What are the main differences between 3.5 and 5E? Which would

Play 5e. The system actually works as advertised and offers you good, interesting and (mostly) balanced options rather than setting you loose in 3.5's minefield of garbage and superweapons.

>>54167491
>What are the main differences between 3.5 and 5E?
5E has less options but it's less of a mess.
>Which would you recommend for a new group and why?
5E. It's not my favorite system but it's a lot harder to completely wreck a game based on a good/bad build even completely by accident. And I don't mean "Oh no, the wizard/cleric/druid is better than me" I mean "Shit, I don't know how to plan an encounter where the wizard doesn't get one shot and/or the fighter isn't bored and boned"

>Is there any benefit to using 5E?
Yes. it isn't written like garbage.

>>54167491
>
5E is simpler and easier to understand and does not suffer from the many mechanical problems in 3.5E.

>>54167491
I love reading me some 3.5 splatbooks and am pretty cool DMing it and banning OP shite, but damned if it isn't noticably easier to run 5e. Like it just takes less focus and planning as a DM to run it. Basics are the same though, roll higher than some number to succeed.

>>54167491
5e for sure. Just because 3.5 has more stuff doesn't mean it's all good stuff. 5e is way easier for a new player to understand.

>>54167491
5e is vastly better, especially for a newbie. Here are all the differences that you will need.

Say, you want to create a fighter - a farmboy, who decided to fight evil with his father's sword. What do you need to make him in your system?
In 5e, you simply pick your race - variant human, class - fighter, assign stats, choose a background, choose a feat, choose skills, you're done.
In 3.5, it's not so simple. Yes, you can simply create a fighter, but he won't be carry his weight in a game. Fighters are a badly designed class, and if you want to make something of it, you need to spend weeks reading different splatbooks and comparing different options. Will picking a dungeoncrasher variant do? What about multiclassing into Lion Totem Barbarian? What about Tome of Battle classes? Does your DM even allow any of this content? At best, you go on the internet and rip off a build that some autist created for you.

3.5 is good if you want to theorycraft characters and spend years dickmeasuring on giantitp. 5e is best if you actually want to play a game and have fun.

>>54167656
>3.5 is good if you want to theorycraft characters and spend years dickmeasuring on giantitp
This is my primary issue with 3.5, and why it's so popular on this board.
This board is full of people who don't actually play the game, but sit around and theorize about characters they will never use in white room vacuums. It is intellectual waste and autism distilled, and what the internet breeds.

>>54167697
Hey man, some systems just have fun character creation. Nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for the responses.

How hard would it be to convert a 3.5 module to 5E?

>>54167734

The problem isn't that 3.5's character creation is fun. It's that it's a complete clusterfuck of complexity without adding value beyond a certain point.

>>54167491
From what I can gather, people who play 3.PF enjoy those systems because of the complex character options.
5e is more stream-lined currently, but I can't shake the feeling that future splat-books will be filled with power-creep options

>>54167747
Not too difficult. The main hurdle is figuring out how to convert encounters over since a lot of more powerful 3e monsters have HP bloat and high AC.

File: updatedMyJournal.jpg (69KB, 448x419px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 448x419px

>>54167780
Well, I fucked that post up.

Why does everybody hate 4e so much? Everybody bitched about 4e simplifying DnD, but 5e is a thousand times simpler and everybody sucks its dick.

>>54167747
First of all, I strongly advise you against converting anything, if you are not familiar with 3.5 and 5e. Just run a 5e module, or make some shit up yourself.

If you are dead set on converting, however, it should be possible, as long as you don't autistically try to transfer each unique monster and encounter to a completely different system - especially since you clearly aren't familiar with either.
Here's what your thought process should be.
>Hey, in this spot in the original module, the party is supposed to fight some drow with class levels. I have no idea what any of this means, but what is the closest match in 5e? Ahha, here are some drow in Monster Manual. Now, how many of them - and in what combination - does it take to challenge my party?
Aside from monsters, there's another thing - magic items. 3.5 assumes that each character will have loads and loads of magic items - sometimes up to twenty, and magic items are sold like candy in stores. 5e takes a much different approach, with magic items being far and far between - the entire party will likely have one or two between them all on level 6. So when running the module, you should really cut back on the number of magic items and hand them out only when you think it's necessary.

>>54167857
Nobody bitched about 4e simplifying DnD. We bitched about it being way too different. While 5e feels like a logical evolution of 3.5, with simplyfying, trimming the fat and making common sense changes, 4e feels like another game. Nothing is the same! Everything is different.

>>54167757
This.
And like I said, especially on the internet, the interest is not playing the game, it's playing with the numbers to see how far you can stretch the system.
>>54167780
>people who play 3.PF enjoy those systems because of the complex character options.
I played a lot of 3.PF, and the only reason I learned the system so well was because in order to make a half ass decent pc who doesn't hedge on magic, you have to know exactly what you are doing. I wish I knew the editions I truly enjoyed (2e, 4e) as well, but they were less fucked and didn't need encyclopedic knowledge to make the kind of pc I wanted.

>>54167508
mad cuz bad

>>54167857

Because it dared to do things differently.

There are some legitimate criticisms of 4e, both ways the system doesn't work well RAW, and playstyle conflicts that mean it's inappropriate for certain playstyles which earlier editions of D&D fit better (although arguably it still didn't fit very well).

But a lot of people got bad impressions from very surface level readings of the system, such as standard layout and formatting, and launched into tirades about all classes playing the same and all powers being identical, when the opposite was true.

