crawling pretty damn well, especially by reintroducing resource management and cutting out a lot of the "easily accessible solves anything 6 second spells".

I guess, compared to OSR that's still not exactly the same flavor, since they did remove things like instant kill traps and you do have more skills to deal with things.

>>53498607
>"easily accessible solves anything 6 second spells".
Examples?

>>53496786
So much of this. At least at low levels of 3.Pathfinder, you can actually die. There is a threat of ending your character before you really get him going. It takes skill and luck to get a mid level character.

Or Monty Haul DMs...

Kids these days.

>>53498664
Oh boy that's a heavy request. But off the top of my head:
Knock
Mage Hand
Rope Trick
Tenser's Floating Disk
Invisibility
Leomund's Tiny Hut
Fly
Mordenkainen's box of shit or something
Water breathing
etc

>>53498241
>As an aside, I feel like this combat/rules dynamic puts 3E in sort of a weird place. The volume and kind of rules that it has for combat indicate that combat is inherently interesting. For the most part, that's true. But it lacks a lot of the safeguards that 4E has built-in to combat. It's not nearly as deadly as OD&D, but it can still be pretty deadly, especially when the players misjudge the situation somehow. It extends a lot of OD&D's assumptions to their logical conclusions-- OD&D combat can be interesting, if the DM presents it in a sufficiently textured way, and the players have some toys to play with, so D&D 3E provides the texture and the toys.
>Unfortunately, that makes it easy for things to guy awry if the players then take their inaccurate OD&D assumptions to their logical conclusions. Either they'll die a lot and get frustrated, or the DM will low-ball the challenge (and the 3E books don't give a whole lot of guidance away from this tendency) and the combats will get really easy. The underlying physics of D&D's combat can make for pretty boring combat if there aren't any interesting stakes involved; if you're not trying to achieve something in particular, or desperately avoid death. 3E makes it interesting to go "oh hey! this game is about combat!" then have that initial impression confirmed, and play that way until the game gets very boring and the DM gets annoyed.

>the RPG hobby has mostly rolled along on the basis of the four major structures
>the vast majority of RPG sessions are built around a core structure of railroading and combat.
>And this is why I think so many players like jumping into combat. Most combat systems feature robust mechanical systems with clear-cut win/loss conditions, which means that it’s the one place where most railroad GMs finally give their players the freedom to make meaningful choices.

>>53498664
I mean shit like Knock was moved to a ritual, and wizards can't really do the "have a solution to everything in my spellbook!" thing, and clerics also don't access every single spell on their list anymore.

Things like that. 4e characters capabilities are very well defined.
>>53498774
Many of those exist (I think Mage Hand is a cantrip even), but actually not being as freely available limits their usefulness.

File: fyV1zPn.png (23KB, 595x160px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 595x160px

>>53498607
>especially by reintroducing resource management

>>53498777
Okay, apropos of nothing, but
>...that makes it easy for things to guy awry if...
>Guy Awry
I'm absolutely using this as the name of a mustache-twirling villain.

>>53498774
eh, I imagined it.
If these ruin the dungeon instead of making it possible, is more of a GM problem I am sorry.
Fly could be delayed in level, I could concede that.

>>53498910
Dailies are actually precious. There's no items that just give you extra dailies; in fact, you can only use a number of items that have daily powers a day (you could load up on wands of whatever, but you can only use 1 a day).

HP limited by surges means it's actually precious, since it's limited.

Sure, you are less likely to die randomly from a crit at level 1. Doesn't mean there's no resource management.
>>53499046
Much of those exist as rituals. They don't exist as 6 second spells you can pull out of your ass any time.

You can do a water breathing dungeon. You can't do "hmm, we are being flooded, but I don't give a fuck, just water breath".

>>53499046
Many of those things are redundant with what other can do. That is the key issue; it becomes one guy that can do everything significant with 3 or 4 other undercapable guys tagging along for backup

>>53499086
You don't pull them out your ass any tim. There are slots, scrolls and charges that go and don't come back that easily, unless the DM allows it.
Sometimes is good because puts players in front of a choice. How many people should we buff to reach that point? We should invest resources and send them all there (safer if there is an ambush) or risk one member and save resources?

Water breathing as 6 1 round cast can be not a problem is you start an adventure (is just a ritual, but short) but makes thing interesting if you have to start a chase underwater. It as an obligatory ritual makes things boring, it excludes scenarios.

>>53499115
Argue. If you want to just lazily link a wall of text, just fuck off.

>>53499162
The other guys could have UMD or magic items.
Furthermore, often the skill are played in synergy.
If I put a light spell on an arrow, , then I will ask the best archer to shoot it at the specific spot.

>>53498072
I can tell you never DM'd 4E

File: tl;dr.gif (187KB, 500x256px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 500x256px

>>53498777
3e assumes combat is deadly + 3e combat isn't deadly → 3e isn't meaningful → 3E combat is boring
4 types of play (railroad, stealth, mystery, combat) + stealth fell out of fashion + mystery is underrated + railroad is not fun → players like combat

3e combat is boring + players like combat → 3e is boring

>>53499302
3E combat is extremely deadly for a good chunk of the game. Low level battles almost instantly turn into bloodbaths based on luck, high level battles are straight up rocket tag kill or disable instantly or be killed or disabled in return, mid is barely out of reach of those.

>>53499086
>HP limited by surges means it's actually precious, since it's limited.
It's limited with or without surges. All you're saying is that 4e gives large amounts of hp.

When was the last time you dealt with mapping? Rations? Counting torches?
Setting ambushes? The logistics of hauling treasure to the surface? To town?

>>53499302
>3e combat isn't deadly
AHAHAHA jesus christ.
Most 4rries I talked with back then even illustrated the "big advantage" of 4th being that people were not one-shotted anymore.
High lvel 3rd combat in a competent group is awesome. There are many levels of spell defense, 3d combat, and martials used as one-shot-one-kill weapons.

>>53499302
3e *combat isn't meaningful

>>53499362
>Low level battles almost instantly turn into bloodbaths based on luck,
Very, very rarely.
>high level battles are straight up rocket tag kill or disable instantly or be killed or disabled in return
And the meaningful choices involved are... ?

>>53499429
Justin Alexander is a 3.5 player who hates 4e (>muh disassociated mechanics)
I'm not sure how Natalie feels about 4e; but her blog is about osr, not 4e

>>53499432
Are you genuinely retarded? Look at the HP of a 1st level character, look at the damage one orc can deal.
Look at the number of mid-level monsters that can one-shot you, like Bodaks or Medusae.
At high level, you have all of that plus just massive damage.
The meaningful choice are positioning/magical movement, baiting, dispelling, weapon choice/full attack combinations if well placed, spell choice, use of quickened for action economy, even healing if well timed (not a priority).
This, disregarding the pre-combat exploration and buffs.

