Is it worth learning older D&D systems if you know only 5e?

4e to see what D&D looks like if you apply modern game design.

3.PF to see just how luck you are that the system you play works, but also to feel envious at all the awesome shit the system had added to it (despite not much of it working)

2e to start delving into a completely different tone and playstyle, entirely separate from modern RPGs as you know them.

>>53525104
B/X or a Retroclone (like S&W) if you want a game design focused around dungeon exploration.

>>53525104
AD&D1e, 2e, and D&D4e.

File: 960 (1).jpg (94KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x540px

>>53525104
>Is it worth learning older D&D systems if you know only 5e?

No.

4e's Skill Challenges work very well in 5e.

That's it.

Thanks, I was thinking of learning either AD&D 2e, or 3.5e, because I know some things from the cRPGs.
One more question: Is there maybe a Planescape campaign conversion for 5e?

>>53525104
Not unless you have a specific reason to. If you want to use the older supplements, either by converting them to 5e or by running or playing in a game that uses them you'll need to know their native system.

It's mostly only good for historical reference and curiosity. It's nice to see how far the game has come, but there's really very little reason to go back.

There's a shit ton of great fluff though, and tons of great adventures, monsters, and the biggest item list ever conceived and compiled is in 2e. They might not be worth playing since you've got the mechanically superior 5e, but there's so much material to mine for ideas that you should just bite the bullet and look into the systems a bit.

Except for 4e. That's where the reverse is true, where the mechanics are still decent, but the fluff is terrible. It's worth playing if you like its stye of combat, but that's really up to you.

3.5 is literally cancer. Endless feat chains, where 90% of feats are absolute shite. Player's Handbook classes that destroy any semblance of balance, and about a hundred of worthless non-caster classes and even more prc's. Just stick with 5e.

>>53525302
It's not that bad. I honestly don't understand why you pretend it is.

>>53525365

Perhaps it's because people can sincerely feel differently to you? That makes more sense than branding literally any disagreement as 'pretending'.

>>53525261
Fluff can be fixed a lot easier than mechanics though. Its almost expected that a DM will alter some fluff but having to work around core mechanics being flawed is much more difficult.

>>53525255
I would love to run a game in the Planescape setting, I've heard people talking about both recreating it in 5e, and WotC actually working on it.

>>53525398
>literally cancer

If 3.5 is killing you, you might deserve to die.

>>53525104
Very much. 4e for modern game design principles. 2e for great settings. BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia to see very different but still very good version of D&D. 3.x is garbage and should be avoided at all costs.

>>53525137
>>53525481
>4e
>modern

I didn't know WoW was what kids called "modern game design."
All 4e is is a few good ideas wrapped up in a slew of terrible ones and HORRIBLE math.

>>53525481

Being fair, 3.PF does have some good ideas. It's just that the vast majority of them are badly executed.

>>53525506

Well, despite the whole 4e=MMO thing being bullshit, WoW is literally an example of modern game design. It defined huge parts of the modern online gaming landscape, which these days is the largest, most prolific and most profitable kind.

So even your stupid comment doesn't really make sense.

5e>3e>2e
Honorable mention- 4e.

>>53525104
What do you like about DnD anon?

>>53525531
WoW is almost 13 years old. Calling it modern is just highlighting how dated 4e. If he wanted modern design, he's already got 5e, which at least is modern TTRPG design, not MMORPG design, which as you can tell by 4e general failure doesn't really mesh for anything except short stints. Sort of why the 4e board games are so much better than 4e.

>>53525542
The True Tiers

God Tier
B/X
BECMI
Rules Cyclopedia

Great Tier
1e
2e
4e

Ok Tier
5e

Bad Tier
3.x

Shit Naga What Are You Doing Tier
3.PF

Wannabe Tier
Palladium Fantasy (The Classic AD&D Heartbreaker)
Fantasycraft
13th Age

Shillfag Tier
Strike!

>>53525468
I'd say that's a good reason to learn, but depending on how true you want to be to the original release you may have a lot of work to do with it.

>>53525612
>grognard tiers

Roll over, grandpa.

>>53525261
>>53525458
TSR-era D&D is fantastic for what it's meant to do, though, and its rules are much easier to tweak and alter than those of modern D&D. I'd much rather run a game of Swords & Wizardry (OD&D with some supplements, organized better and worded more clearly) than 5e, even if 5e is the best modern D&D edition.

>>53525595
But 5e is pure FEEEEEL and kinda shitty in its design. See shit like the Bladelock and Beastmaster Ranger.

>>53525595

At this point I'm not certain whether you're intentionally missing my point, or just stupid.

I mean, it only opens you up to potentially more games/groups, so you might as well.

>>53525664
UA beastmaster is pretty good

>>53525506
>WoW

Remember when 3e was Diablo? Of course you don't.

>>53525595
>5e
>modern
hahahahah

>>53525612
I'd flip 3.x and 3.PF personally, PF did fix some stuff, it just made a bunch of other mistakes, but I'd say in total it's slightly better.

>>53525657
>TSR-era D&D is fantastic for what it's meant to do, though, and its rules are much easier to tweak and alter than those of modern D&D

Heartily disagree. Game has not aged well, and everything from the ridiculous class imbalances to the nonsensical saves to the cheap deaths to the excessive charts to the tedious high level combat makes me always just recommend 5e instead.

>>53525104
if your friends know only this system it's not bad to learn something new (yay ponnies and rainbows)...play to have fun and the fun of a game not the rules that surround it..each edition and game has it's issues but don't get stuck in details...

>>53525743
Mehh, PF fixed some stuff, but unless you're including the Dreamscarred Press material it dropped more good stuff than it added

>>53525768
The point is that it's not meant to be played like 5e. If you're really comparing the two looking for the same type of gameplay, you're doing something fundamentally wrong. However, I will agree that there are some issues with TSR-era D&D editions (i.e. CHARTS CHARTS CHARTS), but that's why we have retroclones.

>>53525701
Only grognards afraid of change said that.
Everyone called 4e WoW edition, because if you're going to have tanks, healbots, nukes and DPS as the core philosophy of your game, you can't call it anything else.

>>53525803
What are any big offenders?

>>53525823

Except those were a core part of the design of 3.PF.

They just, y'know, fucked up.

File: monster manual 3 tulgar.jpg (410KB, 1165x1624px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1165x1624px

>>53525261
>but the fluff is terrible
Gotta disagree with you there, honestly.

>>53525531
It means nothing in a stagnating industry

>>53525829
Well, it dropped the ToB stuff, which was not only excellent, but uniquely "3.5". But as I mentioned, Dreamscarred Press material brings that stuff back

It also broke maneuvers like tripping and grappling thanks to the CMB/CMD system and made feat chains that were already too long even longer

>>53525843
>>53525261

When people say 'The fluff was terrible', they usually refer to how it changed established settings, which I never really paid attention to or cared about, but some people did.

I still think the World Axis is a more functional basis for adventuring than the great wheel, though.

>>53525843
It's nothing immediately amazing, although PoLand is somewhere between serviceable and good (which I guess is the point), and the cosmology is at least less autistic than Planescape.

>>53525558
This is a tough one.
I enjoy the setting much more than the system (I personally think it is unnecessarily hard to learn), it has a certain atmosphere, I don't know how to describe it, it can be both cheery and gloomy at the same time, the range of possibilities is large. Plus I have played many cRPGs based on it before I started playing real RPGs, so there's a nostalgia factor, too.
So, it looks like I actually don't like it that much, it's more like a go-to game, first one I learned and the only one my friends know.

>>53525831
Except they weren't, because those roles only work in nonsense universes designed after MMORPGs. 3.PF has the sacred cows of war games dragging it down.

>>53525612
>God Tier
>B/X
>BECMI
>Rules Cyclopedia

Speaking from experience of playing OSR, B/X and the like requires a lot trust in the GM/Ref. The emphasis on rulings means that the game lives or dies on you being fair and impartial, while also being able to interpret the dice's results in a way that's conducive to the tone of the game.
Shit's hard, and I haven't mastered it yet.

>>53525612
What about OD&D?

>>53525104
Moldvay/Cook Basic (B/X) is pretty cool little package. It's a total of 128 pages with monsters, treasure and everything. It's rather tightly focused on dungeon exploration (branching into wilderness exploration later on) and gives you some insight into where D&D came from, and maybe provides some perspective into some legacy mechanics in newer editions as well.

It's worth noting that all pre-3e systems are built on the same core rules, and so are largely compatible when it comes to importing rules from one to another. AD&D has significantly more rules and options than Basic (particularly B/X, since later Basic starts getting a bit more involved), making it good source material. However, compared to B/X, it's a bit of a muddled mess, with a bunch of obnoxious complexities and restrictions that do little to make the game more enjoyable. Simply put, for what's actually there, B/X is a significantly better game.

>>53525823
>tanks, healbots, nukes and DPS

All originally derived from the Warrior/Wizard/Priest/Rogue basic class types.

>>53525104
It's really dependent on what you want to get out of it. I'd recommend reading all of them, solely so you know the roots of the system and can see how it's evolved over time, which is very interesting. Certain editions have also informed tons of other games, and being familiar with traditional core mechanics can be useful when looking at other systems.

>>53525904
If you're concerned with setting stuff, I'd suggest reading 4e and some older campaign setting books (Greyhawk, Eberron, Al-Qadim, probably not Dragonlace) if only as a source of ideas.