4e is an excellent game for combat focused heroic action fantasy, with a few small math tweaks. That is what it does, and it makes no pretence about doing anything else. It is also very mechanically transparent, giving players a very clear explanation of how the rules work rather than concealing things or leaving them implicit, which some people found harmful to their sense of immersion.

tl;dr it wasn't a system for everybody and that made some people super mad for dumb reasons

>>54167747
Since you'll be playing 5e, you should come by /5eg/ for all the different things you'll find in the OP. You will especially love this
> https://astranauta.github.io/5etools.html
Which has all the character options and monsters.
> http://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder
And this, which will solve your "What do I throw at my players?" problem forever.

>>54167491
>simply due to the amount of material published for it
you know that's its achilles heel, right?

>>54167950
How's /4eg/ doing?

>>54167916
>Nobody bitched about 4e simplifying DnD.
This is revisionism and fake news. Autists the world over kept calling 4e "babby's first system" and insisted that real men only played hardcore systems like Pathfinder.

>>54167857
I just don't like the 4E power system. It feels too video gamey for my tastes.

>>54167916

I always found this kinda odd. 4e always seemed like a very logical followup to me, with most of the things people claimed it was missing were things that D&D, RAW, had never really had in the first place.

>>54167491
3.5 has more options, builds, variety and mechanical crunch. It also has more verisimilitude in respect to the casually realistic nature of its mechanics simulating the real world. If you run it however look up the tier list and make sure all player classes are in the same tier or one below or above unless you want one player to be really gimped.

5E is a lot simpler to run but at the expense of being rather bland. It's also a lot more arbitrary with most of the rules needing house rules as the designers couldn't be bothered to include actual thought out mechanics and instead leave it up to the DM to decide things like how hard a task is or how something should work on the fly.

I'd go for 3.5 honestly..or even better Pathfinder which updates and modernises it with loads more options and some fantastic adventure modules.

Either way when starting run a module. The 5E starter module is great as is Pathfinders Rise of the Runelords.

>>54167491
I would recomend 5e to a new group since, because of the balance, it is very fucking difficult to

1-(and more importantly) make a useless piece of shit character that feels inferior to the rest of the part
2-its more difficult to completely wreck the game

the game requires much less knowledge, rules are simplified, supports narrative combat and character creation is streamlined

>>54167857
Personally, I would like 4e a lot more, if it was more like 5e. Specifically, in those aspects
>Feats should be awesome. If a feat exists exclusively to give you +1 on melee attacks, it's not a good system. Similiarly, feat taxes should not exist.
>No magic mart - magic items should be rare, and the game should be theoretically be possible without the party having any at all.
>Bounded accuracy runs contrary to 4e's idea of tiers, but I like it much better.

As long as those changes are made to some hypothetical 4.5e, I'll enjoy it.

>>54167999

It's really more boardgamey/wargamey than videogamey. Vidya took the mechanics from tabletop, not the other way around.

>>54168061
>Hey, guy, I know you're just starting out, but here's the tier list of 3.5...
>Yes, I'll explain what ToB is in a moment.
>Incarnum is... Look, if you'll just wait...
>Fighters are bad because... Look...
No normie should ever be introduced to the hobby through 3.PF.

>>54167857
Uniform formating pisses off the grogs

>>54168111
Norman and Mearls were playing quite a bit of WoW at the time 4e was developed and it shows.

Obviously tabletop games came first but games like WoW and diablo evolved beyond D&D and ended up influencing it in turn.

>>54168061
I don't understand how you mean "its more bland", but rather than that I would say that 5e not being bloated by rules for absolutely everything is a thing going in its favor, since rules lawyers had become a real problem for 3.5
to put an example this happened to me
>"I shoot an arrow at the bag of the kobold carrying the alchemist potions!"
>tell him to roll and he succeeds
>"The arrow hits the kobold and the greek-fire potions that he was carrying explode, killing the kobold"
>other player: "You can't do that, you haven't checked if he actually hits the potions, if he hits the greek fire and the table for explosion effects and damage"

>>54167857
>>54168162
I enjoy mechanical asymmetry in my games. Sue me.

>>54168188
What exactly do wow and 4e do the same?

>>54168089
The second point is available via inherent bonuses

Fair warning though, using inherent bonuses, while it does let you make magic items a lot rarer, and does let you function with none at all, it also buffs the hell out of two-weapon rangers, which is already the most powerful striker

>>54168235

Nothing. It's just this weird, dumb meme that keeps getting repeated.

>>54168235
All classes have the same number of abilities in the form of powers with different cooldowns.

How can you not see the similarity?

>>54168300
Well hold on

in WoW, there aren't "the same number of abilities", different classes have different rotations using different numbers of abilities.

Or at least, that's how WoW worked when 4e came out, I haven't played WoW for a long time so I have no idea how it works now

>>54168300

Because that's 1) not true, 2) not identical to WoW and 3) not unique to WoW

>>54168352
Every class in WoW has the same number of abilities.

>>54168359
It is true. It's not unique to WoW but it's a video game thing. I think it started with Diablo.

That's why I said 4e feels video gamey.

>>54168408

It's more of a board game and war game thing, though. I've never seen a vidya with anything close to 4e's mechanics, except maybe some strategy RPG's, while almost every mechanic in 4e can be directly traced to board games or wargames as a source of inspiration.

>>54168408
Wrong. Most classes have about 16, Druids, Monks, and Mages go up to 24. Misinformation just to suit your argument makes you look like a ponce.

>>54168221
Fair reason to not like 4e, especially when there are so few games out there that really have "mechanical asymmetry"

>>54168440
Well I haven't played many board or wargames so I can't say.

It definitely struck me as a mechanic taken directly from MMOs. That's the first thing that came to mind.

Plus given that Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan were so engrossed in WoW during the development of 4e it's not surprising that it rubbed off.