>>53499543
I don't give a shit about anything or anyone, this blog that blog or else.
And this post >>53499302
is pure garbage.

>>53499241
>You don't pull them out your ass any tim. There are slots, scrolls and charges that go and don't come back that easily, unless the DM allows it.

We talking about 3rd edition here, right? Since the argument was "they started going missing around AD&D", I guess you could make it about AD&D, but that one still had a fair amount of resource management.

3rd edition (and its spinoffs) give casters too many resources to be reasonably depleted, if you follow the wealth guidelines and/or crafting.

>Water breathing as 6 1 round cast can be not a problem is you start an adventure (is just a ritual, but short) but makes thing interesting if you have to start a chase underwater.

Wow, what a likely scenario where the characters don't expect to go into water so don't cast waterbreathing, but suddenly, there's an underwater chase scene!>>53499382

>>53499382
>It's limited with or without surges. All you're saying is that 4e gives large amounts of hp.

3rd edition HP was basically unlimited thanks to CLWs. You can't do that in 4e. 4e gives more HP up front but you never spiral out as much.

>When was the last time you dealt with mapping?

Actually all the time, 4e dungeons are the "map out" type.

> Rations?

You need rations for rests, so fairly often.

> Counting torches?

Fair point, usually you got an everburning torch pretty soon; who wields that could still be an important facet though.

Mind, I don't remember running out of torches ever being a problem even in old school. I mean, I know it's supposed to be, but we always found enough shit that burns that we could improvise torches, or use lanterns and shit.

>Setting ambushes?

All the time. Less surges you need to spend because you got into combat->more time you can adventure.

>The logistics of hauling treasure to the surface? To town?

Fair enough, that had never come up. It theoretically could have, though.

>>53498136
Although I do miss the running joke of every new 4e release on /rs/ actually being Touhou futa. It was like low stakes Russian Roulette.

>>53499624
>Wow, what a likely scenario where the characters don't expect to go into water so don't cast waterbreathing, but suddenly, there's an underwater chase scene!
You are just too limited. It's ok, there are games for you.

>>53499432
Yeah, because orcs don't do more damage than most characters have HP with a high crit threat weapon and Sleep doesn't take out encounters solo.

>>53499382
In 3.5/5e games I've played at mid level or abouve, Hp is only precious insomuch you have to keep at least one point of it before you end combat, then potions and healing spells can bring you back to full. My experience in 4e has been more endurance challenges. Your total healing is limited regardless of potions or spells on hand so your aim is less to simply survive the fight and more to save your hp.

>>53499655
I have been gaming for about 15 years (I know, nowhere near what some grogs can say on here) and have yet to have heard "wow, good thing I can cast water breathing in 6 seconds to chase them under water!"... especially since jumping in to follow a naturally aquatic creature with only WB is a really stupid fucking idea that'll kill you.

>>53499544
Orcs have CR½. That means 2 it's are suitable for fighting 4 level 1 PCs.
Lanchester's square law, 4 PCs will shred 2 orcs without serious injury.
>Look at the number of mid-level monsters that can one-shot you, like Bodaks or Medusae.
You've yet to list meaningful ways to interact with save-or-die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(policy_debate)

>>53499745
I gamed for more than 23 and my 3.5 campaign reached 40th level but hey, what do I know.
Also, you are focusing on ONE fucking example.
The point is that rapidly cast spells have potential in changing the pace and setting of the story very quickly, making chases and other events interesting.
If you don't want that, just play low level.

>>53499780
I don't even know what are you talking about.
1 well placed orc crit will kill a low level character.
At mid level, save-or-die already appear.
The question was: is the game lethal and the answer is: yes, is lethal.

>>53499791
>and my 3.5 campaign reached 40th level

Yeah, I basically just instantly discarded everything you said after this

>>53499745
I've had several instances where having waterbreathing/walking was clutch. One time our druid had to dive through an underwater tunnel to find something, another time it was a flooding trap in a dungeon, another time water walk prevented terrain hindrance in a swamp, and one really unique time a combination of acid resistance and water walk prevented drowning/burning in a pocket dimension that was literally made of acid.

D&D gets fucking weird sometimes.

>>53499884
If it makes you feel better, anon.
As I said, there are safer (and in my opinion duller) games for you.

>>53499836
>The question was: is the game lethal
>he's mad at that guys tl;dr
OK. So. You didn't read http://revolution21days.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-d-has-lots-of-rules-for-combat.html
Which is what we are actually discussing.

"Combat is lethal" is a bridge to "combat has meaningful decisions"
3.5 and PF combat do not have meaningful decisions.

>>53499942
It does, but only if you're a spellcaster.

>>53499915
https://youtu.be/X9vECzikqpY

>>53499942
I already told you to don't link blogposts.
Argue, or fuck off.
And again:
>"Combat is lethal" is a bridge to "combat has meaningful decisions"
>3.5 and PF combat do not have meaningful decisions.
This is garbage.
There is no actual fact that supports this logic jump.

>>53499961c >>53499780
>list meaningful ways to interact with save-or-die
Regardless of who makes the save, the interactions weren't meaningful.

>>53499973
This answer is a logic following to your lack of imagination about the water, above.
The story was a planar adventure linked with the end of the world. It went on for 10 years and we interrupted because personal reasons.
And such adventure existed because albeit flawed, the game had, at high levels, a scope that inspired us into playing an epic campaign.
I can only feel pity for you.

>>53500014
So dealing with the gaze attack of a Medusa has not meaningful decisions attached?

File: doesn't feel like D&D.png (263KB, 1432x2040px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1432x2040px

>>53490607
It just
Doesn't
FEEL
Like
D&D

>>53500034
>The story was a planar adventure linked with the end of the world.
That's exactly the kind of dumb power fantasy shit the video is making fun of. No respect for people who play D&D as a super hero game instead of the lethal dungeon crawling it was intended to be.

>>53496788
Everything about it is fucking sexy. Multiplayer, Singleplayer, it's custom mapping content...
Treat yourself, play at anything harder than normal and have an absolute blast.

>>53500074
It was not a power fantasy.
It was a classic D&D adventure on that sense, inspired by my time on BECMI.
All was based on equilibrium, prophecies, politics on many level.
Yes some big boss was just a DPSfest, but my players soon realized that "destroy the devil" would have brought chaos, that the celestials were biased, and that many LG characters would have probably had to make a choice for balance at some point.. or maybe not. The final decision would have been theirs.
In all of this, a lot of jokes with many NPCs, and many incredible stunts and fails that my players still fondly remember after years.
But no, you know better than us. It was of course a dumb power fantasy with no depth.
You are really sad, anon. You know in the image threads, the "/tg/ is stop having fun" jokes? Is because of people like you.

Again, keep your perfectly balanced, dull games. Creativity, risk, and thinking outside the box is not for you.