>>53525906
From my experience, those roles exist in all combat-focused tabletop RPGs

It makes sense, the roles are what you get when everyone in the group focuses on doing one thing well to make the group stronger as a whole. A guy who deals damage, a guy who can take damage without dying, a guy who buffs the party and heals, and a guy who debuffs the enemy.

The roles that exist in MMORPGs came from tabletop games, not the other way around

>>53525906

You really don't know, do you? Alright, history lesson time.

3.x playtesting was based around the idea of blaster wizards, defensive fighters, healbot clerics and backstabbing rogues. It's the source of a huge amount of the problems with core in that system, since they only tested the mechanics in those contexts, rather than wondering what happened if they were used outside of them.

With Wizards, they only really tested their combat magic, not really thinking about utility. With Clerics, they found that nobody wanted to play the healer, so they kept piling a huge amount of extra abilities onto them until they ended up in their current, OP as fuck state. Fighters and rogues 'worked' because they had a GM who played along based on how they thought they should work, instead of realising that the fighter had no way of fulfilling their job of defending the team apart from the somewhat laughable attacks of opportunity they could dish out.

Don't believe me? Look it up, you should be able to find the details somewhere. It might enlighten you.

>>53525951
But exaggerated into a largely nonsensical role.

It's sort of like how 4e thought minions were a good idea.

>>53525984

Minions weren't a good idea. They were a fucking fantastic idea.

>>53525978
>Don't believe me? Look it up, you should be able to find the details somewhere. It might enlighten you.

Weird, because everything I'm finding is saying that you are full of shit.

Where are your sources?

>>53525984
>implying minions aren't one of the best new ideas in 4e

>>53525984
I use minions in 5e

It's really simple, you take a lower level monster, and just make it's HP=1, good for evening the odds in boss fights

Please remember not to reply to obvious bait.

>>53525997
>>53526011

Actually OP, this is something. Rip off the idea of Minions for your 5e games. They're a great way to fill out encounters without creating extra bookkeeping and bullshit.

Fantasy Craft if you ever desire to play 3.5

>>53526026
ok

>>53525928
I actually haven't played it so I reserve judgement on it.

>>53526011
>Implying minions weren't ripped from 7th Sea's Brute Squads

>>53526031
Considering splash damage and other forms of little bonus damage aren't uncommon in 5e, all the worst parts of minions are dramatically enhanced.

>>53525768
I don't really know 5e, but I think you might have the wrong idea about at least some old school editions. Yes, the old school save categories were kind of ridiculous from the standpoint of actually meaning something to the players, but the way the numbers scaled worked very well. As far as class balance goes, casters in B/X are actually very limited. Magic-users do suck at low levels, but they aren't anywhere near as powerful at high levels as 3.x wizards, or even their AD&D counterparts. In a way, every class in B/X is very limited, which puts them on a level playing field.

As far as cheap deaths go, that's what the game was about. It's okay to prefer another style of play, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Oh, and the tables? Aside from the to-hit table (which could just be boiled down to the single progressing stat of THAC0), I don't know that there's really anything you wouldn't see in more modern incarnations of D&D.

>>53526031
If you haven't run a miniboss that consists of a group of different interacting minions with a shared health pool, you haven't lived.

>>53526082
This is really bad bait.

>>53525104
4e to know the nuts and bolts of system tinkering and 5e to have a look at the traditional way of presenting fantasy should give the full spread of what DnD has managed to be.

>>53526085

What worst parts?

>>53526082
My acquaintance of african descent.

>>53526085
...Yes, that is the point

See, 5e suffers from the problem of boss fights being easy, because whichever side has more turns has a really big advantage

Adding minions gives more turns to the bosses side, and takes turns from the players side spent clearing them, thus evening out the score

>>53526085
Just make minions not take damage from anything but a full hit, as it is if you actually read the 4e minion rules.

>>53526111
He didn't read the rules and thus has misconceived how minions work in 4e, see above.

>>53526099
It does put B/X in the best position, so it can't be all bad.

>>53526128
I don't think you've played 5e.

>>53526128
>5e suffers from the problem of boss fights being easy, because whichever side has more turns has a really big advantage
And that's why they made legendary and lair actions a thing. Have you read the DMG?

>>53526142
>Just make minions not take damage from anything but a full hit

But there's tons of little "full hits", which is an issue that exaggerates how bad the 4e minion methodology would be for anything except 4e.

>>53526179

What about it is bad?

>>53526179
Again, just make minions immune to splash or bonus damage, or at least give them a high flat chance to avoid it (this isn't in 4e, but it follows from the original rules).

>>53525104
>Is it worth learning older D&D systems

Define "worth". 5e is better than any of them by most objective measures so you're not going to get better play or anything from them. But any RPG fan worth his salt obviously learns at least OD&D and 2nd edition AD&D because of their historical value.

AD&D also has the most supplements of probably any RPG ever so you might find plenty of ideas you can reuse.

>>53526171
Yes
>>53526149
Yes

It's not enough, lair actions help more than legendary actions do, but either way you still end up with monsters that feel rather frail in the face of the PCs onslaught

>>53526261
That's funny because I felt the other way around. PCs were too fragile vs monsters without stacking basically everything, as in, literally got oneshot from full HP by a bugbear miniboss fragile, you could and couldn't do shit all to them without an entire party's worth of successful actions.

>>53526031

Minions aren't the sort of thing you should just put into a game unless you have a VERY good reason why you want to put such things in the game. Most RPGs are made objectively worse by the addition of dozens of random incompetent mooks into every battle.

>>53525162
Every edition of dnd is worth knowing. Just don't spend too much money, and especially don't give wotc money

>>53525239
only if you make it yourself.

>>53526261
Maybe if they're a bunch of min-maxers but I don't see how any team of four can reliably down a properly made boss before he gets em wounded.

>>53526285

...I feel like you're completely misunderstanding the point and function of minions.

The whole idea is that they aren't incompetent. Instead of being lower level monsters who are a negligible threat, Minion attacks have a solid chance of hitting and hurting PC's, giving you a reason to attack them, but their greater vulnerability to damage (although not being hit) also keeps GM bookkeeping down and lets you clear out the threat.

You're also not meant to shove a dozen of them into every battle. They're an option to make use of when you want to have a swarm of enemies of significantly larger size than normal, but not make it a boring slog, which can often result from just using lower level monsters, since they have enough HP to not go down in one hit but no real ability to hit or do significant damage.

>>53525928
meh chainmail is better

But fighting to the death with real armies was much more fun back in 1300 ad

Galahad is op! Morgan la fey is mai wiper!

>>53526197
Not him, but my biggest issue with it was that the players treat "minions" less like creatures and more like props, and it doesn't take long for most players to react to them more like a nuisance or chore. It also, rather than boosting their egos, killed their spirits because there was no real glory in killing minions.

File: 422f07df43ad5c3b60b4311d21601f83.jpg (40KB, 465x700px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 465x700px

>>53526085
>>53526142
>>53526179
SHut up and do what htis guy says and don't let them die to anything except a direct, single target attack.

If you can't figure that out, tell us your trouble and we'll advice you soe moe

>>53525302
If I was given the choice between playing 5E and playing 3.5, the only thing that would make me not pick 3.5 are the words "core only". Nothing in 5E even comes close to being as fun to play or interesting as a single ToB class, let alone classes that are even better than that like Factotums or Bards.

File: Rachael-Williams-for-BN-Beauty-BellaNaija-May2015.jpg (40KB, 600x290px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x290px

>>53526251
>5e is better by most object measure

no

5e is fine.

But I fucking hate it, objectively. It just feels so bland to me. I will never run it, will never encourage running it, and am tolerant of it only because I don't want to start an edition war with the people who DO like it.

5e is not the best, it is in fact the worst. If you want to CLAIM it is the best, what you actually mean is "5e is my favorite system."

That's a totally differant thing.

I'll play in your games if you play in mine, but not if you pretend yours are better than mine. That's just rude.

>>53526381
>But I fucking hate it, objectively.

Why are people so stupid.

>>53526329
>Galahad is op!
You realize how rare it was to have the stats to be Galahad, right? There's a reason there was only one of him.

File: female_knight_by_aditya777.jpg (152KB, 800x1132px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 800x1132px

>>53526375
BEst version of dnd is "3.5, psions and warblades only."

Its super duper playable.

>>53526392
I dunno, why DO you feel the need to insult me and feel superior to me?

I don't feel superior to you, which takes some effort, let me tell you.

>>53526406
str 18
dex 18
con 18
iq 10
cha 18
wis 3
save/magic -6
save/boobs -11

>>53526417

Tier 3/4 3.PF with proper content restrictions and a GM who knows their shit can be fun.

But they still have to fight, adjust and generally beat the system into submission to really make it work.

File: Minor_image.jpg (122KB, 898x270px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 898x270px

>>53526446
YOu gotta to the that with the 5e too or 5e are broingz

>>53526417
Because you said something retarded. If you don't like being called stupid, don't say stupid things.

>>53526417
False, best version is "3.5, wizards only, massively inflated enemy power levels, no Wish"

>>53525904
Maybe look into the OSR?
It's essentially DnD as it was way back when, without all the extraneous stuff. Fighters, Magic-Users, Thieves, and Clerics, that sorta thing.
They tend to have a greater emphasis on solving problems than killing monsters, but that it definitely in the running of the game.
Generally the platonic OSR will reward getting treasure "gold pieces = XP", while penalising combat, as combat is super risky. You generally want to avoid combat by sneaking/talking your way around it.

>>53525302
>op mentions previous editions
>immediately sperg out about 3.x
Do you just sit all day and wait for dnd threads?