>>54168492
Pluss unless they've really changed things cool downs are all over the place based on class.

>>54168492
16? I haven't played WoW since Wrath but even back then most classes had around 30 abilities.

What's the point of a D&D fighter have 20 abilities? Just full attack and be done with it.

That's the other thing I hate about 4e: even the simplest encounter can take over an hour to resolve and some encounters can take up the entire session.

>>54168564
Sure but every class has their big cooldowns for those "oh shit" moments (daily powers in 4e) along with the shorter cooldowns (encounter powers).

>>54168608

>What's the point of a D&D fighter have 20 abilities? Just full attack and be done with it.

Because what's the point of me interacting with an encounter at all if I have no ability to make meaningful choices? I want options and the ability to interact with combat, not just stand in place rolling dice while other people get to have fun. And no, 'you can improvise' is not an excuse for systems providing a player with no tangible options when other players get plenty.

On combat length, it was a legit criticism with MM1/2 math, fights took too long and weren't particularly dangerous, but MM3/MV math fixed that.

It's also relevant to what was mentioned above, that it's a playstyle thing. 4e focuses on combat because it is a system for people who enjoy combat. If you don't want to spend 30-45 minutes on a fight, or a good hour or two on a huge boss battle, then 4e is not a system for you, and that's okay.

>>54168608
"Simple" encounters shouldn't happen in 4e, the game is designed so that every fight should be a major setpiece, random encounters are to be avoided

Which yes, does mean that fights take a long time, not saying you're wrong for not liking it, just pointing out that it's by design

>>54168542
>It definitely struck me as a mechanic taken directly from MMOs. That's the first thing that came to mind.

Honestly, I can't think of any of 4e's mechanics that are really MMO-like. MMOs are really opposed to 1/fight abilities.

>>54168665
I mean if you want options then why not pick a more complex class than a fighter?

Some people DON'T want options. They just want to play a simple class and not have to think tactically about every single action they take in combat. They just wanna roll 20s to smack stuff. What's wrong with that?

>>54167491
>What are the main differences between 3.5 and 5E?
5E Plays more like legacy D&D 3.5 does not.

>Which would you recommend for a new group and why?
3.5 if you already are financially invested in it, otherwise neither, look into cheaper legacy D&D clones.

>>54168734

>I mean if you want options then why not pick a more complex class than a fighter?

And what if someone wants to play a complex class without being a spellcaster?

4e also had Essentials classes for people who just want to hit a thing.

>>54168734

Nothing. But they shouldn't play 4e, or any combat focused game for that manner.

Having an 'easy class' is a shitty option, because it does nothing to get the people who might not like the idea into it anyway.

It also makes no sense because fighter also gives you the least amount of options out of combat, so it sucks even more for people who don't enjoy that part of the system.

Also, fuck, are you really telling me that the Fighter, a class with that name, makes sense as the designated option for people who don't enjoy combat?

>>54168734
And some people want to do crazy-awesome shit as a fighter or rogue and be fantasy superheroes

there's nothing "wrong" with it, it's just different strokes for different folks

>>54168697
Sure I get that.

I guess that when your typical encounter can last over an hour the game becomes more like a tactical wargame rather than a role playing game. Not that there's anything wrong with that but you can see why some people don't consider 4e to be "true" D&D.

>>54168728
I dunno man, if you can't see the similarities I've already pointed out then I don't know what more to say. We just fundamentally disagree on what an MMO-like mechanic is.

>>54168818
I guess so

I guess I've just always considered D&D to be a tactical wargame, roleplaying games are things like FATE or WoD

>>54168763
>I want to play the most mundane class in D&D
>complains about a lack of complexity

>>54168768
Who said that fighters don't enjoy combat?

Fighters are just mostly brawn. They're not brilliant tactical masterminds. That's kinda the theme isn't it?

>>54168771
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Play 4e if that's what you enjoy dude. I'm just explaining why I don't like it.

>>54168818

>We just fundamentally disagree on what an MMO-like mechanic is.

Well, MMOs being based on RPGs means that a lot of stuff overlaps the two. Heck, 4e doesn't even have 'Cooldowns' in the mmo sense. No matter how long you keep fighting, that encounter power won't come back.

Honestly, I'd call 3.5 and 5e more MMO-like. Unlike 4e they actually have 'You must attack me' as features (For the Knight and a Rogue subclass respectively) that work like MMO aggro tables.

>>54168818

Encounters could last just as long, if not longer, in 3.PF though. They're just more swingy, with some ending almost instantly and others being an unbearable slog.

And, again, the MM3/MV monster math fixed that issue.

>>54168898
>Fighters are just mostly brawn. They're not brilliant tactical masterminds. That's kinda the theme isn't it?
No, it certainly is not.

>>54168898

'Mundane' is no excuse for lazy design.

And you've hit the nail on the head, although from the wrong direction. 'Fighter' is a shitty, niche way of defining a class, and the fact that they were bad at fighting just makes it even more laughable.

You're also confusing IC and OOC. Just because a fighter might be dumb muscle IC doesn't mean you can deny the player interesting and enjoyable combat options OOC.

>>54168898

>I want to play the most mundane class in D&D

That doesn't mean something can't have complexity to it. Complexity is not a synonym to 'Magical'. I mean, a weaponmaster would likely know how to do more stuff than Chandra in MTG.

>>54168898
You asked "What's wrong with that?" so I answered with an inverse example to show that there's nothing wrong with either viewpoint

Also, I'm not sure about you, but I think barbarians should be the "just brawn" class option, fighters being brilliant tactical masterminds sounds just about right to me,

>>54167747
Wizards put up an official guide
https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_Conversions_1.0.pdf

>>54168845
D&D has always been a roleplaying game. It does that quite well.