>>53500060
You either do or you don't have blindfighting.
You either do or you don't pass the save.

There are no reasonable ways to interact with it mid-fight.

Except, perhaps, running away.
Not that 3.5 handles running away well, mind you.

>>53500156
>It was a classic D&D adventure on that sense, inspired by my time on BECMI.
To elaborate, in BECMI characters go from rags to immortality. My players did the same, thy started from level 1. They really earned it.

>>53500156

Except it's completely bollocks to claim all those things are incompatible with balance and good game design.

>>53500173
>They really earned it.
How many times did your players roll new characters?

>>53500161
>What is a mirror
Also, the gaze range is 30 feet.
Finally, this just means that there is another level and moment in which a meaningful decision was made - if select or not blindfight.
Is really too complex for you guys, right? Is true 4th was made for retards.

>>53500173
Seconding >>53500203
>>53500156 sounds like you had a generic superhero story campaign where you were afraid to kill players because it would ruin the "plot" so they did exactly what the game design lets them do in that scenario: ceaselessly march to the level cap

>>53490607
4E is a fixed version of The Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game with a simple skill-system taped on to flick away non-combat situations.
I'm not saying 4E is bad (it isn't), but I won't say 4E is a role-playing game (it isn't).

>>53500203
Ah, not so many. They were 11, thy rerolled 4 characters.
But the deaths were many, really many, included all the difficulties in resurrecting before getting the big spells. Like going directly in the underworld and recovering the dead soul and shit, not just casting a spell.
At his best, the group was:
Fighter
Barbarian/Frienzed Berserk/Berserk
Samurai/Iaijutsu Master
Monk with god knows which PRCs
Rogue/Void Incarnate
Death (in the FR Kemlvor sense) Cleric, anti-undead
Fire/Purity Cleric, anti-fiends
Druid/Warshaper
Wizard/Archmage
Sorcerer/Incanatatar
Psion (telepath?)

>>53490880
Holy shit not only did he not understand 4e he didn't understand 5e either.

>>53500298

Except, once again, there is no meaningful definition of a roleplaying game which excludes 4e while including 3.PF and 5e.

It is a roleplaying game. You might not like it, but there is no way to say it isn't which has any meaning or value.

>>53500292
>sounds like you had a generic superhero story campaign where you were afraid to kill players because it would ruin the "plot" so they did exactly what the game design lets them do in that scenario: ceaselessly march to the level cap

You said it as it is intrinsically a problem. Is a gamestyle. We had fun for more than 10 years, it was not a short campaign.
But no, I am quite "neutral" as a GM: I never say no, but I never say yes. You have to struggle for it. A sorcerer, a wizard, a rogue, a fighter, just remained on the road.
Remember that when the levels go up, the stakes change. The problem is not resurrcting the PCs, but not losing all they care about and build.

>>53500228
>a meaningful decision was made - if select or not blindfight.
You make that decision during the fight?

>>53500372
That is just a layer I added. Mirrors and movements, or even a Dirty Trick if you play PF to cover the medusa eyes are things you do in combat.
I think is clear by now you are just very unimaginative people. It boggles me you like this much RPGs, to be honest.

>>53500306
>It was not a power fantasy.
>It was a classic D&D adventure
Really makes me think
>Not many permadeaths
>They could resurrect by adventuring in the underworld
So you mean literally mythological superhero tier stuff? BEFORE they could outright cast resurrection spells?
>>53500370
>You said it as it is intrinsically a problem.
Yes there is such thing as playing a game wrong.
>We had fun for more than 10 years, it was not a short campaign.
People have fun doing dumb shit all the time.

>Remember that when the levels go up, the stakes change.
This is actually worse than what you were saying before. What's the point of leveling up if the world just fucking levels up with you? What's the point of levels if as soon as you ding suddenly you're running into things just strong enough to continue to threaten you?

>>53500412

>>53500161
>ways to interact with it mid-fight.
>mid-fight.

>>53500455

>Yes there is such thing as playing a game wrong.

Only if they're not having fun. Otherwise, shitting on it just makes you a badwrongfun asshole.

>>53500455
>BEFORE they could outright cast resurrection spells?
Devil's advocate, it doesn't make sense to do it after.
But why they went to 40 when the extra-planar stuff peaked at 5...

>>53500511
You need both the soul and the body to cast resurrection spells.
You could argue that you need to personally get the soul from the afterlife and bring it to the body for the resurrection spell to work.
Of course, that would actually be interesting and since it's magic it gets to ignore all that and just be rules fiat.

>>53499432
>And the meaningful choices involved are... ?
How to avoid combat or win before the other guy realizes you're even fighting. Which is many degrees more interesting than just solving combat puzzle after combat puzzle with your buttbuddies because no one can actually do shit on his own.

>>53500455
You are starting to just result pathetic.
>>It was not a power fantasy.
>>It was a classic D&D adventure
>Really makes me think
Re you implying that playing D&D in the classic sense was playing the game wrong? I really cannot get your point here. A true, bland power fantasy implies that the characters do not earn their powers, but my players needed a full DECADE to get there. Let that sink in.
Also, think about the dedication needed by everyone involved.

>Yes there is such thing as playing a game wrong.
This makes me cringe. What is this, mr badwrongfun, envy?

>What's the point of leveling up if the world just fucking levels up with you?
>What's the point of levels if as soon as you ding suddenly you're running into things just strong enough to continue to threaten you?

In part your criticisms is valid.. for any level based system, 4th edition included. But this is not a criticism valid as a specific one for my campaign, sorry. You are running out of arguments.
And of course they did not kill 36th level kobolds, they explored remote places in this and other worlds, up to the borders of the known multiverse, and built special items to reach such places. Often, the reward for an adventure was, say, an upgrade for such vehicles.

>>53490661
>It's just really really obvious that they wanted to expand their audience with 4e and get people who've been playing World of Warcraft but never touched a tabletop RPG in their life.

This feels like a repeat of "3rd edition is just Diablo" when that one came out.

>>53490414
t. 4urrie.

>>53500623
>This feels like a repeat of "3rd edition is just Diablo" when that one came out.
That is partially correct, too. Point being, Diablo and Wow have a different tone and it shows.

I'm torn on whether I prefer r4e racial mechanics or 5e racial mechanics, but I know one thing: I *love* 4e class mechanics.

Seriously; I never see any anons giving 4e credit for the fact that each class's powers are all unique in how they operate.

I mean, compare 5e's spells, where the Sorcerer and Warlock basically get watered down versions of the Wizard's spell list, to how every spell-list in 4e as unique. Sorcerers could cast Black Breath of Dragotha and Caustic Vapors and Prismatic Storm, Wizards could cast Astral Claw, Steal Time and Visions of Wrath.