>>53526468
Also generally OSR is less about stats than how you play your character, so it is a bit more conducive to that style of play.
It does need a decent-good Gm tho

>>53526452

I am not quite sure what you're saying, although I suppose I should add that I think 5e, RAW, works better, but it's also so much less interesting that I don't really see any value in it, personally. It's just... Bland.

>>53526328
>no real ability to hit

This is more or less completely untrue of lower level enemies in 5e to begin with. A large enough supply of peasants or house cats or something can basically eventually down anything that isn't immune to non-magical damage.

>>53526468
This desu senpai.

File: 119wjdw.jpg (41KB, 569x428px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 569x428px

>>53525104
>Is it worth learning older D&D systems if you know only 5e?
No.
>If yes which one would be the best to learn?
Probably one of the TSR ones. I say BD&D.

>>53526478
Yes. 3.pf is primarily responsible for reducing 2e and 4e to such low numbers of players, so these guys get triggered whenever someone mentions anything even remotely connected to it.

It's the bitterness of lost edition wars, years after most 3.pf players have just moved on to 5e.

>>53525823
You missed CC. Its tank, heals, deeps, and cc.

>>53526532

It's kinda funny that you singled that out, given that a significantly longer post chain consisted of people shitting on 4e, along with someone telling people who didn't like 3.5 to die.

>>53526355
>anything except a direct, single target attack
>single target attack

In 5e the roll of casters in combat is basically to AoE down swarms of enemies before they can overwhelm the party due to bounded accuracy, your suggestion is completely contrary to how the game runs.

>>53526577
>along with someone telling people who didn't like 3.5 to die.

Are you talking about the guy who, in response to someone who thought 3.5 was literally killing himself, that that someone might deserve it if he really was that fragile/obsessed/susceptible to illusionary diseases?

>>53526455
muh bluh guh BLOOP don't care nub

>>53526462
yeah that's also balaned

>>53526501
yeah that's my problem with 5e is its so bland

>>53526591
well then give swarms of enemies aeo hitpoints, and have minioons who AREN'T supposedd to be die in one hit swarm.

Its easy

File: female_knight_by_jaaaiiro-d3h1lif.jpg (237KB, 900x1273px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 900x1273px

>>53526646
be happy go faster

>>53525917
>requires a lot trust in the GM/Ref.
...is this a joke of some sort?
Did you enter RPGs in the d20 system?
The rules don't exist to protect the players from the ref, you know.

Why would you play with them if you don't trust them?

>>53525612
>Shillfag Tier
>Strike!

It feels good to be appreciated

>>53525104
Yes. AD&D

>>53526462
False, best version is 3.PF, all human fighters, all characters get a revised version of the Paragon template, massively inflated power levels.

>>53525104
It is worth learning any other edition of D&D other than 3.PF. Each other edition does something unique. 3.PF does everything 5e does, but worse in every way, so don't bother with it.

>>53526016
Legendary actions are way better. You can and should slap them even on a lower leveled encounter because then the bandit leader looks like he actually deserves his position

>>53532801
They serve different purposes.

>>53531722
>3.PF does everything 5e does, but worse in every way

this is one of those opinions that a lot of /tg/ holds, that I will just never understand

5e and 3.PF are completely separate games that serve completely separate purposes.

>>53525104
Can anyone hear actual explain to me why 5e is so good in their eyes? Not why 3.5 is shit or why 5e does something better relative to another version

Why, on its own, 5e is good.

Because where I am standing it is super linear and bland as fuck and I am desperately trying to understand why /tg/, who usually values complexity, is on a game that is extremely light and forgiving as a system.

>>53532835
But you just said they are good for evening odds in single strong enemy fights

>>53532845
He was just tryig to steer people away from the edition that triggers him. There's not much to understand.

>>53532845
Correct. 3.pf, like most of its options, is a trap and serves that purpose.

>>53532845
With both 4e and 5e existing, there's very little reason to play 3.PF, unless you really, really love super convenient magic, spending skill points, and bad math.

4e covers what T3 3.5 is supposed to look like, with fantasy superheroes combining their own unique talents and everything. 5e covers the gameplay that "PHB only!" 3.PF players crave. What's left is crazy T1 wizard clown-show.

>>53532882
I'm not the one you originally replied to.

Legendary actions are a good mechanic. 4e also used out-of-turn actions for elites and solos, for the same reason. Minions is also a good mechanic. 5e tries to retain what made it good with "bounded accuracy", but it's hit and miss.

>>53532875
Simplicity and straightforward mechanics making playing, running and brewing for relatively easy, and there's still a fair amount of options for those who need it.

It's not my favorite edition, but it works as a backup if you "just want to play D&D".

>>53532911
Isn't it a little early to be trolling this ineptly?
That's some 2am-14beers trolling right there.

>>53532875
I think people just like that it's the more recent edition with less balance and GM effort to make almost everyone feel good about their character. It has enough rules that people who don't like to extensively roleplay some encounters and being easy to pick and play while still making characters slightly different frombeach other.
Most other alternatives are too freeform or too rules heavy for most people.

>>53532919
Disagree. 4e covers "fantasy superheroes" well, but 3.PF uses mechanics that aren't as openly gamey as 4e, while still providing more options than 5e.

>>53532946
>Disagree. 4e covers "fantasy superheroes" well, but 3.PF uses mechanics that aren't as openly gamey as 4e

I guess I should have added obfuscation to the "super convenient magic, spending skill points, and bad math." list.

>>53532962
Although wait, that doesn't work cause 5e also obfuscates.

Hmmm. Okay, yeah, you got me.

>>53532919
>With both 4e and 5e existing, there's very little reason to play 3.PF, unless you really, really love super convenient magic, spending skill points, and bad math.

If people really just want bad math, that's what 4e is for.

What 3.5 has got going for it right now is a lot more material than 5e while being less archaic than 2e. Like you said, it has a unique higher level play, but since that's mostly the kind of trash that even most people who liked 3.5 didn't enjoy, most of 3.5's modern appeal is left in the "LEGO" department, where you've got millions of pieces to play with and to see what you can make with them, with risks and rewards dependent on your group's goals.

>>53533008
>If people really just want bad math, that's what 4e is for.

Really?

Examples?

>>53532962
>>53532969
>obfuscates

You mean actually makes an attempt to ground its mechanics with a semblance of in-world rationale?

>>53533013
The best known is that the entire system needs its HP and Damage adjusted, even the later monsters which are better than the first two MM's. The common fix is something to the tune of "Divide monster hit points by 2. Multiply their damage by 1.5", but it varies by group and typically has to be further adjusted for earlier monsters.

>>53533021
I meant what I said.

You are just so used to the already existing gamist mechanics of D&D (vancian, /day abilities, etc.) that you never question it, "it just makes sense". The fact that they are laid out in natural language just makes it even easier.

The only characters with mechanics that aren't gamist as fuck are the totally mundane fighters and NPC classes (and even they have access to them, if they want to) even in 3.PF anyway. Bitching about it just shows how bad you are at noticing that shit.

>>53533063
>The best known is that the entire system needs its HP and Damage adjusted, even the later monsters which are better than the first two MM's. The common fix is something to the tune of "Divide monster hit points by 2. Multiply their damage by 1.5", but it varies by group and typically has to be further adjusted for earlier monsters.

That's false though. No further adjustment is needed after MM3 math.

Also note that if that's a "bad math", then 3.PF encounters are a fucking mathastrophe.

>>53533077
>That's false though. No further adjustment is needed after MM3 math.

No, that fix is for the still awful post-MM3 math. Pre-MM3 is actually even worse. Major reason most people gave up on 4e was that the combat was more like whittling wood than epic fantasy superhero battles.

I think "padded sumo" is the common phrase to describe it.

>>53533067
Have you actually read Vance? You might be surprised by how that form of casting isn't really so absolutely gamist as you seem to think it is.
Basically, even the more gamist mechanics were still attempted to be reconciled with in-game rationale. Some coudn't be, but the attempt was still made.

4e didn't even try though (or did a particularly bad job at it), which is what turned a lot of people away from it.

>>53533132
And I think you have no idea what you are talking about. The "half HP, double damage" was a meme even before MM3 math hit (mostly because the problem was high defenses, not HP anyway).

Most 4e combats end in 3-5 rounds, which is the expected result.

You could argue that 3 rounds of combat is too long for you, I guess, but that's still not the math being bad, but your expectations being weird.

objectively speaking

2e > B/X > RC > 5e > 1e > BECMI > 4e > Holmes >OD&D > 3.0 > 3.5

>>53533195
It goes back to what I said earlier.
>but it varies by group

If you have a decent sized group, the post-MM3 still needs a heavy dose of fixing because the game gets very repetitive otherwise. You might be content with it as is, but that might just be because you are more attached to the system and/or are just happy it's not as bad as pre-MM3.

>>53533248
>trolling grognard speaking

>>53533248
Why is it whenever someone says something preceded by "objectively" in a system discussion, it's always just a bad opinion?

>>53533192
That Vance's magic system (which was heavily modified anyway when added to D&D) fits with the resource-management based dungeon crawl game that D&D was doing at the time may as well be coincidence.

You keep accepting/not questioning it because it's how it had been since for ever. 4e's explanation isn't any better or worse.

>>53533279
And I'm saying that this is not true.

If anything, you need to adjust monsters to be tougher versus a larger group because they'll fucking murder them. Party synergy gets better the more people you have.

File: suer-mario-rug-300x262.jpg (34KB, 300x262px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 300x262px

>>53525104
Another edition war thread woo.

>>53525104
D&D hasn't done what it were supposed to do for a long time.