The problem with 4e is that everything gets bogged down with combat.

Check out Chris Perkins' Curse of Strahd YouTube videos. The first session is like 2 hours in length, not a single combat encounter has occurred and everyone is having a blast.

I don't know why people think that D&D is only for hack n slash.

>>54168608
>What's the point of a D&D fighter have 20 abilities? Just full attack and be done with it.

I wish i could punch people over the internet.

>>54168993
>The problem with 4e is that everything gets bogged down with combat.

4e doesn't really have any less non-combat than 5e does. Heck, 5e's backgrounds started life IN 4e.

>>54168518
It might seem odd but I enjoy it when casting a spell feels mechanically different from swinging a sword in a particular fashion. The moment they're boiled down to just different types of 'ability' is when I lose interest entirely.

This isn't me advocating 3.5's full-attack-every-turn mechanics. I want casters and martials to both be mechanically viable while feeling very different from one another.
3.5's Tome of Battle doesn't do it right, it just makes martial characters that use what are essentially caster mechanics.
While 4e levels the classes out, it also makes them feel mechanically homogeneous when it comes to how martial and caster characters use abilities.
5e gets closer than previous editions in the areas of balance, versatility and asymmetry but it's not close enough for me to feel satisfied.
For me, the Battlemaster archetype is as close as D&D in all of its iterations since 3e has gotten to a martial class on par with casters while feeling mechanically distinct. It has access to a diverse number of options in combat, it is roughly as efficient as most casters (without multiclassing or UA optimization) and it uses mechanics that make it feel very distinct from casters.

>>54168993
Because that's why OD&D and AD&D were designed for

you got some guys together and went dungeon crawling, your motivation was gold, maybe some roleplaying happened, but it was FAR from the focus

>>54168993

>The problem with 4e is that everything gets bogged down with combat.

With MM1/2 math. This was fixed. It was a problem on launch, granted, and the system deserves criticism on that front, but that it was solved should also be acknowledged.

Beyond that, it's a playstyle thing. Personally, if a fight is over in less than 45 minutes I'd wonder why the GM bothered to have it be a combat in the first place.

But I also think that its combat focus doesn't make it any less an RPG. Combat is key to storytelling in so many media, and it can also be in an RPG. How your character acts in a conflict, the decisions they make under pressure, can be far more effective at conveying a character as any amount of dialogue or NPC interactions.

>>54169011

>While 4e levels the classes out, it also makes them feel mechanically homogeneous when it comes to how martial and caster characters use abilities.

I'd honestly really disagree with that imo. While the baseline structure is the same, classes in 4e feel very different. A Swordmage and a Fighter are both sword-swingers and both defenders but the magic-based swordmage feels dramatically different/much more magical than the Fighter.

>>54169011
Hmmm, I can't imagine you enjoy many different RPGs then, especially since so many treat spellcasting as a standard roll, not too different from hitting a guy with a stick or making a sound argument

Shadowrun, L5R, GURPS, FATE, WoD

I mean, what even is there that treats magic as being mechanically separate aside from D&D and D&D knockoffs?

>>54168921
>Honestly, I'd call 3.5 and 5e more MMO-like
How are they more like MMOs than 4e?

>>54168925
That has not been my experience.

>>54168944
>>54168956
>>54168969
Holy shit did I just trigger the FIDF or something?

Look I have nothing against fighters or players who play them. It just always seemed to me that they were the "simple" class for people who didn't want to memorise dozens of spells and abilities and just wanted to roll dice to kill things with their +5 vorpal blades.

I'm sure you can build a master tactician fighter who uses various weapons and the environment in clever ways to defeat his foes.

It just seems to me that if you want to have tons of options in combat you'd probably enjoy playing a wizard or a cleric.

>>54169011
>>54169056

I think this is the point of contention. 4e uses a standard structure, but how classes interact with and make use of that structure is very, very different.

It's mentioned often enough, but the 4e differences between, for example, a Wizard and a Sorcerer are significantly more different to one another in 4e than in 3.5, if only by virtue of different 'spell lists'.

>>54169081

The idea that you'd need to play a caster to actually have interesting combat options (or, fuck, options at all) is one of the worst ideas D&D inflicted upon roleplaying as a hobby.

>>54169081

>How are they more like MMOs than 4e?

Actual MMO Aggro mechanics (You have no choice but to attack me) are built into 3.5 and 5e classes.

I didn't say they were very MMO like (Beyond the ways that most MMOs are based on RPG ideas) but it seems closer than 4e.

>>54169081

>It just seems to me that if you want to have tons of options in combat you'd probably enjoy playing a wizard or a cleric.

And if they want to have options and hit things with a blade? That's the point of contention, the idea that 'Magic = Complex' and therefore 'Non-magic = non-complex'. There should be room for both.

>>54169081
>It just seems to me that if you want to have tons of options in combat...don't play a fighter, the combat class
You fucking dumbass.

>>54169081
You did stumble into a minefield there

Fighters being able to do complicated and interesting stuff to show a level of mastery of combat rather than just hitting harder or more times is not a minor thing, people like the idea of being skilled swordsman, not just fast or strong, and being told "lol, if you want to do cool shit and not just hit whack things with a stick, play a caster" is why a lot of people took to 4e and still defend it now

>>54169082
>>54169056
A 4e wizard is as different from a 4e sorcerer as it is from a 4e fighter, when it comes to mechanical diversity.

>>54169116
But Aggro mechanics are a core part of 4E Defenders with their Marks. They're not "you have no choice" but they are more like PVP MMO aggro where "attacking anyone but me is highly inefficient". Back when I got into tabletop because Penny Arcade had their 4E podcast I wasn't aware of MMO aggro mechanics, so I didn't see the overlap, but now that I am more aware of them I definitely see the design overlap.