I want my Swordmage back! The Bladesinger doesn't have the spells it had - where's Mirrorblade Army, where you split into multiple copies of yourself and chopped people up from multiple directions at once? Where's Seed of Fire, which lets you stab a fucker, kick them off the blade and then detonate a fireball in the wound? What happened to Meteor Strike, where you throw your sword and it turns into a flaming ball of rock that bounces off of multiple suckers before flying back to your hand turning back to normal?

Seriously, this shit was awesome! Why did we have to give it up?

File: d21.jpg (55KB, 600x538px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x538px

>>53490414
You believed what a bunch of entitled shitters wrote on the internet.

>>53499780
>You've yet to list meaningful ways to interact with save-or-die.
Nigga
save-or-dies keep you from going into combat unprepared. They're the nuclear deterrent. They're not to be "interacted" with once they start flying, they're there to force you to pick your battles.

>>53500455
>So you mean literally mythological superhero tier stuff? BEFORE they could outright cast resurrection spells?
>>53500511
>Devil's advocate, it doesn't make sense to do it after.

No, I meant that sometimes for stuff that just kills you outright they had to deal with the underworld to resurrect. In a following campaign I made it the default for non-epic resurrection.

File: 1472705962445.png (787KB, 677x604px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 677x604px

what's with all the ire against low lethality campaigns where the PC's are the heroes of the story. Yes, that's the kind of game that 4e ran, and yes that's the kind of game a lot of tables are interested in running. What I can't understand is why that kind of game makes some people so angry. Are you mad because that what you were expecting when your fist got into the hobby, and were unpleasantly surprised until you got used to "how D&D is supposed to be," and you're mad that others don't have to do that? Do you just hate people having fun differently than you? Are you just trolling? I genuinely don't understand where this anger comes from.

>>53500610
>Re you implying that playing D&D in the classic sense
But that's not the classic D&D sense. That's the whole point. You are under the mistaken impression that your superhero fantasy is "classic D&D". No, classic D&D is struggling to get to a decent level then establishing a castle with followers now that you're rich and strong enough to not have to resort to dungeon diving and robbing tombs.
None of that "save the world" bullshit at all.

>And of course they did not kill 36th level kobolds
Something that has a 30% chance of hitting to do 20% of the players life are all functionally identical. It doesn't matter that one is labeled "kobold" and the other is labelled "not kobold"

>>53500074
>That's exactly the kind of dumb power fantasy shit the video is making fun of
>"You're having fun wrong" logic
>shitty buzzwords like power fantasy
kek

>>53500694

Small minded people angry that other people have fun in different ways to them. Because if everyone had fun the 'proper' way, they wouldn't have to deal with all this badwrongfun nonsense which is ruining roleplaying games.

>>53500694

From a Player perspective, combat is less fun if there is little risk involved.

That said, 4e can be played high lethality.

>>53500604
Not him, but I can concede there is a meaningful choice to be involved in that sort of game design.

However, your gave an opinion on the matter of which is more fun, not a fact. That you find it fun is irrelevant. People can have fun through teamwork in the same way.

Yours isn't for us, and ours isn't for you. It's that simple.

>>53490800
To be fair the 4e Essentials line was complete shit anyway. It was WotC trying to "fix" what the grognards said was wrong with 4e and served to just take a giant steaming shit on the whole edition.

>>53496742
Yes, and when it concerns 4e, 4urries really are the simple answer.

>>53500694
Thanks, and I want to add an element: when playing with other GMs, my players are considered at the beginning paranoid freaks.
They KNOW I will push them, they play very carefully and the 40th level campaign was not their first one with me.
Also, remember that I listed them as a big group, that helps a lot, specially with 5 casters. THAT could be a sign of easier play - I will concede that.... but too, i made large use of no-magic, impeded magic, and tainted divine magic (like OAdv 3.0) zones.

>>53500738

But it's a fallacy to say that low lethality means there's nothing at stake.

You're a shitty GM if death is the only thing you can use to threaten your players with, the only thing they care about that can be risked.

>>53500712
>None of that "save the world" bullshit at all.
You missed that fact that the adventure deconstructed such concept. Reread what I wrote.
>Something that has a 30% chance of hitting to do 20% of the players
You are just arguing against D&D in general. Actually not, you are arguing against 4th edition mostly, epic monsters are more than that. My players were bold and strong, but they just fled the scene against a Phane. That guy was just too fucking much.
I really cannot understand you.

>>53500694
>>53500716
>>53500771
Because RPGs are about freedom. If I wanted to be railroaded into being a special snowflake save the world story with meticulously balanced encounters so I'm never in any actual danger of failing then I would be playing video games.

I got into the hobby expecting roguelikes with more freedom, what I got was people wanting to play Skyrim except they are even more special with special superpowers.

>>53500694
We're not saying, "low lethality is bad."
We're saying, "pretend rewards are meaningless."

Some guy is going on about how meaningful it is to reach level 40.
I guess he thinks skinner boxes hand out meaningful rewards?
>>53500610
Do you happen to enjoy mobage?

>>53500832
>meticulously balanced encounters so I'm never in any actual danger
That's not what system balance is, you fucking dingus.

>>53500712
>No, classic D&D is struggling to get to a decent level then establishing a castle with followers now that you're rich and strong enough to not have to resort to dungeon diving and robbing tombs.
BECMI is like that for the first 3 books. The last 2 play a different tune.
And already in Companion (3rd book) things start to change. You get the first stronghold rules in the second book, Expert, IIRC.

>>53500832

And why is any of that relevant when other people do it?

You have your own preferences, those are all fine and dandy, and they're important for when you're looking for a group who shares them. But if you're trying to assert your preferences as somehow superior to those of others, you're just a cunt.

>>53500746
>Yours isn't for us, and ours isn't for you. It's that simple.
The only two things simple here are 4E and you.
It's the edition that actually tried to remove the RP from RPGs and reduce it to the combat, which turned out such a bad idea that absolute cesspool that calls itself paizo managed to thrive next to it. Think about that for a moment. Playing round after round of fantasy battle chess is at most a sad parody of what a roleplaying game is and if you don't find that freedom to hold value I pity you for your absolute lack of creativity and wit.

>>53500856
>mobage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobage
???

>dysfunctional skill system
>inadequate on-the-fly rules suggestions (Pg 42 goes here)
>false flagged 'all characters are balanced'
>powers work well but they only work best when the GM builds you model terrain to use them with
>"It doesn't need rules or even suggestions for roleplaying"
>literally an advanced version of DungeonQuest: go into dungeons, kill things, get literal item and treasure drops based on creature levels
>creatures have literal levels and roles as introduced in Phantasy Star Online and Final Fantasy Tactics
How is it not a wargame again?

>>53500859
>Every edition gives out rules for balancing encounters
>Has nothing to do with system balance
>>53500874
>And why is any of that relevant when other people do it?
The same way even though I'm not gay because a enough people are gay I have to put up with people posting dickgirls and traps on porn boards.
Other peoples interests influence your experiences. Assholes like you are why we get Skyrim and not Morrowind.