By some stroke of fate or stars being right it always ended up as being the most popular RPG system out there, which meant it had to be generalized, made into even more generic and the sort that could do any manner of a fantasy adventure. But in doing so they forgot the original purpose.

The original purpose of Dungeons & Dragons was to go into a dungeon crawl, seek treasure, avoid traps, deal with monsters, and come back rich. It hasn't done that well at all since 2nd edition AD&D, and is in fact now far too generic to do anything at all very well.

Go back to the 2nd edition - better still, go back to something even earlier, like 1st edition or OD&D. It will give you an idea of what D&D was actually meant to be about, and you will find that those old editions do these things far better than any later edition does anything at all. Because of that, they are in fact pretty objectively better systems.

>>53525302
Kill yourself. It's not like 5e has any character options. You could houserule the movement rules form 5e into 3.5 and fix the game and end up with something better than 5e. And have a game that doesn't cap you at strength 20 while giving you more ability score increases than any previous edition of the game in history.

>>53532875
>It's simple for players to create characters and play.
>It's simple to run as a DM
>The linear balance is hardwired into the system. This is positive because
>A:It's difficult for any player option to be grossly under or overpowered.
>B: It makes it easier for the DM to design encounters without worrying about perfect balance.

>Pretty much everything you could possibly need is contained in the core books.

>It's well supported by modules which have a high quality to them. Even the starter set adventure is good.

>The advantage/disadvantage system is easy to understand and apply on the fly to pretty much any situation allowing flexibility for players and DM's.

>>53525481
>2e and Beni are good
>3.x is garbage

Lol, 3.5 is a dream compared to 2e and its rules that read like an instruction manual to having servers syndrome. And that says something.

>>53525531
>Well, despite the whole 4e=MMO thing being bullshit,

Except it's not. 4e shares many traits with MMOs as well as MOBA games like Dota 2

>>53533309
>You keep accepting/not questioning it because it's how it had been since for ever.

No, I recognize that there was an attempt made to reconcile the mechanics with in-world rationale. I recognize it's not perfect and I've never really "accepted" it (why couldn't a wizard just take a break in the middle of the day to prepare more spells? At least 5e helped with that), but they didn't just go gung-ho "Here's some reality warping mechanics that your characters won't be able to reconcile without dramatically stretching your suspension of disbelief".

On the other hand, 4e really didn't even try, and it's prevalent throughout the system. It's very clearly designed from a mechanics-first philosophy, which results in abilities like Bloody Path, the poster child of bad design.

>>53525997
> orcs jump off of a 5 foot boulder to attack the pcs
>half die instantly from 1d10 damage

Yeah minions are great.

>>53533317
This is a bad lie. Even Gygax's first campaign ended up far outside of a dungeon and with his high level characters deeply involved in politics and intrigue.

It's been generic fantasy from the start, and it does pretty well in that category in all of its dimensions.

>pretty objectively better systems.

And, your entire post thrown into the garbage.

>>53533451
>Even Gygax's first campaign ended up far outside of a dungeon and with his high level characters deeply involved in politics and intrigue.
And it had no rules for it because it recognized none were needed.

>>53526197
>minion falls 5 feet off of a horse
>immediately explodes into fire spaghetti going to negative 4x HP on average
>fierce orc warriors getting one shorted by the wizards familiar 100% of the time
>orc gets punched by commoners, instantly died

Yeah fuck minions. They're no different than 1st level orcs in 3.5 which die in one hit from the pcs anyway, no one tracked hit points for those because they died in one hit anyway. Except at least you didn't start out with 27 times the hit points of most of the stuff you at fighting.

4e didnt set out to make a consistent world it set out to model a combat encounter and nothing else.

>>53526251
>5e is better than any of them by most objective measures

Such as? I really want to hear this.

>>53533430
I hated 4E for many reasons but there's no point spreading things that are made up.

>You only take fall damage from a fall of 10 foot or more.
>They'd have to fail the athletics roll for the jump and then fail a save against the falling damage.
>So realistically only one or two would die, which is kind of cool and cinematic.
>An Orc in 3.5 had 5 HP. Took 1d6 damage from a ten foot fall. So would also die 1/3 of the time.

>>53533493
Hey now, falling off a horse can actually be lethal as fuck.

>>53526328
1 hp minions are barely any different from 5 hp orcs. The difference is consistency. You don't have this gay shit where every orc encounter is a oh so special well balanced encounter with ten minions one brute and one artillery, you can just have a pack of orcs one of whom is using a bow and has point blank shot or whatever. They still die in one hit anyway at the level they at used as mooks, while still making a good encounter for low level characters who may need 2 to 3 hits to kill an orc.

Minions just seem power wanky for a game that already jerks off the pcs too much. At level one you can already defeat a hirde of level 1 minions and you can't even feel proud of it because you have 20 times the hit points they do.

>>53533410
>why couldn't a wizard just take a break in the middle of the day to prepare more spells?

Okay, why are you only asking the question then?

Why don't ask the question "wait, why are spells in slots? Why are the slots split by level? Does the wizard brain consist of differently sized boxes that can't be opened into each other?" etc.

You accept vancian casting at face value, because it's magic. You only question the mechanics down the line.

>On the other hand, 4e really didn't even try, and it's prevalent throughout the system

It literally tried as much as 3.PF. Hell, even a bit more.

3.PF doesn't even make an excuse why stunning fist and the rogue's roll with it can only be used a few times a day, 4e actually tries to give a handful.

>It's very clearly designed from a mechanics-first philosophy,

So are all the others. They are just written as if they weren't. This is what I mean by obfuscation.

>which results in abilities like Bloody Path, the poster child of bad design.

It's a bad power, but it's pretty fucking clear why and how it works the way it works.

>>53531722
3.5 does more than 5e ever will do, all 5e has going for it is better math and better action / movement rules. Everything else is shit.

>>53532919
>Simplicity and straightforward mechanics making playing, running and brewing for relatively easy, and there's still a fair amount of options for those who need it.

Dungeon World has this too, why aren't you playing dungeon world?

>>53533515
>So realistically only one or two would die, which is kind of cool and cinematic.

..really?

>An Orc in 3.5 had 5 HP. Took 1d6 damage from a ten foot fall. So would also die 1/3 of the time.

That's at low levels though. Minions are forever, and get more silly the higher level you get.

>>53533067
>hit points are against despite relating to a real world thing
>Vatican magic is gamist even though a wizard is aware he can only cast x spells per day
>but it's ok for a fighter to somehow know in advance he will only be in the correct situation to use his special disarm trick once a day for 2x damage and disarm in a save, even though he can decide exactly when that situtation will come up, but afterwards he has to sleep for a bit before he can move his hands like that again.

Lol

>>53533589
I am.

>>53533600
Minions don't die from saves they make. Falling would be a reflex save or an acrobatics check. High level minions would have both high enough that they'd be safe from simple shit like falling from a boulder.

You don1t understand minions, and you don't understand 4e... or 5e... frankly, I'm surprised you understand English at all.

>>53533248
Thats actually backwards, but you're a backwards child so we understand

>actually considering becmii as D&D

First sign of the autism.

>>53533410
>Bloody Path, the poster child of bad design.
? Never heard of this

>>53533621
>Vatican magic is gamist even though a wizard is aware he can only cast x spells per day

That's not what gamist means.

The character being aware in universe or not, does not make a mechanic gamist.

>>53533651
I know, I was being sarcastic.

>>53533558
>It's a bad power, but it's pretty fucking clear why and how it works the way it works.

Well, not really , one of the biggest issues with 4E was the sheer abundance of disassociated mechanics that only existed in the sphere of tactical miniature wargame and had no reference point in game.

Bloody Path is a perfect example of this as there's a complete disconnect on how the ability is meant to work from the characters perspective.

This not only makes it impossible to describe what the character is doing or how the monsters react to it but in an actual gameplay sense removes player choice on how to use his abilities. Simply pressing the attack button instead and seeing the damage dealt.


While all RPGS have disassociated mechanics , experience points being one, the majority of 4E's system was disassociated. Hence the complaints that you can't roleplay as effectively in 4E.

>>53533665
It's really hard to tell, sorry. I actually heard that used unironically.

>>53533671
>This not only makes it impossible to describe what the character is doing...

So... would me describing bloody path actually make your whole point moot?

>>53533589
>why aren't you playing dungeon world?

> You mean arbitrary world ?

A game system that exists purely as an exercise in mother may I where the GM can rip your players arm off by RAW on a whim but it doesn't matter as losing your arm is utterly meaningless too as is everything else in the system.

>>53533726
>>53533671
is this the power of 3.PF induced brain damage?

>>53533691

>So... would me describing bloody path actually make your whole point moot?

You can't in any meaningful way that would make sense and be interactable with.

>>53533691
>So... would me describing bloody path actually make your whole point moot?
If you can make a description that fits any enemy that can be affected by it in a way that ties the attacking itself mechanic to the ability, yes

>>53533558
>You accept vancian casting at face value, because it's magic. You only question the mechanics down the line.

Why do you keep telling me what I think, even after I explained that's not the case? The fuck is wrong with you?

I get the sense that you're just sort of stuck in your opinion, an opinion that basically only works if you ignore the dramatic departure in 4e design philosophy. You say 4e simply didn't "obfuscate" it's mechanical decisions, but the major issue is that what they chose ended up being clearly in a circular "mechanics chosen because they work with other mechanics" process that results in things like having to fill the niche of Martial Leaders, so they have got people that shout at people to heal them.
Warlord is a fun class, but there's a lot to it that makes it act inconsistently with the proposed logic of the rest of the universe, to a point where the game actually had to warp its logic in order to accommodate the class.