>>54169168

Yep. All the classes play extremely differently, with a strong mechanical identity that can be focused and enhanced in a number of interesting ways.

>>54169179

...But that's not how MMO aggro mechanics work at all.

>>54169168
You're right, they all play very differently because tactical grid based combat is actually a concern in that system, with positioning actually mattering.

>>54169008
It's not about the number of combat encounters it's the fact that resolving them is so much more tedious and time consuming in 4e.

>>54169011
>I enjoy it when casting a spell feels mechanically different from swinging a sword in a particular fashion

Agree 100%

A fighter is fundementally different from a wizard and should use completely different resources and mechanics.

>>54169104
What is it about playing a fighter that you enjoy?

What is it about playing a caster that you dislike?

You're telling me that you enjoy the playstyle of a caster but for some reason you seem deadset on playing a fighter. I don't get it man.

>>54169116
>Actual MMO Aggro mechanics (You have no choice but to attack me) are built into 3.5 and 5e classes.
You think that one mechanic is more MMO-like than 4E entire power and cooldown system? I mean I don't know what to say at this point...

>>54169138
See above.

I don't understand why you want to play a fighter that can do the same things as a wizard. Why not just play a wizard?

>>54169179
That's not actually aggro

A very important factor of marks is that the creature that's marked can choose to ignore it, taking a penalty to hit and receiving comeuppance from the defender

True "Aggro", where the creature must attack the PC with "aggro", is extremely rare in 4e, limited to I believe only one or two once-per day abilities

>>54169179
>They're not "you have no choice" but they are more like PVP MMO aggro where "attacking anyone but me is highly inefficient".

U wot m8. "You have no choice" IS how MMO aggro works. "Attacking anyone but me is inefficient" is a GOOD way to do aggro.

>>54169236

I don't dislike Casters. I dislike shitty, inefficient design. If you include an option in your game, it should actually be worth playing. Fighters in 3.PF are not.

>>54169236
4e powers don't have "cooldowns" in the MMO-sense

if they did, you'd be able to use them again once X-rounds had passed, but that's not how they work at all

That said, an RPG that actually uses MMO mechanics would be interesting, I wish Log Horizon had actually gotten fully translated

>>54169261
I disagree

it's fine having shitty options, as long as you explain "this option is shitty, only use it if everyone else is using shitty options"

the tier list should be official, not a fan-thing

>>54169236

>It's not about the number of combat encounters it's the fact that resolving them is so much more tedious and time consuming in 4e.

You consistently ignore the existence of the math fixes. Are you just trolling at this point?

>>54169236
>A fighter is fundementally different from a wizard and should use completely different resources and mechanics.
This is a mentality you don't see in a vast majority of games, and most of them that do have the same manner of issues concerning parity between the 2 archetypes D&D has.
That doesn't make it better, what it does is show that thematics and not actual game play matter to you.
Another anon said it before "3e was made to be looked at, 4e was made to be played".

>>54168025
4e was a logical follow-up to the play-style of 3e. They asked how people played 3e (as some sort of epic adventure told in a series of set-piece battles) and then built around it.

>>54169192
>>54169237
>>54169246
Upon research, it seems that all the MMOs that use taunts like this in PVP are post 4E ones like SWTOR, so they're probably taking cues from 4E, rather than the other way around. I guess I mixed up the dates in my head.

>>54169285

Why the fuck would you include it if it's bad?

Either make it worthwhile, reduce the cost to make it equal to equivalent options, or just get fucking rid of it.

>>54169236

>You think that one mechanic is more MMO-like than 4E entire power and cooldown system? I mean I don't know what to say at this point...

About as much as Earthdawn's system is MMO like because all classes (Including fighting classes) get the same number of abilities.

4e also doesn't have a cooldown system. No matter how long the battle goes on, you are not getting that fireball back.

>>54169143
Being good at physical combat != having the most options in combat

>>54169151
Honestly I would like to see more distinction between different weapons so that a fighter using a rapier feels completely different to a fighter using a bastard sword or a warhammer...

Giving fighters 20 daily powers with stupid MMO-tier names just so they have "options" is just silly. Probably gonna catch some flak for that but I don't care at this point.

>>54169285
>it's fine having shitty options, as long as you explain "this option is shitty, only use it if everyone else is using shitty options"

THEN WHY INCLUDE SHITTY OPTION AT ALL? WHY SPEND INK, MAN-HOURS AND BOOK SPACE ON IT IF YOU CAN FILL IT WITH LESS SHITTY OPTIONS, OR GOD FORBID, MAKE SHITTY OPTION NOT SHITTY?

I'M DONE, I'M TROLLED SUCCESSFULLY, 10/10, GO FELLATE A CACTUS, GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIR.

>>54169324
>Giving fighters 20 daily powers with stupid MMO-tier names

They always felt more Exalted than MMO to me.

>>54169306
To allow different power levels within the same game system

Take, for example, mage vs hunter in WoD, mages are exceedingly more powerful than hunters, and yet both exist using the same rules in the same world, you're just told straight up that you really, really shouldn't have a mage in a party of hunters

>>54169344
4e does work exceptionally well for wuxia-themed games

>>54169350

Except nothing about that necessitates shitty options.

If you have a system of character generation resources, XP or levels or points or whatever, everything in the system that costs the same amount of resources should be relatively balanced.

If one splat is more powerful, or operates at a higher tier of play? Then they should be building from a higher XP budget. Anything else is shitty, lazy design.

>>54169286
Even with the math fixes how long does your typical 4e encounter last?

>>54169261
What about 5e fighters?