>>53500906

It is basically a wargame with light RPG elements

does not mean it's not fun to play.

>>53500890

>It's the edition that actually tried to remove the RP from RPGs and reduce it to the combat

What the shitting fuck are you even talking about?

>>53500906
>>53500921

see

>>53500340

>>53500891
Those pointless click and win games that everyone plays on their phones nowadays. You know, GoFish games, Yahooclick games, fake puzzle games, find the object on this image and plug it in games, and other literally non-thought no-imagination games.

Like the fact that you can literally play 4e solo.

>>53500952

>Like the fact that you can literally play 4e solo.

...What?

File: 4rries did exist.png (19KB, 1602x306px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1602x306px

>>53500950
>>53500921
Then why is okay to tell people who play PF that their game is bad and they're not really having fun and they're brain damaged, but it's not okay to tell a 4e player the same thing?

Fucking hypocrites.

>>53500891
Mobile games are a demonstration of how little you need to dress up a Skinner box to get people to walk in.
It turns out you just need to say "the button pushes itself the first time you walk in each day" and hang a curtain.

>>53500919
And I just realized that the argument was already made for me.
There very fact this thread exists is proving my argument.
Superhero cunts like you, instead of playing superhero systems, is why we got 3.5e, got 4e, and in 5e it's literally written that even level 1 characters are supposed to be heroes.

>>53500975

The first one is fine, the last one is dickish, the middle one is just as wrong as any other time it's said.

>>53500832
>Because RPGs are about freedom. If I wanted to be railroaded into being a special snowflake save the world story with meticulously balanced encounters so I'm never in any actual danger of failing then I would be playing video games.
There was not railroad, but a generic plot changed by their decision. And they could still die. As explained, they fled more than one time and had to give ground, like vs a Phane and against a Klurichir on steroids (the first two coming in my mind).
I guess that if my players perceived it as a railroad, their decisions would be always "let's stay here and don't flee, he will never kill us".

On a later campaign, I gave up about plot completely, and I played a sandbox. But it was a mere stylistic choice.

>>53500928
3.5 wants you to kill your enemies BEFORE combat begins, by RPing smartly.
4E throws lots of HP at you so you can bash everybodies heads in with your keeewl speshul abilities!

>>53500975

Is that picture meant to convey anything? It just seems dumb.

>>53500970
There are literal rules for playing 4e solo. As in you can build 4 characters, and play the game as a solo scenario with yourself as a gamemaster and put the characters through the motions of dungeon delving and gaining drops of treasure from monsters you kill.

There are rules for this in the 4e rulebooks. Now tell me it was designed as a roleplaying game.

>>53501002

Horseshit. Point me to any fucking part of 3.5's design that actually reinforces that.

>>53500975
Replace 4e with 3e, remove the sentence about tactics, and your picture perfectly encapsulates how AD&D players feel about 3e.

>>53501013

It was designed as a roleplaying game? Because nobody has yet to provide a definition which excludes it but includes 3.PF and 5e. Because you can't. Because 4e is a roleplaying game.

>>53500977
I still don't see the analogy. You are keeping attributing stuff to my games, you assume I do X, and state it's badwrongfun.

>>53501013
He's not questioning solo 4e, he's questioning the analogy.

>>53500856
>Some guy is going on about how meaningful it is to reach level 40.
10 years campaign having fun with his friends.
What a dumb piece of shit, amrite?

>>53501033
Save-or-Dies, lots of utility spells, lots of utility in magic items, monsters that require very specific counters and are otherwise very hard or impossible to beat, lots of mechanics that reward research.

>>53500984
Your game still exists you know? It didn't fall off the face of the earth when newer editions came out.

>>53501033
When a caster picks his spells in the morning

>>53501006
t. 4urrie trying to obfuscate the truth

>>53501033
The fact that the GM is encouraged not to make all things revolve around combat in the rules.

>>53501080

So... All things only spellcasters can interact with.

>>53501053 if you read >>53500856, then either you can't interpret ideas or I can't articulate them.
In either case, reiteration gets us nowhere.

It's a tangential discussion. If you don't see it, we'll drop it and move on.

>>53500984
>Superhero cunts like you
3.X is not "superhero". It is at high levels. At level 1, you die for a goblin crit.
Exactly like BECMI back then. I remember that I felt almost invulnerable with good armor and Weapon master with parrying weapons.
But to get there...

>>53501107

Tell me, what are the largest parts of 3.PF's core book? Because, if you don't know your own system, it's magic and combat.

>>53501112
So... All things only spellcasters can interact with.
Let's see..
>Save-or-Dies
Death attack
>lots of utility spells,
UMD, itms
>lots of utility in magic items,
d-hurrr
>monsters that require very specific counters and are otherwise very hard or impossible to beat,
One of the countr could be "physical damage only"
>lots of mechanics that reward research.
d-hurrrrrrrrr

You are either disingenuous, or an utter retard

>>53501125
This fallacy again.
Rules and rolls are conflict resolutions.
You ned more rules for conflict that require more impartial guidelines. You need rules for combat because otherwise people would just say "I hit it" "no you didn't" "yes I did"
For spells is even more important, because of the potential and because people IRL have, well, no experience with spells.
You need less rules to talk with people because is something you can model in an easier way with less rules.

>>53501149
Death Attack is not a meaningful save or die, targets the highest monster save and has a SHIT DC unless you shat your character up from the getgo.

UMD is highly limited in practice, still the best skill in the game discounting Diplomancy cheese, but it has nothing on a full on mid level spellcaster.

"Physical damage only" is not a counter to spellcasters.

>>53501149
>You are either disingenuous, or an utter retard
You're giving the benefit of the doubt.
He could be both.

>>53501195

If you're dedicating the majority of your pagecount to something that isn't the majority of your game, you're a shitty fucking designer.

>>53501125
Show me the parts of 4e DMG that are not about combat.

Good luck.

>>53500655
>Seriously; I never see any anons giving 4e credit for the fact that each class's powers are all unique in how they operate.
It's sad br. The edition spam drowned it in "they all play the same" cries and Mearls collages

4e was expertly designed to play how most people played 3.5. It was a fuck-awful D&D game because it further entrenched that idea from the latter end of AD&D 2nd that D&D was a game of heroic fantasy. 3,5 was terrible too.

>>53501196
>Death attack
Death attack vs an arcane caster can be meaningful. So can be a poison. Megapede can be a 44 DC.
>UMD
UMD is not limited, at least for Bards and Rogues (for many more in PF).
>"Physical damage only" is not a counter to spellcasters.
We were talking about monsters there. And yes, actually if you use your casters to block the enemy, you can deliver a swift death with the martials.