4e is riddled with these types of things, and its unapologetic about them, because if the mechanics work, that's all that matters. That's why it works well for what it is, but has been shunted to the side in light of 5e distancing itself from an approach where the mechanics are not checked by any outside considerations.

You might not like it or agree with it, but 5e isn't about "obfuscating" its mechanics, it's about not settling for mechanics that simply exist because they fall in line with the other mechanics. It tries to both be a balanced system and one that also has consistent logic that extends into the game world. 4e just didn't really bother so much with the latter beyond tossing in a half-assed afterthought line of fluff.

>>53533566
3.5 has NOTHING going for it at this day and age, any single system can handle everything 3.5 tries to do better.

>>53533627
>Minions don't die from saves they make. Falling would be a reflex save or an acrobatics check. High level minions would have both high enough that they'd be safe from simple shit like falling from a boulder.

Too bad nat 1's are still autofails for saves, which means that super high level minion still has a 5% chance of tripping and dying.

>>53533671
Bloody Path can be one of two things depending on how you fluff it.

1. A rogue deflty blocking and counterattacking every attack made against him
2. A rogue Jackie-Channing past enemies as they fall over themselves in their attempts to hit him

Neither fits perfectly with the mechanics, but when you consider that the overall effect is "move past enemies, they get hurt" it honestly doesn't really matter as long as whatever fluff you've chosen fills that criteria

>>53533771
>>53533779
Okay, how about:
>The rogue runs around the enemies provoking AoOs, guiding their attacks to hit themselves (i.e. running between the toes of a giant to make it hit his foot, pulling the tail of a lizardman in front of his bite attack, etc.)

>>53533862
4e is the only D&D edition that actually runs with the idea of hit points being abstractions instead of meat points

5e is especially embarrassing about this, directly stating that hit points are abstractions, then having all of it's rules assume that hit points are meat points anyway

>>53533862

>Martial healing doesn't make sense

Bzzzt. Incorrect answer, return to PHB/DMG definition of HP.

>>53533915
>4e is the only D&D edition that actually runs with the idea of hit points being abstractions instead of meat points

Put on a trip. You've outed yourself as an idiot who needs all of their opinions dismissed out of hand.

HP has never been anything except an abstraction since day 1, in every edition. 4e just did a really bad job of making it anything except an EXTREME, logic-challenging abstraction.

>>53533895
See, but neither of those match the mechanic.
1 could easily be the rogue is granted an attack when they use their AoO. 2 could just be rolling a set amount of dice, maybe according to their size.
But that isn't the mechanic, it is the enemy hits themselves, no matter how weird it might look.

>>53533910
How does an ooze hits itself?

>>53533862
>You might not like it or agree with it, but 5e isn't about "obfuscating" its mechanics, it's about not settling for mechanics that simply exist because they fall in line with the other mechanics. It tries to both be a balanced system and one that also has consistent logic that extends into the game world. 4e just didn't really bother so much with the latter beyond tossing in a half-assed afterthought line of fluff.
I disagree.

4e was an attempt to realigned the internal logic of D&D to be consistent with balance. And for what it's worth, it worked. The game WAS more balanced.

But people hate it because it was a REALIGNMENT of the game's logic, and was not consistent with prior editions of D&D. 5th Edition was designed to be a compromise, both being balanced and having a game structure and setting logic more consistent with the older editions of D&D.

If 4th Edition were released in the 70s, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would have done well, and D&D fans would have no problem with the concept of Daily and Encounter powers because it would have been part of the canon from the get-go. But it wasn't, and this is what happens as a result.

>>53533952
Every other edition relegates healing to exclusively magical acts, except 4e.

5e actually does a bit better than, say, 3.5, thanks to keeping 4e's "psychic damage" a damage type that explicitly refers to damage to morale and other mental effects, another clever use of the abstraction of HP

>>53533888
>I get the sense that you're just sort of stuck in your opinion

The feeling is mutual.

>You might not like it or agree with it, but 5e isn't about "obfuscating" its mechanics,

Then why are they doing "you can't use this ability again until you finish a short or long rest" instead of just calling it a "short rest power" (only not "encounter" powers because short rests are now an hour)? Why are they using natural language all over the place instead of actually going rules-like?

5e intentionally masks its mechanics to make people like you, who can not accept that it is a mechanical game first and foremost, feel good.

>>53533962
>How does an ooze hits itself?

Slams too hard, making pieces of itself fall off.

>>53533991
5e has hit dice. You can heal without magic in 5e.

>>53534006
Oh yeah

god hit dice are weird, they're exactly what the old 3.5 fans during the 3.5/4e edition wars claimed hit die were, and yet somehow no one's complaining.

>>53533967
>But people hate it because it was a REALIGNMENT of the game's logic

By going further into abstraction than most people wanted to go. No one is arguing that D&D as a whole isn't filled with abstractions, but 4e simply pushed itself further and further into the realm of dissociative mechanics because it lacked any restraint in that regard.

>If 4th Edition were released in the 70s, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That's an awful hypothetical, but I earnestly believe most people would still have an issue with its mechanics not making a whole ton of sense from outside of a purely mechanics standpoint, just like people still have issues today with Vancian casting.

Why, oh why, do you think that if people have always complained about Vancian casting not making a whole ton of sense, the best move is to make all the classes based around Vancian casting?

>>53534038
whoops, said hit die instead of healing surges

>>53534049
>Why, oh why, do you think that if people have always complained about Vancian casting not making a whole ton of sense, the best move is to make all the classes based around Vancian casting?

Keeping daily stuff in 4e was a mistake that they only made because it was a sacred cow they were too afraid to slaughter.

>>53534079
Daily stuff is fine. You should just do what 13th Age does and dissociate it from actual "days" and instead use a broader term like "scenario" so that you can span multiple "days" in-story without giving more access to dailies than intended

>>53533995
>Why are they using natural language all over the place instead of actually going rules-like?

Because it serves as a reminder that these are abilities that are either taxing or require some method of reseting, and not simply abilities that fall into the mechanical level of strength where they should only be used once per an encounter?

The difference is subtle, but important.

I play mostly 2e. Gonna play in a Pathfinders Kingmaker game soon. Holy shit creating a character that doesnt suck feels like doing taxes. I just want to play a damn samurai, why the fuck do I need so many fiddly bits.

>>53534079
You mean it was a design decision built around a mechanics-first approach attempt at disassembling D&D.

>>53534108
>The difference is subtle, but important.

The difference is that one is fast, clear, and precise, the other makes people whose versimiltude is shattered by a piece of cotton happy.

>>53534049
>By going further into abstraction than most people wanted to go.
The degree of abstraction never really changed. Spell slots were just as much an abstraction as the power system was, because it was basically a "daily-only" version of the same damn system. The only functional difference is that one has an abstract name that isn't tied to an in-setting concept ("power" is abstract, spell is not).

>Why, oh why, do you think that if people have always complained about Vancian casting not making a whole ton of sense, the best move is to make all the classes based around Vancian casting?
First we'd have to define "sense" as it pertains to fictional logic of supernatural concepts. Some of the people who oppose spell slots support mana points, and I wouldn't say they necessarily make "sense" either.

In reality, spell slots don't make sense to people nowadays because we're at least a full generation away from the books that inspired them, and people eventually became very aware of the how vastly different they have become over the years.

It's kinda like how people were pretty bothered about half-orcs for a while in the aughts, despite them existing in the canon for twenty years by that point. That's why they weren't in the first core books for 4th Edition.

>>53534173
>Half-Orcs

People being bothered by them goes in cycles. They were removed from 2e because of the discomfort over their origins.

>>53533539
It's not just about defeating level 1 enemies as minions at level 10 though, it's also about level 5-10 enemies being minions to level 15-20 characters. And at that point the hp bloat makes it much harder to kill them in a single hit without using a resource.

>>53534204
>People being bothered by them goes in cycles.
Same is true for spell slots. Hell, Gygax created psionics for the original game because a few players at his table weren't fans of it.

>>53534164
Nope, it's that one leaves some room for verisimilitude, while the other rejects it flat out.

It's like you sort of want to know why 4e was unpopular, but rather than blaming the obvious, you'd rather decry all the people who didn't like it for simply not liking something because it was different.

People didn't like 4e because it didn't leave any room to pretend your characters weren't pieces in a board game. That might not be your opinion, but if you can't understand why people hold that opinion, you're just distancing yourself away from understanding what's a fairly common reaction to the game, and essentially making any discussion with you a series of people explaining their opinions, and you hopelessly demanding them to stop feeling what the game is heavily slanted towards making them feel.

>>53534253
>Nope, it's that one leaves some room for verisimilitude, while the other rejects it flat out.
*piece of cotton falls*
*glass shattering sound*

Your verisimilitude is shattered by boxes with red colored borders.

You somehow consider this the fault of the game.

>>53534253
>It's like you sort of want to know why 4e was unpopular, but rather than blaming the obvious, you'd rather decry all the people who didn't like it for simply not liking something because it was different.
And you sound like the douchey guy I met at college who said that anyone who used dice to roleplay didn't actually roleplay at all.

He also loved the word verisimilitude. You would have liked him.

>>53534173
>The degree of abstraction never really changed. Spell slots were just as much an abstraction as the power system was, because it was basically a "daily-only" version of the same damn system. The only functional difference is that one has an abstract name that isn't tied to an in-setting concept ("power" is abstract, spell is not).