I just don't understand why people (not just you) want to play fighters that are mechanically like wizards. Why not just play a caster at that point?

>>54169285
I don't understand why a designer would do that. If they intentionally make something shitty, they're wasting time and resources on something out of balance with the other options. I mean, in fighting games tier lists are very real, but designers don't look at a game and say "Zangief should suck balls" even though that's what happened. Even if you try to balance all options equally, you inevitable will have some things more optimal than others. But intentionally making something shitty will just piss off people who like that thing, whether the thing in question is Zangief or Fighters.

>>54169344
>>54169372
That's because martials are expressly supposed to become Heracles/Gilgamesh/Cuchulain in scope and power, not regular men.

>>54169384

You're literally taking 'Wizard' to mean 'has any mechanical complexity whatsoever'

That's fucking stupid.

>>54169372
So long as you like fights that take multiple sessions. 4e is just too damn slow, what with all the powers you have to keep track of, the bonuses and penalties on everything, remembering who's marked and who's not, and a hundred other little details.

>>54169379
It does if you're using D&D's "level" system

Your point doesn't disprove my point, it merely points out that D&D's level system is extremely particular and only works if everything else is near-perfect

>>54169180
>>54169208
And I personally prefer a system that focuses on making the individual using martial feats to best his opponent mechanically distinct from those that use magical arts instead. If decreasing the diversity between sorcerer and wizard is the price of that, so be it.

I care more about there being a massive mechanical difference between group of classes that use vastly different methods according to their flavor than I care about equal difference between all classes for the sake of balance.

As such, I prefer 5e above 4e and 3.PF and even 3.PF over 4e. I accept that my opinion is entirely subjective but to this day, 4e strikes me as particularly stale and soulless.
Should I ever wish to play a balanced and well-tuned grid-based tactical combat system with a large number of equally diverse classes, I'll go for 5e.
When it comes to roleplaying games where I want all characters that fling spells to feel vastly different from all characters that don't, I'll go with 5e. It's not perfect but when it comes to D&D, that's the closest I can get.

>>54169436

Math fixes speed it up, as does having a group who is into the combat. If it's not what your group enjoy, don't play it.

>>54169384

It varies. In my IRL game generally 30-45 minutes, although last session they smashed one in 25 with some clever planning. Which is about right for our playstyle, with bossfights being enjoyable longer and more mechanically involved.

>>54169408
Not him but I don't think anyone intentionally made fighters shitty.

The game should go in the opposite direction, reducing spellcasting to a weird narrativistic abstraction like combat, and then further simplifying combat.

>>54169447

Do you play any systems that aren't D&D?

>>54169408
because by this point you're not making two options for the same game, you're making two different games for the same system

To use your analogy, it would be like putting a Guilty Gear character in Street Fighter, with the air-dash, air-blocking, roman cancels and all that shit. That doesn't work, but as different games, they both work just fine

>>54169430
Wizards have more options in combat than fighters due to the fact that there are hundreds of spells they can learn. There are only so many ways you can swing a sword.

There's no way that a fighter and a wizard are going to have the same number of options.

Not to mention that the wizard's spells are often invaluable outside of combat as well...

>>54169499
Yes, although for the purpose of this discussion, I am not speaking about systems outside of D&D. The topic of this thread is simply D&D.

>>54169472
They didn't, they just had no idea what the math would actually come out to, and their playtesting was garbage.
The 3e devs openly admitted they vastly overestimated hitdice and BAB as a measure of power, removed many of the roadblocks that kept casters in 2e under control on top of buffing them, made a skill system that was too easy to game as well as too easy to fuck up.

>>54169547

You're either trolling or incredibly fucking dumb.

You are bringing up the problems that show the double standard is bad and arbitrary, and acting like they support your point. I don't even.

>>54169562

Can I ask what systems? I'm curious because, as mentioned above, very few games actually have the same degree of difference that you seem to prefer. I can only think of a handful, and most of them are d20 clones of one flavour or another.

>>54169577
Okay so how do you propose to redress this perceived imbalance that has existed ever since D&D was created?

>>54169568
Those issues have been adressed in 5e. Wouldn't you agree?

>>54169568
I will never, ever understand why they made full-attacking a full round action, but made the majority of combat spells standard actions

It reversed the standard, now spellcasters are mobile and martials are stationary

Alsio they fucked up saving throws real bad, and those fuckers are still fucked up in 5e

3.5 is a fucking mess and a headache to play. 5e is kind of bland but at least it's playable. 3.5's worthless "options" are a burden, not a benefit.

I can say that when I did play D&D, I had more fun with 5e than 3.5.

>>54169547
>There are only so many ways you can swing a sword.

And fighters get One option there. 'Make an attack'.

>>54169615

There are so many goddamn options. The Tome of Battle was one, 4e was another, the playtest 5e fighter was great before they nerfed it into the grounds for grog appeal.

Or, going back further, dig out Iron Heroes, Mearls's attempt to make interesting D&D martial classes in a way that was completely distinct to magic. It sucked, but not having to deal with the shitshow that was the 3.5 OGL I think a second run at it could be a decent idea.

Or just, I don't know, look at one of the hundreds of RPGs that doesn't have this problem.

>>54169648
Yep that's pretty shitty. They've got more options in 5e though.

>>54169698

Well, if you pick a Battlemaster. The other fighters are kinda shit out of luck there.

>>54169698
they're pretty pathetic honestly, especially when compared to what casters can do

and 5e has a severe issue with the given value of short and long rests

>>54169681
Okay, I don't disagree with any of that. That's all good stuff.

What I don't like giving fighters and all classes the same number of powers with silly names like 'mongoose strike' to essentially turn fighters into 'sword wizards'.