File: 1434500934185.jpg (28KB, 335x333px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 335x333px

>>53500738
But low lethality doesn't mean low-risk, unless the GM is so uncreative that the only consequence he can think of is "your story is over, you die." I run a "PC's are the goddamned heroes" campaign, and you'd be hard pressed to find a player who would claim it's "safe." Sure, I'm probably not going to kill them barring an awesome opportunity for character-defining heroic self-sacrifice, but bad shit happens to them all the time as a result of their choices and the dice, and as long as you've actually got them invested in their character's motivations, that's WAY more interesting than just rolling a new character for both GM and player.
>>53500832
Being the heroes doesn't mean no freedom unless the GM has literally written the story that they are the heroes of already. That's totally different from an understanding and feeling that the (still unwritten) fantasy novel the players are in centers around them. Interesting plot-significant events are going to happen to the players, but that doesn't mean it's all pre-written, hell it doesn't even mean that those plot significant events are even pre-written.
Being heroic doesn't mean a lack of freedom, and an aversion to dying doesn't mean free from consequences.

>>53501235

Eight of the eleven chapters?

Mind you, a good amount of the wordcount does go into the combat, but I'm not the one denying that combat is the focus of the system.

>>53501235
4e was designed with combat as the centerpiece, but it's not shy about the fact. I don't see what this is suppose to prove.

File: point.png (13KB, 500x301px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x301px

>>53501231

>>53490616
>I'd argue that with as different as each edition of D&D feels in execution of one another, the only one that should 'feel' like D&D at this point is the first one.

That's really only applicable if you look at D&D as a post WotC construction, which is a product of them throwing the baby out with the bathwater every time they make a new one. AD&D 1st and 2nd were pretty similar, the latter just lacked some Gygaxisms and presented Bard as an actual class, and the editions of Basic were mechanically quite similar to each other. So of the oldschool D&D editions, the only one with substantial differences would be 0D&D, which was when they were still hammering out the basic design of the game.

>>53501235
Most of the book actually. Only Chapters 3, 4, and 10 (Pages 34-69, 172-196) are explicitly about combat. The rest is about campaign building and general DM advice so about 60 pages of the 195 content pages are dedicated to combat rules. The remaining 30 or so pages are a mini adventure, index, and sheets to photocopy.

>>53499961
I would think it's more accurate to say that when you roll initiative, your meaningful decisions have already been made.

>>53501365
Fair. 2e was the one I never got the chance to play, but it looked different from 1e at a glance.

Still, as you stated, modern D&D has little to nothing of the old, so why people think any of those editions should feel like D&D instead of feeling like 'a new game in the D&D Brand' is beyond me.

>>53501453
>Still, as you stated, modern D&D has little to nothing of the old, so why people think any of those editions should feel like D&D instead of feeling like 'a new game in the D&D Brand' is beyond me.

Perhaps because they're playing D&D and want a D&D experience? 3e, for all of its faults was at least aesthetically similar, and 5e has managed to incorporate the basic sacred cows of D&D in a mechanically modern package. It was really only 4e that was an almost total departure.

File: 1410511418260.jpg (165KB, 640x828px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 640x828px

>>53501235
you need a book to tell you how to roleplay talking?

>>53493433
>Fuck there are people that still play 3.5 even when the slightly more fixed version of pathfinder is available.
I would run 3.5 with all of it's flaws if it meant not dealing with the autistic pedophiles that play pathfinder.

>>53501526
3.5 has the added benefit of not having the additional shit Paizo broke added in the mix and 3.5's old material available without conversion.

>>53501526
It depends, but I see your point, I stay away from the PF general.
Said that, I think the best it to mix the two, PF is not a net improvement.
I always whiteknight 3.X but an actual GOOD version of the game has yet to be written.

>>53501496
Perhaps experience has not been so kind on my end. I recall 3.X and 5e both being very dissimilar from 1e. I didn't mind it so much with 4e though, as I went in not expecting D&D.

>>53501570
I'd say the best is to play something else.

Because honestly if I was stuck in a room with four players, a rock, and only the 3.PF rulebooks, I'd carve my own homebrew into the walls of the room play that.

>>53501235
Pages 1-33
Pages 65-171
Pages 186-211

>>53501581
Well I'm not saying they're all that similar. As I said, 3.5 was only aesthetically similar, and 5e just managed to incorporate some of the basic sacred cows of it (a lot of which also boils down to aesthetics, though it will still play in a basically familiar fashion).

4e basically just had the tactical set piece battles be an end rather than a means, which was how the game was commonly played in all editions, but not the only way it was supposed to be played. In 4e you could seriously screw with the game's function by doing anything that disrupted the encounter budget or treasure guidelines.

>>53501608
Nah, I loved BECMI and AD&D 2nd edition, I would play 5th, but I love my x4 crit weapons, level drain, quickened spells, disintegrate, "how many layers of spell buffs you are on", "fuck you" spells, stacking conditions sneak attacks, outsiders and fey with 17651725 spell likes, and so on.

>>53490414
DnD isn't good, though. Only people that only play DnD really give a shit about edition wars, the reality is that the whole gameline and d20 system survive by momentum alone. So many things in these trashcan experiences are just pure anachronisms that NO OTHER GAMES use, AT ALL. I can't wait for this fucking train wreck of an RPG to burn up and die with all its drones.

>>53490905
>Even WotC literally states that 4e is not true DnD, and it should have been called DnD Tactics

>Literally does NOT say 4E is true D&D (and has even stated that 4E feels closer to original D&D than 3.5 did in another source).
>Says that he'd like to revive it under a new name, NOT that it should've been called something else.

Reading comprehension is important.

>>53501699
>just pure anachronisms that NO OTHER GAMES use, AT ALL.
like

>>53501699

While in general I agree, 4e is kind of an exception. It has its sacred cows, but it's actually a well designed game with modern sensibilities. Which is probably why the hardcore D&D fanbase hates it.

>>53501745
Alignment

XP from 'encounters' aka murderpoints

Class/level progression

Progression which totally focuses on killing power

Almost no mechanics for noncombat situations

Vancian magic

To name a few.

>>53501692
>PhilipJFry.png

>>53501498
Please tell me that's satire.

>>53501835
Alignment are misinterpreted guidelines, but they fit with the generic D&D world, which is manichean and moorcockian.
Xp are not only from encounters.
Class and levels became a fantasy trope applid to other media. Why give it up?
Skills and noncombat abilites are not killing power.
Noncombat needs intrinsically less mechanics (there is less doubt on the resolution) , but i concede that the existing mechanics need more work and did not get enough.
Vancian magic is a genuinely retarded point. The games have other systems and is more of a matter of tastes.

>>53501975
It was an April Fools joke. And one I thought was funny even as a 4e fan.