But, it did. Having casters use an abstract magic system is less abstract than everyone using an abstract power control system. Significantly.

4e is the most abstract mainline D&D by a wide margin. Not just in terms of its "dailies" system, but everything from how it handles monsters to HP to weapons to movement to races to classes to... well, everything, because everything compounds on each others mechanical abstractions to produce a game far more removed from any semblance of a living and breathing world than any prior or post edition.

>>53534337
This is a weird attempt to strawman an argument with both hyperbole and some lame attempt at conjuring a character, all just to try and avoid the point made against you.

What? Giving up because the truth is that hard to accept?

Are you actually curious as to why people didn't like 4e and complained about it being too gamey, or are you content in dismissing most people's genuine feelings towards the game as somehow you just being superior to them and they being wrong in their reactions and emotions?

Which is it?

>>53534350
>But, it did. Having casters use an abstract magic system is less abstract than everyone using an abstract power control system. Significantly.
Everyone was already using an abstract power control system, we just didn't call it that. Everyone had access to at-will actions, certain people had access to daily actions. That's how it used to be. Then they made it so everyone had access to at-will, encounter and daily actions.

The ONLY change was the addition of a new action type, the addition of magical at-wills, and the addition of non-magical dailies. That's it. The biggest change was in the lingo, not the mechanics.

>>53534397
The presence of mechanics is not the same thing as prevalence of mechanics. This should be pretty simple to understand and renders your point moot.

>>53534394
I don't think he's dismissing your feelings.

He just calls you an elitist douche.

If 4e's perceived failure is because elitist douches kept flipping their shit, I think he can live with that.

>>53534110
Pathfinder is only good for weeaboo casters and furries.

>>53534450
And I'm calling him an elitist douchebag for attempting to just offhand dismiss the common reaction to the game.
It's not elitist douches who don't like 4e, it's the majority of people who played it.

>>53525142
>>53525612
>>53525917
>>53525929
>>53526088
>>53526144
>>53533248


please tell me what B/X is, google gives me math

>>53534411
>The presence of mechanics is not the same thing as prevalence of mechanics.
How can you get less prevalent than "used by every class in the game"? Does it bother you that everyone uses hit points? Even the undead? What about constructs? Does the fact that these obviously non-living things use the same health mechanics as living things break verisimilitude? Of course not, because that's how it was always presented.

Backlash was a byproduct of comfort. The mechanics changed in presentation, not in prevalence. 90% of classes in 3rd Edition had daily powers of some sort (people forget that classes like Barbarian and Knight also had them despite not being casters). Everyone had access to all at-wills.

What changed? That 10% ruined everything about the game ever?

>>53534543
>Everyone had access to all at-wills that weren't class-specific.
Clarification.

>>53534502
>And I'm calling him an elitist douchebag for attempting to just offhand dismiss the common reaction to the game.

He isn't dismissing it. He accepts that that's the way you feel. He just also thinks you are an elitist douchebag.

>It's not elitist douches who don't like 4e, it's the majority of people who played it.

That's a pretty bold claim to make. Sounds like one a douche would make who assumes his opinion is the only correct one.

>>53534394
>This is a weird attempt to strawman an argument with both hyperbole and some lame attempt at conjuring a character, all just to try and avoid the point made against you.
How is it a strawman? He hates 4th Edition as much as you, and for similar reasons: it's gamist elements ruin his verisimilitude.

Are you trivializing his complaints and issues with the game? Is his disdain for dice not as valid as your disdain for encounter powers?

>>53534502
>And I'm calling him an elitist douchebag for attempting to just offhand dismiss the common reaction to the game.
I wasn't calling you an elitist douche for the record. But since you think someone else's complaints with the game aren't valid because they aren't the same... you kinda are an elitist douche.

>>53534543
Why are you even still trying to argue?
I'm at a loss as to how you're even trying to construct an argument here.

>How can you get less prevalent than "used by every class in the game"?

By not every class using it, especially classes that made less sense for them to use it? What?

>Does it bother you that everyone uses hit points?

Why? How is that relevant?

>The mechanics changed in presentation, not in prevalence.

You mean the prevalence of the most dissociative mechanics increased? Because that's what happened.

What we've got here is you saying that 4e did nothing wrong, because earlier editions did what it did to a lesser capacity, except somehow you're trying to argue they did it to the same capacity despite having to admit they did it to a lesser capacity.

The fuck are you even trying to do here?

Main difference I've noticed between 4e and 3.5 is that if you offer a 3.5 game to 4e players they're far more likely to accept than offering a 4e game to 3.5 players

5e leans more towards the 4e crowd than the 3.5 crowd in this regard, with 5e players readily accepting offers to play both 4e and 3.5, although in both cases a fair bit of convincing was required based on their fears of the complex mechanics of the earlier editions

>>53534592
It's not really that bold to make. Dramatically more people play 5e and 3.pf than 4e. Dramatically.

And, if it's being an elitist douchebag to point out common knowledge to someone blindly trying to dismiss it on the grounds of "no" and "stop being mean to my favorite edition", I would like your address because I need to send you a dictionary.

>>53534706
No one ever argues that 4e is somehow more popular than 3.5 or 5e

What people argue about is why, 4e fans argue that it's because 3.5 fans spent so much time and effort shitting all over it and it was plagued with such bad luck on the development side that it never really got a chance, while 3.5 fans insist that it's a shit game and has always been a shit game and no one plays it because it's a shit game

I tend to agree with the 4e fans, mostly because I've played and enjoyed every D&D edition and honestly can't see anything glaringly wrong about 4e

>>53534665
>By not every class using it, especially classes that made less sense for them to use it? What?
Not every class had access to at-will abilities like Full Attack? Are you high?

>Why? How is that relevant?
Because it's proof of your inconsistency.

>What we've got here is you saying that 4e did nothing wrong, because earlier editions did what it did to a lesser capacity, except somehow you're trying to argue they did it to the same capacity despite having to admit they did it to a lesser capacity.
No, I'm saying that 4th Edition is a series of books, not a terrorist organization. It will not rape your children, it will not kill your wife, and it did nothing to make your life hell.

Developers make mistakes. Games are games. Even I'm not retarded enough to blame 3.5 itself for its bad mechanics. It didn't invent itself. I blame Tweet and Cook.

Heinsoo didn't account for the fact that people like tradition. 4th Edition broke from many D&D traditions. That's what they did wrong. That's ALL they did wrong.

Your other complaints are subjective, and your opinion is frankly shit. You can't even cohesively make your point, and you clearly can't comprehend mine or anyone else's.

>>53534706
>It's not really that bold to make. Dramatically more people play 5e and 3.pf than 4e. Dramatically.

You like that word... but anyway, this doesn't mean that
- they tried it
- they tried it and didn't like it
- they tried it, didn't like it, and didn't like it for the reason that you mention
- they tried it, didn't like it for the reason you mention and aren't douches

Assuming all those are true for EVERYONE playing 5e/3.PF is what makes your claim bold as fuck.

> it's being an elitist douchebag to point out common knowledge

It's an elitist douchebag to make a bold claim then say it's common knowledge without backing it up with anything.

>>53534706
>It's not really that bold to make. Dramatically more people play 5e and 3.pf than 4e. Dramatically.
No shit. Both are still supported, so both still maintain a large fanbase. If 4th Edition still had any support, it'd probably have more followers. But it's totally dead, and no company I know of is producing supplements.

Why are you pretending that "fans move on to new game after game loses support by company" is news?

>>53534777
>- they tried it

Just to elaborate on this, most people I offer to play 4e with don't even give it a try before because, I quote, they "heard it's videogamey MMO bullshit".

Not "know" or "decide" but "heard".

Most people regurgitating the "MMO tabletop" meme do it second hand.

>>53534520
Basic/Expert - Before BECMI came out that was all D&D was. It put the level cap shortly after level nine, where everyone leaves the dungeon and starts building kingdoms as the endgame.

>>53534687
Nah, I'd rather have a family of Mexicans do the Traditional Hat Dance than ever play 3.x ever again.

>>53534822
>Before BECMI came out that was all D&D was.
Not quite. B/X was invented during the Gygax/Arneson split. Before that and AD&D, there was what's known as OD&D (White Box).

But B/X was the sister game to 1st Edition AD&D.

>>53534854
Really?

Even if the game was limited in terms of tier and run by a good DM?

>>53534743
Or, it's neither of those two, and it's just that 4e didn't appeal to players as much as previous and latter editions did.

It's not a shit game, but it made design decisions that weren't popular, and not just to the "3.5 fans", but to the greater gaming community.

5e made good decisions, and it managed to expand the gaming population because of that, while also slowly moving towards becoming a majority of all players. In a few months, more than 50% of all people who play any RPG will be playing 5e. It did this by learning from previous editions' mistakes, including those of 4e.

This isn't something you can try to blame on 3.5 diehards or system wars so much as you have to accept that most people, when talking about the general gaming population, just didn't like 4e all that much. There's a long list of reasons why, and trying to say 4e never had a chance is ignoring that most people did give 4e a chance before moving on to either pathfinder or 5e or a number of other games.

>>53534869
Yes, really. I played enough d20 during the glut to last multiple lifetimes. I'd much rather play a system that works with me rather than against me. That good DM would be even better if was running a better system.

>>53534895
I'm not sure I agree

See, the greater gaming community is sort of split in 2, between those who already like or already don't like D&D, 4e made decisions that would have been popular in a game that wasn't called D&D, because they were design decisions that appealed to people who didn't play D&D. But those people were never going to play it anyway because, surprise, they didn't want to play D&D. And those decisions were unpopular with most of those currently playing D&D, who proceeded to be very vocal about their disapproval, which colored the opinions of people entering the hobby for the first time.