I want fighters to be mechanically distinct from wizards and every other class. Heck I want a fighter with a halberd to be mechanically different to a fighter with a greatsword.

>>54169756

>I want fighters to be mechanically distinct from wizards and every other class. Heck I want a fighter with a halberd to be mechanically different to a fighter with a greatsword.

When was the last time Wizards and Clerics were distinct from each other? They don't even use the same sort of magic but they still use the same system for miracles and for arcane magic.

>>54169730
Why are you always comparing fighters to casters? They're not supposed to be able to do the same things.

>>54169756
>What I don't like giving fighters and all classes the same number of powers with silly names like 'mongoose strike' to essentially turn fighters into 'sword wizards'.

So would you be alright if Fighters got more powers than Wizards if you don't want all classes to have the same amount?

>>54169585
nWoD, L5R, Degenesis, Mouse Guard and 40K RPGs.

You're correct for the most part and it's one of the reasons why I'm always drawn back to D&D, despite its mechanical faults. 3.PF and 5e are some of the only games out there where have clear mechanical segregation between those of a martial nature and those of a magical one.

The other systems I play make up for it by being more mechanically competent and having interesting themes and narratives of their own. But mechanical asymmetry, 5e has won my heart, with even 3.PF occasionally luring me back in despite being awful in a lot of regards.

>>54169756

Here's the thing though.

In 4e? They were mechanically distinct. They used the same structure, but how their powers and features functioned in play made them play completely differently when you actually got down the the game. They only time they look similar is on the sheet.

It didn't make fighters into wizards. It made everyone into heroes and gave every different type of hero their own way of being awesome.

I can understand the desire for distinct subsystems, but the problem is that subsystems almost invariably end up imbalanced. Anima is a great example of that, with Ki, Magic and Psionics all being distinct subsystems. Weirdly? In Anima, Ki using martials are actually the problem, being way more powerful than casters.

>>54169782
>When was the last time Wizards and Clerics were distinct from each other?
Spell selection.

Two wizards or clerics of similar levels will play differently based on what spells they've memorised.

>>54169792
Because they're in the same game

>>54169812
>but the problem is that subsystems almost invariably end up imbalanced
Why does everything have to be 100% balanced all the time? This isn't a video game. There's no competetive element here.

People have fun playing martials in 3.5 believe it or not.

>>54169816

But isn't that the same as Fighters and Wizards having different powers that make them play differently? Why should a cleric and a wizard use the same structure when they are so very different?

>>54169812
People who claim that they made fighters into wizards might as well say "All classes in Etrian Odyssey are the same, you pick an attack from the menu and pick a target"

File: Audatia.png (904KB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 1200x750px

>>54169547
>There are only so many ways you can swing a sword
There's actually a gazillion, before you even factor in increased strength or speed.

>>54169824
So they have to be identical in every respect?

>>54169837
>Why does everything have to be 100% balanced all the time? This isn't a video game. There's no competetive element here.

That doesn't make balance a bad thing to try for, even if it's impossible to perfectly achieve.

>>54169837

Because being balanced makes it a better game. The idea that balance only matters in competitive play is retarded. It's just as important in cooperative games, where you want every team member to be able to contribute equally to the experience of the group.

>>54169837
I enjoy playing martials in 3.5 personally

I just hate doing it when there's a caster around, and I'm always left feeling like I should be able to spend some sort of resource to do a really big hit once per day or something, like spending rage rounds to make a bigger attack as a barbarian, so I can really lay down the hurt when I need to end something as soon as possible

and that's why whenever I play 3.5, I kind end up feeling like i wish it was 4e instead

>>54169859

Comparable isn't the same thing as identical.

>>54169843
I guess because they're both casters.

The same way that a fighter and a barbarian use the same attack roll when they swing their weapons.

>>54169850
Sure but let's assume for a second that we're not autists. It's gonna be hard since this is /tg/ but let's give it a go.

>>54169875

4e's Barbarian was a blast on that front with the Rage Strike system. They could burn any daily to turn it into a raw damage attack no matter what it was in the first place.

>>54169897

>I guess because they're both casters.

But they are not remotely the same fluffwise and not even using the same power source. One is divine, one is arcane. They are as far apart, fluffwise, as they each are from the fighter.

>>54169859
they have to be "comparable"

>>54169837
You know what feels really awful?

Being a Rogue, looking back over what you've contributed to the party, and realising that if the wizard had just bought wands that auto did all the things you did, like wands of invisibility or knock, that it would have cost the party less money over all than what you took from them as your share of the loot

>>54169919
And yet when a fire domain cleric or a wizard cast fireball, it's the same fireball

>>54169862
>>54169863
I mean if you want a balanced game just make everyone roll human fighters and be done with it.

If you want variety you have to accept the inevitable imabalances that come with it. It's a tradeoff. Deal with it.

>>54169875
I really don't understand why people are so butthurt about casters. I mean if you think casters are so great then why not roll one next time? What's stopping you?

>>54169878
Never said it was.

>>54167491
3.5 has more complexity and options, though there're lots of balance issues, specially between Martials and Casters

5e is easier and simpler, but lacks options. The balance is tighter though there're still some small issues.

I'd recommed 5e for new players, people who don't want to much complexity and fast games. 3.5 for people who really know 3.5, wants some complexity, knows tiers and enforces a group of similar tier.

>>54169934

Yeah, which is a shitty system. They should work out better subsystems to make them feel more different rather than making clerics into divine wizards.

>>54169947

Balance doesn't need to come at the cost of diverse and interesting options. That's just excusing shitty, lazy game design.