>>53501835
>Alignment
>XP from 'encounters' aka murderpoints
>Class/level progression
>Progression which totally focuses on killing power
>Almost no mechanics for noncombat situations
>Vancian magic
Where's the problem?

>>53501929
Your loss. This shit is all unbalanced, but you know when we talk about old games what my players remember? They don't say "aw man that encounter was SO balanced".
They remember a x4 crit, a quivering palm, a teleport on the nose of the big bad guy, or how they asses were handed by a strong monster, how much they risked before a good strike,or why they fled.
Or a convoluted strategy involving a clever use of spells and orifices, and the jokes following.

>>53501699
Savage Worlds and Fate are two of my favourite RPGs and I fucking love D&D. So STFU.

>>53501835
>Alignment
Misrepresented and twisted with time. Other games have used something like what classic Alignment was meant to be; which is to say loyalty to a faction, not an outlook or drive of action.

>XP from 'encounters' aka murderpoints
As opposed to every session or GM fiat like other games with progression does? Both of which have also been used in D&D?

>Class/level progression
Case by case basis. Class and Level helps keep goals of the player in mind on both a design aspect and a game aspect. That you don't like not being able to do everything is a you problem, not a D&D problem.

>Progression which totally focuses on killing power
So what of healing magic? Crafting or profession skills, or defensive abilities? No other game has these?

>Almost no mechanics for noncombat situations
I don't need rules to talk to an NPC, and I have rules to get an NPC to do what I want without hitting him with a stick.

>Vancian magic
Not actually Vancian magic, but sure. I'll give you that spell slots were a bad idea in how they're executed most of the time.

>>53501835

>NO OTHER GAMES use, AT ALL

>Alignment
Morality systems in (O)WoD (although quite more flexible)

>XP from 'encounters' aka murderpoints
XP is not awarded for encounters only.

>Class/level progression
Dark heresy 1E, Rogue trader, Deatwatch

>Progression which totally focuses on killing power
Every 40k RPG, Shadowrun

>Almost no mechanics for noncombat situations
40k RPGs

>Vancian magic
Legend of five rings

File: _tg_ - Why in the fuck did _game balance doesn_t matter__1356349419908.png (39KB, 1624x220px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1624x220px

>>53502066
This.

Balance is a stupid argument used by 4e players to point out the monstrousness of non 4e players.

>>53502108
>>53502177
>>53502019
>>53501986
Good job people, but now yo made things worse.
I am expecting a full-sperging on The Forge """games""" in minutes.

File: 1454343836776.png (117KB, 473x435px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 473x435px

>>53501986
No, you're absolutely wrong about alignment. There's a whole plethora of reasons that it is philosophically bankrupt, but what you need to understand is that as a game mechanic it is so universally agreed on to be a bad idea that even DnD, the only trash heap to even use it, has started erasing its presence.

XP primarily comes in the form of tactical reward, not necessarily strictly combat, but never as a consequence of roleplaying. If you look at ANY other game, you'll see that XP is almost never a tactical reward. Almost always, XP is awarded on the basis of individual roleplaying and interaction with the plot.

Your 'defense' of class/level mechanics is not, in fact, a defense.

Skills barely matter, skill checks are lazy game design which suffer the most from the hortible d20 resolution mechanic, and most importantly, they're not fun or interesting to use.

>noncombat doesn't need mechanics
Yikes, that's the infamous DnD brain damage talking.

>>53502196

Yeah, no.

The thing about good balance is that you don't notice it when it's doing its job. That doesn't mean it isn't important.

>>53502073

Similar here

My most played RPGs are OWoD, Savage Worlds, 3.5/PF, 4e and 40K RPGs (well and Fist of the North Star RPG, but i doubt most people know that one).

>>53502240
I definitely notice when balance is doing its job because it means I can go balls to the wall and not fuck up the game in the process. Works just as well for video games.

>>53502230
>There's a whole plethora of reasons that it is philosophically bankrupt
Arguments or GTFO
>XP primarily comes in the form of tactical reward
No, they reward you if you end a task. The task can be a whole adventure, and is up to the group, mainly the GM, to assess it.
Dont use your misconceptions as arguments.
>Your 'defense' of class/level mechanics is not, in fact, a defense.
I keep not seeing arguments. People other than me, too, gave clear examples of noncombat stuff. Is craft(basketweaving) combat related?
>most importantly, they're not fun or interesting to use.
the math is off, but not enough to hamper their use. You are exaggerating.
Also, you can build encounters on skills, evn mixing them with combat if you build well a room.
>Yikes, that's the infamous DnD brain damage talking.
Mr Retardo, you need rules and rolls when there is a conflict. This is a general thing for any "rule", laws included - laws come from necessity.
You need less detail in the ruleset for things people can agree more, know more, or they feel they have less control of.
This is why you need less rules for what a NPC is thinking of the bard bullshit, and you need more rules for sword swinging to avoid primary school arguments, and even more for spells because are even more detached from the players' reality.

>>53502177
Morality in WoD is completely different from alignment in every conceivable way, both in a purely intellectual/lore sense and mechanically.

40kRPG are trash systems but even they quickly evolved beyond class/level progression.

Neither Shadowrun nor 40kRPG characters progress strictly in terms of killing power.

40kRPGs are, again, trash games, d100 aka d20 and their popularity with DnD drones should paint that picture clearly enough.

>>53502320
>North Star RPG
tell us more

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x360px

>>53502420

Italian RPG, quite fun despite the utterly broken mechanics.

My old playgroup had TONS of home-brewed extra material and several house rules.

>>53502230
>and most importantly, they're not fun or interesting to use.
I've had plenty of fun bluffing my way out of sticky situations, using raw muscle to solve a problem without killing or hurting anyone and uncovering forgotten lore to add to my collection of knowledge. That YOU don't find it fun is, again, a you problem, not a D&D problem.

>>53502230
>There's a whole plethora of reasons that it is philosophically bankrupt
Right, no philosophy ever had a concept of good and evil, or chaos, or utgard, or isfet.

>>53502420
Good thing I am Italian! There was nice stuff back then, included the Dylan Dog RPG! We had a good fun!
How comes I did not know this one?

>>53502066
>Your loss
Not at all.

We're over hear enjoying Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds (with moderate house rules), and OWOD.

We have no need for D&D any more.

>>53502592
this was for
>>53502474
scusate gente

>>53502608
> OWOD
Shitting on D&D mechanics. Wew lad.
Don't get me wrong, I played it and we loved it back then.

>>53502649
You seem to be making assumptions about how we're playing OWOD in my group.

We play OWOD with the understanding that we will fail. That our snowflakes will melt before the end of the night. Balance doesn't matter when no one gets out alive.

>>53502177
L5R doesn't even remotely have Vancian Magic. L5R casters don't memorize spells and then forget them after casting. They have to have scrolls for most spells as they are semi-holy relics that aid in focusing the kami's attention. A "memorized" spell is simply one has mastered to the point of not needing a focus.