5e's decisions on the other hand weren't "good". They were "inoffensive". Carefully constructed not to be impressive or interesting, but rather to annoy as few a people as possible

>>53534752
>4th Edition broke from many D&D traditions. That's what they did wrong. That's ALL they did wrong.

No, it made a lot of bad decisions, and most of them weren't about slaughtering sacred cows, it was issues with things ranging from the awful early math, the circular-mechanics-first approach (which is actually sort of ironic considering even with that approach it still had awful math), and a lot of really terrible design decisions like their tieflings.Trying to blame its decline on "it was just different, that's why people didn't like it" is just ignoring the flaws that turned people away from it.

Most people don't care about game traditions. Most people welcomed many of the changes that 4e made. But, at the same time, they didn't like a lot of the changes they made alongside what sacred cows they retained.

>>53535005
The flaws that turned people away, or at least the flaws that people cited as reasons they didn't want to play when I offered to DM it or my friends offered to DM it, were usually myths perpetuated by those who hated it for not being 3.5

Things like "infinite healing", and "It's just tabletop WoW", and "every class plays the same". You know, straight up fucking lies

>>53534981
>See, the greater gaming community is sort of split in 2, between those who already like or already don't like D&D,

Not really. Back then, D&D basically was the greater gaming community, with 3rd edition being the essential face. Even now, 85%+ of all games played worldwide are some flavor of D&D. Trying to say it's split in two is giving way more credit to the outliers than they are really due.

What 4e did was make decisions that were just not very good. It's not a question of whether they were "D&D" or not, they just weren't popular because of a hundred reasons that aren't "it's different."

Look at 5e's success. It's very different from both 4e and 3e, but it's a success because it took the better decisions from those and earlier editions (and other games) and created a game that satisfies a wide range of people.

>>53535005
>it was issues with things ranging from the awful early math
Which existed even worse in 3rd Edition. Note that they needed to fix it with 3.5. Most of 4th Edition's math problems were fixed with MM3.

>the circular-mechanics-first approach (which is actually sort of ironic considering even with that approach it still had awful math)
D&D's original mechanics were ripped off from a wargame. Every concession the game made was to cater to the structure of said game. How is that not "mechanics first" design?

>a lot of really terrible design decisions like their tieflings
Tieflings have always been shit. Everyone knows this. Personally, emo-demon tieflings are better than the original creep-vibe tieflings.

>>53535049
At one point, more people played 4e than any other game. But, that changed rather quickly as Pathfinder became a viable option, and irreversibly upon 5e's release.

People played 4e. They had a chance to make their own opinions on it. But now, they've moved on.

>>53535130
>People played 4e. They had a chance to make their own opinions on it. But now, they've moved on.
Because it's no longer supported.

No game maintains its fanbase after loss of support. It's disingenuous for you to imply that this counts as a mark against it.

>>53535128
>D&D's original mechanics were ripped off from a wargame. Every concession the game made was to cater to the structure of said game. How is that not "mechanics first" design?

Somehow, seeing as it's distinctly not a wargame anymore, I'd be willing to argue that concessions were made in opposition of that structure.

>>53535153
There are more 3rd edition players now than there are 4e players. That's not counting Pathfinder.

>>53535130
4e had more players than Pathfinder right up until the announcement of 5e. Which was also just after the very last bits of 4e material were released.

>>53535177
Basically, people didn't even wait for the corpse to grow cold before burying it.

>>53533063

>'waaaah i cant one shot ancient dragons, archdevils and gods with my retarded charop build like i could in 3.5e!'

I hear everyone complained about the hit points in that Edition every time it's brought up and yet I feel like it was a great thing because it's really stupid to see your party circle jerk over how quickly they killed the Lich or whatever. if you enjoy playing rocket tag then feel free to go suck your own dick in another thread.

File: dnd editions.png (229KB, 911x1470px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 911x1470px

>>53534520

>>53533375
3.Xs biggest problem has nothing to do with movement and everything to do with the rampant abuse of +x modifiers throughout the system. The only way to fix it is to completely rewrite it, which effectively kills all those character options anyway.

>>53535171
>There are more 3rd edition players now than there are 4e players.
It's still supported.

>That's not counting Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is explicitly compatible with all material printed for 3.5. That's been a huge part of their marketing, and is the underlying reason for the maintenance of the 3.5 base.

>>53535100
I think we have fundamentally different ideas about what makes a design decision "good"

Your definition of a "good" design decision seems to be one that sells well, which is perfectly reasonable. This is in-line with the 3.5 design philosophy of "bury our audience in so much shit that they learn to expect a gigantic insane learning curve from every RPG and thus never try anything but our product"

I tend to think of "good" design decisions as ones that produce loyal fans, even if it doesn't produce many of them and doesn't try to stop them from enjoying other games. This is more in line with the 4e philosophy of "lets pull back the curtain and make everything actually work"

>>53535272
No, 3.5's biggest problem is rampant and ridiculous imbalance between classes

Also the leadership feat and summoning spells. There is nothing in any edition I hate more than the 3.5 leadership feat and 3.5 summoning spells

>>53535277
I guess we can say that 4e is still supported then too, because there's that by-popular-demand compatible third-party system that's keeping its embers warm even as WotC has moved on to another edition.

>>53535360
Bull fucking shit

>>53526082
4th ed next to 3.5
>kys

>>53533248
BECMI/RC > 4e > BX > 2e > 1e > Holmes > LBB > 3.5e > 3e

>>53535360
>I guess we can say that 4e is still supported then too, because there's that by-popular-demand compatible third-party system that's keeping its embers warm even as WotC has moved on to another edition.
Which one?

Because I know a lot of people who would love to know of some company doing just that. It had a decent fanbase.

File: 1496198372600.jpg (19KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 184x184px

>>53525104
Not a greybeard so I started with 3rd
>3rd ed, wut r math
>3.5 ed codzilla & ladder rail cannons
> Pathfinder aka 3.75 ed weaboo book of fightan magic for everyone (codzilla still op)
>4th ed wow
>5th ed dumbed down 3.5/pathfinder

DnD is babies first rpg anyway

>>53525104
Yes, if you're interested in being a better GM, you should learn about older systems and non D&D systems. If you're not a GM then playing in different systems allows for new experiences. So yes go ahead and embrace new experiences.

>>53534520
First came the Little Brown Books or Original D&D which is more a major expansion of the Chainmail miniatures game than anything. Then came Basic as a revision for the lower end of play and was meant to be a lead into AD&D and then be dropped but thanks to Gygax not figuring out how legal documents work TSR was forced to make two lines of D&D product, the next being Basic-Expert (which was supposed to be continued but not) followed by the Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal line by Mentzer which then got revised again into the Rules Cyclopedia. Around this time TSR decided to scrap the Basic line and focus everything on 2e AD&D. They fucked up several times and made a bunch of bad decisions (Dragon Dice anyone?) before having to default on a lot of bills and were bought out by WotC who revised 2e slightly and then in the late 90s decided they wanted a game all their own pretty much. Thus came AD&D 3e, though they dropped the A from it because it made the game sound elitist or whatever fuck excuse they shat out. When a lot of issues flared up early they released new books with a a bunch of errata with them called 3.5.

Several years later and wanting to build a game from the ground up and address many of the issues in terms of power and scaling that a lot of people took issue with, WotC published 4e which put all classes and races on the same level more-or-less and were supposed to release a whole suite of online tools to help players and DMs alike. Since a lot of people had sunk money into 3/3.5, they were pissed and, after losing the license to the Dragon and Dungeon magazine lines, Paizo said "fuck it, we're going to release our own version of D&D 3.5 you fucks!" and thus the edition wars began.

After an abysmally short shelf-life, 4e was scrapped and, hoping to corral as many people from the various editions back to them, WotC did a fuck huge playtest period for D&D "Next" which eventually gave us 5e.

>>53535472
Strike! RPG

>>53535554
no

>>53535558
yes

>>53535571
no

>>53535554
>Strike! RPG
Based on it, but completely different and incompatible.

Compatibility is key. Pathfinder kept 3.5 alive by being compatible with it, not by keeping it alive in spirit.

>>53535583
yes

>>53535571
It uses a different dice system, a different level system, a different class system, a different power system, a different feat system and an entire separate game instead of the skill system.

It has some vague concepts that it shares with 4e, but overall it's even less like 4e than 13th Age, a game that explicitly chooses to be an amalgamization of 3.5 and 4e

>>53535543
>After an abysmally short shelf-life, 4e was scrapped

But 4e had the same lifespan as 3.5 (5 years).

>>53535724
3.5 was an extension of 3e so the overall lifespan should be considered from 2000 to 2008. 4e had a lifespan from 2008 to 2013 but had little done for it in the last year or so. Seriously, it died with a whimper more than anything else.

>>53535819

Because Mearls sabotaged it with fucking Essentials

>>53533691
It's all good bro

>>53533726
Ahh I see you've read the 16 hp Dragon essay as well, and recognizes it for the crock of bullshit it is. Good man.

>>53533868
>any single system can handle everything 3.5 tries to do better.

Now you're just being retarded. Numenera can replicate every single one of the thosuands of options available in 3.5? GURPS? Dungeon World? Fantasy craft?