Their spells are tied to thematic elements and character's strength in that element determines how often they can cast. Also they can theoretically cast any spell in the book (barring the highest rank spells) via Importuning for them as nearly all spells are asking outside entities to do something for them.

The only thing in common is the slot mechanic, but even that is more like 3.x's spontaneous casters than true Vancian magic. A character with a rank 6 Fire Ring can cast 6 fire spells, the rank of those spells is immaterial, they can cast 6 rank 1 spells or 6 rank 6 spells.

>>53502548
And, what, you accept any of these as absolute truth? Can you point to what establishes good absolutely? No?

Oh but in DnD there's actual lightning cloud guys who you call gods, so their judgement establishes good and evil objectively, right? Oh, well, guess you should go and debunk all those Buddhists and Gnostics out there since you're so certain in the good judgement of your skydaddy. No?

Cosmic property then? Goodness is some measurable thing you carry around in your body like iron or magnesium? But wait, why is that thing you're measuring any more relevant to ethics than the iron or magnesium? Because the spell description says so? Are the devs in possession of absolute moral truth? Is your GM?

No, the fact is that alignment is bullshit every way you spin it. And as a mechanic, it only promotes toxicity at the table.

>>53502757
I don't like the mechanics and the metaplot is paper thin, but don't get me wrong, I love it anyway. The guy who played the Wizard in my D&D epic above was the best GM for OWOD.
(And I would never do that man - just don't do the same with my D&D.)

>>53502764
> character with a rank 6 Fire Ring can cast 6 fire spells, the rank of those spells is immaterial, they can cast 6 rank 1 spells or 6 rank 6 spells.
So is like the spellpoint os psypoint in 3.5

since we're on the subject of 4e
I have vague memory there was something in some supplement about lingering or permament injuries to characters, for use in situations when instead of killing the character it would survive just barely having lost a body part or gaining a scar
I have found some rules like that in 5e dmg page 272 but I have vivid memory if those rules, or rules like those in a 4e book.

>>53502809
I'm a fucking Stirnerian egoist and I think you're being too autistic here. Even I can suspend my disbelief enough to entertain the notion of objective good and evil.

>>53502864
It is most like D&D 5e's Warlock. A fairly limited number of spells available (without importuning, but importuning is significantly more difficult, time consuming [it is essentially ritual magic] and carries some RP stuff as you have to repay the favor), but they are always cast at their most potent power (unless the shugenja chooses to pull his punches by keeping low dice).

They are only available on a long rest type cycle in 4e (in 3e it was possible to cast without expending a slot by voluntarily making your casting roll more difficult, it was broken shit as the difficulty increase was not enough). I've found that shugenja do run dry on resources fairly quickly and mine really get worried when they run out of spells in their primary element.

For example most starting characters get a total of 6 chosen spells and 3 universal spells. The three universal ones aren't really useful outside of ritual situations and represent the basic capacities in communicating with spirits. They generally get 3 spells in their school's main element, 2 spells in a second element, and 1 spell in a third. For the most part they follow a opposing element paradigm, so if your school is Earth based, you'd get 3 Earth, 2 Fire or Water, 1 Fire or Water, and no Air spells as it is opposed to Earth. Then when you level up you get 3 new spells. A high level character would have around 20 spells at his immediate disposal.

>>53502975
You can claim inaccurate labels all you like, but it's a testament to your moral cowardice. Any system which can, even theoretically, establish an objective good HAS established an objective good, regardless of whether or not it is concerned with a 'fictional' world. All the arguments made in favor of objective good in DnD are equally made in our own world, and they are no more effective there than here.

>>53502809
Your entire post is so awful I really have no reply but to call you a faggot.

>>53503197
3 posts max to pic related

>>53502971
I think what you're looking for is in Dungeon #204.

File: Hurr.gif (7KB, 273x537px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 273x537px

>>53503271
Sorry forgot pic

>>53503271
Morality exists, it's just not objective. You shluld know that, if you're actually an egoist and not just a shitty memefag.

>>53503408
I am not the guy above. I am just ridiculing you.
The system states generic and acceptable terms for good/evil (how selfish you are), and for chaos/law (more complex but mainly about personal freedom and tradition).
Is simple and not restricting if you exclude paladins with bad GMs.
Only Outsiders (the type) or people that think they are Outsiders (like V in V for Vendetta) sperg in extremes about that.
Freespirited Selfish is a very generic term and will generically define a Drow, and its extremes will define a Demon.
Without spergs and fedoras at the table, the syste is actually LESS restricting that stuff you find on WoD or Kult.

>>53501195
>You need less rules to talk with people because is something you can model in an easier way with less rules.

Except that is why "that guy" exist in the first place: burning wheel has the "duel of wits" mechanics, maybe is a little bit complex but at least it's not a "roll-away conflict" mechanic that is somehow become implicit for non combat situations in the majority of ttrpg

>>53504332
Care to elaborate on the duel? Mine is curiosity, mind it.
Also, it depends how the GM handles it. In 3.X, the diplomacy and bluff roll com AFTER the RP, and the quality influences the roll. I explain to my players that is like combat: to "strike" with diplomacy you have to "get there" in the first place.
An altrnative (never used) is to roll first and then have a good group of RPers play the result whatever is.
An excellent friend of mine used to play a DUUUUMB dwarf in 3.X and in BECMI (we switched to the former at one point) as the stats dictated, even if metagaming more would have spared us lots of trouble.

File: Duel of Wits.pdf (258KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1x1px

>>53504402
It' treated kinda like a combat situation: there are turns, actions and manouvers.

That way even if i'm not a people person irl i still can elaborate the conflict with strategy (the same way i can "win" a fight even if i can't handle a sword irl).

>depends how the GM handles it
Indeed. The gm is forced to patch on the fly a rule or dismiss the argument in the first place ("you rolled low/high, now lets go on...")

>>53504601
Thanks. I see perfectly your point but albeit this is the stance of dnd too (becmi stated it clearly) for many this is a bug.
I know it does not make sense but for many it detracts from the roleplay.

>>53501071
An that was intrinsically more fun than multiple campaigns over 10 years?

>>53490414
Congrats, anon. You are one of us now.

>>53505554
Full badwrongfun territory.
Pathetic.

>>53505554
Jesus Christ this board

>>53503197
It doesn't have to establish objective good, it just has to claim objective good exists in the confines of its game, and then you have to go along with it like a reasonable human being who is looking to play a game, you fucking sperglord. I know good and evil don't actually exist, but sometimes it's fun to pretend they're real, objective forces in a game.

>>53506017
He was going on earlier about how he wanted to do high level gameplay, then bragged about how he didn't skip to it.
I'm trying to understand why he would slog through lower level play if he wanted something else.