No. Stop. I'd definitely say a lot of the 5e rules are better than 3.5s which is why I hope there is a 2nd edition pathfinder that merges the two, but 5e has loads of bullshit rules that hold it back as well. Fewer, but still plenty, as well as far fewer options than 3.5. And please don't give me that "3.5 didn't have any actual build options and everything is a trap option that is LITERALLY unplayable" bullshit, it reveals you as either never having played 3rd or else just being a munchkin fuck.

>>53533915
>4e is the only D&D edition that actually runs with the idea of hit points being abstractions instead of meat points

How? Genuinely curious as to the logic here.

Hit points are a sxhrodingers cat of a mechanic, there are many oddities and inconsistencies that get brushed under the rug because hit points are fun.

>>53535850
I'm a huge fan of 4e, I am, but trust me, it was dying well before that. If they had instead diverted resources to their online works (getting an actual virtual tabletop up and running to work alongside their compendium and character builder maybe) it would have only bought 4e another 2 years at most. Simple fact is that their was a massive initial rush, then people just drifted away to other systems because the over saturation in the market and a constant stream of people hating on the system. Essentials simply did it in faster is all.

>>53533941
The DMG definition of hp contradicts half the games mechanics. Even in 5e, why does second wind fall off so hard with level even with the +level modifier? That 1d10 is huge at level 1. Later? No. It's the same shut that happens with cure spells. Yeah cure light wounds is not good enough to Araforbs scratch but it will bring this random soldier back from the grave.

>>53535974
From the 4e PHB, page 293
>Over the course of a battle, you take damage from attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.

>>53533967
>games having an inherent identity is wrong

You could make the best fantasy RPG in the world but if you market it as D&D and its nothing like D&D you will be called out on it and justifiably so.

>>53534079
Vancian casting is not a dissociated mechanic though, nor is it metagaming.

>>53534209
Damage escalated by level though. The issue is the whack off hp / damage escalations of d&d. Also 5e fixes the look issue with lower ACs. I don't necessarily like it but it does work well.

>>53535272
It kills like 10 percent of the options. Most of which were shit options. Fucky action economy, abusable spells, excessive SoDs (SoDs are fine I modration) and over reliance on magic items, are the main issues.

>>53535249
It was more that a level 1 fight with a group of goblins took 2 hours and forced you to use a combat grid. MM3 math helped to a degree, but this wasn't any
good for DM's, especially new DM's, in 2008.

4E was designed in this way , you needed 5 combats a day to challenge a party and each of these would by the system last 1-2 hours min through a mixture of HP bloat, monsters and players having a dozen different about abilities , hundreds of tiny little effects to remember. So it just became a tactical miniature game.

Watch any footage of 4E being played to confirm this, even by le legendary DMS like Chris Perkins.
4E combat was certainly more 'balanced' at every level, but a low level fight didn't feel that much different to a high level fight beyond different monster skins and even more bloat.

>>53535308
>I tend to think of "good" design decisions as ones that produce loyal fans

So... 3rd edition?

Actually, my definition of good design is... good design. It's kind of case by case, and while I can say 4e had some good design ideas, I saw most of the better ones ported over to 5e without including the worst ones.

>>53535374
That's the joke.

File: DnDBasic.jpg (146KB, 600x777px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 600x777px

>>53534520
>please tell me what B/X is, google gives me math
It's the version of "Basic" D&D that comprises two boxed sets: [B]asic and e[X]pert, edited by Tom Moldvay and David Cook (with Steve Marsh), respectively. It's often called Moldvay Basic or Moldvay/Cook Basic for this reason.

Like all the TSR-era systems, it has plenty of old school wonkiness (rolls to hit and saving throws are "roll over" on a d20, attribute checks are "roll under" on a d20, thief skills are "roll under" on percentile dice except "hear noise" which is roll under on a d6, etc.), but if you can get past being annoyed at that, it's nevertheless much lighter and easier to learn than 5e.

>>53536038
In 4e you go into dungeons and fight dragons. You manage limited resources and obtain treasure. You can play as an elf wizard, a dwarf fighter, or a halfling rogue. Please explain what part of it is "nothing like D&D".

>>53535171
Are you basing this on the roll20 chart?

You know that the games there overlap, right? There's almost equal amount of PF and 3.5 games because those games are advertised as PF /D&D 3.5 (and the players themselves check both both the PF and 3.5 boxes; which makes sense since they are essentially the same fucking game).

You are not supposed to add them up. There may still be more 3rd edition players than 4e, but you'll need some source on that.

>>53536337
My group never spent more than 30 minutes on a fight unless there was an elite or solo in fight.

>>53536009
4e bases most of the heals on surge value, which is a part of your max HP, which means heals scale.

>>53536555
>30 minutes on a fight
WHY?

>>53536605
>more than

This means they usually spent less.

Personally, I wouldn't even break out the map and the minis for a fight less than 10 minutes.

>>53534520
You can try this free version of B/X (retroclone) http://www.rpgnow.com/product/64331/Labyrinth-Lord-Revised-Edition-noart-version

>>53536629
This is why 4e sucks.
If the fight (except boss fights) lasts more than 10 minutes, you should be playing war games instead.

>>53536701
And if you don't touch the dice for more than 10 minutes, you should be just playing magical tea party.

Don't be a dick anon.

>>53536555
Either you were *incredibly* efficient power gamer types , or you modified the game in such a way that combat was sped up, or you ignored the encounter balance by raw so had a string of easy fights that can't challenge the players.

For regular gamers playing by RAW combats in 4E were a tiresome slog. Unfortunately house rules to fix this then meant multiple classes and class abilities that relied on combats being a tiresome slog were obsolete. Not much point of fighter marks for example if combats are over quickly.

>>53525104
Since 3e they have been trying to fix the system - with 4e as a weird expierement - so the only system worth going back to is adnd 2e since it just feels so different. There is anreason the Old School Renaissance folks use it as a go to system.

>>53536894
>Not much point of fighter marks for example if combats are over quickly.

Not even addressing the rest of your post... What? Fighter marks scale with relative damage. You lower the damage of the target by a % because of the mark, and if your target has less HP (or you have more damage), your free attack is worth more.

I can't think of a way you can speed up fights without marks scaling with it.

>>53536960
Wait, actually, I can, if you make it so that all enemies are minions you won't be able to mark with attacks, but you got a bunch of other marking abilities, and in this case your mark punish is _really_ good, so maybe not.

File: Labyrinth Lord vs BX.jpg (1MB, 1248x2998px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1248x2998px

>>53536650
I actually recommend grabbing a pdf of actual B/X (you can find one in the trove of the /osr/ general thread, under TSR, '81 Basic, or something like that). Labyrinth Lord does stick relatively close to B/X, but I still think B/X is easier to digest, especially with art to help you get your bearings.

Running a game for a new group with the MM3 math, combat in 4e takes us between 30 minutes and an hour, which is pretty much perfect. Enough time for real depth and meaningful decision making, not long enough to be a drag.

It's not like 3.5 was any bettet, it was just more variable. A fight could be over in a few dull minutes or it could go on for hour after tiresome hour. 4e just made it easier to stick to the sweet spot.

>>53536894
DM and the group figured out that if you weren't prepped on your turn you were passed over until your next turn. Kept people active and engaged. Doesn't hurt that we pretty much were working under MM3 rules before the book was released since even near the beginning we figured there was too much HP on 99% of monsters and shit.

Longest fight we ever had ran about 2 hours and involved a few "waves" of enemies being summoned in so, well, yeah.

>>53537091
Eh, they got a point in that fights above level 6 with a strong party end in about 1 round + cleanup in 3.5... I mean, if that's the way you want to play.

4th edition if tactical set-piece battles are you thing.

2nd edition for a relatively polished old school experience.

1st edition for the Gygaxian experience.

The Moldvay Basic and Expert set for a fairly light, yet robust old school experience.

The whitebox original set just to see its roots.

>>53536014
Except other editions did the same thing. Even ad&d....

>>53536457
Same with warrior rogue mage but that's not d&d is it? You are oversimplifying d&d's identity.

>>53537205
All those editions are garbage though. It's like "tour a sewer for the shit wasn't experience! "

>>53525104
4E is the only one worth bothering with, it is the best edition after all

>>53536038
>You could make the best fantasy RPG in the world but if you market it as D&D and its nothing like D&D you will be called out on it and justifiably so.
It used all the same mechanics as every other edition of D&D has ever used. Even its new mechanics were just rehashed from late-3.5.

Just admit it, anon. Your disdain for the game is personal, and your butthurt is unwarranted. I prefer B/X and 5e myself, and 4th Edition had elements that even pushed me away (no more collect 'em all wizards)... but I'm not gonna say that those elements made it "objectively bad", because I'm not a child throwing a temper tantrum.

4e was just WotC getting hoist by their own OGL petard.

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

27KB, 566x242px

>>53532845
>5e and 3.PF are completely separate games that serve completely separate purposes
Nigga are you for real? 5e is literally 3.PF with duct-tape over the biggest problems.

>>53525823
>Everyone called 4e WoW edition, because if you're going to have tanks, healbots, nukes and DPS as the core philosophy of your game, you can't call it anything else.

This just in, AD&D is WoW.

>>53543815
Nah, in AD&D it's actually possible to die and stay dead.

>>53543827
You can log-off after dying, then independently decide to quit playing altogether.

>>53536337
What sort of homebrew were you using?

Because I find it very hard to believe ant postMM3 fights lasting more than 15 minutes or so. Even in epic levels it was rare a fight hit the half hour mark.

File: Phale3.jpg (139KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 768x1024px

>>53543934
This is exactly what I did when I quit. Phale's corpse still resides on a wreck in the Netherstorm.