>>54169837
Because being outshone for no fault of your own other than picking one class over another feels shitty. I played a Paladin in Pathfinder, and the only time I felt useful was when we were disarmed and I used smite evil on a cultist. And even then, the only reason I felt useful was because the Sorcerer didn't enter the fight. Those trolls? Wiped out by fireball. The jail cell? We were shrunk so we could walk through the bars. The mercenaries? The druid's call lightning did more damage in a round than I did the whole fight. The hobgoblins? I rolled a 1 on my attack and fell from my steed while the druid's bear killed 3 of them. Feeling like you're a joke character in the party is a shitty feeling, when my only fault was I wanted to play a paladin and didn't want to go to a charop thread to make me viable.

>>54169919
The distinction between a cleric and wizard isn't as striking as the difference between a fighter and a wizard.

They're both spell casters even though they draw their power from different sources.

>>54169923
They are comparable.

>Being a Rogue, looking back over what you've contributed to the party, and realising that if the wizard had just bought wands that auto did all the things you did, like wands of invisibility or knock, that it would have cost the party less money over all than what you took from them as your share of the loot

How are rogues in 5e?

>>54169350
>>54169443
>To allow different power levels within the same game system
>necessary if you're using D&D's "level" system
Want to play at a low power level? Play at a low level.
Want to play at a high power level? Play at a high level.

No reason to have shitty classes along side good ones.

>>54169947

>If you want variety you have to accept the inevitable imabalances that come with it. It's a tradeoff. Deal with it.

That wasn't the point. Perfect balance is impossible to achieve, however you can strive for balance even with different options. It's a goal.

Heck, there is even a term for working for balance despite having differences in how things actually play. Competitive Balance. The idea that they can be different but balanced.

>>54169963
Show me a game that is completely balanced while at the same time being diverse.

It doesn't exist.

>>54169983
>outshone
Why do you care about this? D&D is a cooperative role playing game. You're not competing against the other players.

If you feel like your character is really gimped or something then just talk to your DM and see if you can work something out.

Maybe he'll throw in a few magic resistant enemies to cuck the casters so that your fighter can shine. Maybe he'll give you a magical item to boost your character's strength.

I don't think I've EVER played a game where everyone's characters were of equal power and contributed equally in every situation.

That would be a pretty boring game desu.

>>54169947
All RPGs are about fufilling a fantasy. Is that fantasy being investigators who stumble upon an eldritch truth? Play CoC. But what happens when someone wants to play Conan rather than Gandalf? Well according to you, their desire to have fun as Conan is incompatible with someone also playing Gandalf, who I would like to remind you did such impressive things as making pinecone grenades and making the sun rise early. Like many caster supremacists, you want casters to be gods, but martials to be bumfuck nobodies.

Fuck you, and fuck the horse you rode in on.

>>54167491
If playing some variety of 3.x, pathfinder is the best option by far. You can include/convert 3.0 and 3.5 options on the fly if you feel inclined to add them, but you don't really need to.

3.x is not well balanced, which means you should play with a subset of the options, by tier.

There are unfortunately a lot of trap options that are never worth taking.

Everything from feats to spells to class features to classes to skills comes in a variety of power levels, and the system leaves you to determine what's worth taking.

It leans towards the complex end of things.

But it has more content than any other game, even before you consider all the 3rd party support you could include if you so chose.

For newbies you want to make use of guides until you've figured out what options are good.

The classes are designed for a certain quality of gear. If you starve your players for quality gear and ignore the wealth by level rules, existing balance discrepancies are multiplied.

It's also a high powered game with high powered characters in a high powered world. Less lord of the rings, more fantasy Avengers.

5e is simpler, better balanced (but still could be better). It has less trap options. It's also much lower powered overall, but the existing class balance discrepancies are very similar to 3.x. Much better for newbies.

However it has minimal options or customization, and what is available is mostly rough playtest materials. It also has holes in the rules where they gave minimal guidelines with "make something up" being more or less the official response, where 3.x hands you those rules in detail.

You can view more of what people didn't like about it in the current "what went wrong" thread.

Id suggest 5e if you're newbies wanting a basic fantasy game.

Id suggest pathfinder, or pathfinder with added 3.5 materials if you want a highly customizable high powered game with tons of content that takes more investment and the dm/group have to provide the balance.

>>54170005
We are striving for balance but not at the cost of diversity.

Nobody is deliberately creating imbalances.

Like I said: you want balance? Have everyone roll the same race and class with the same ability scores.

>>54170040

Completely balanced isn't the point and has never been the point. All bringing it up shows is that you either don't understand what you're talking about or you're being intentionally ignorant in an attempt to defend a stupid point.

>>54167550
It suffers from a good portion of them, but not all of them.

>>54167656
Fighters area bad class in 5e too. Battlemaster being the passable exception.

>people praising 5e
Holy shit. Can you nerds have less spine? 5e has as many trap options, if not more, compared to 3.5. A lot of them are situational and useless. And that's just the base book. Splat books introduce power creep and barely fix the original phb.

3.5 Sucks as well, but atleast it can be mangled in nearly any way without breaking it further, meanwhile 5e starts to chug the moment you stray 3 inches from the books.

>>54170078
>Like I said: you want balance? Have everyone roll the same race and class with the same ability scores.

You didn't bother reading the post at all beyond the fact it had the word 'Balance' in it did you? It was expressly about things being diverse but more balanced.

>>54170046
>But what happens when someone wants to play Conan rather than Gandalf? Well according to you, their desire to have fun as Conan is incompatible with someone also playing Gandalf
That's not what I'm saying at all.

It's stupid to want to play Conan but then complain that you can't do what Gandalf can do.

Capiche?

>>54170059
If you're playing pathfinder, play with dreamscarred press material

It's 3rd party, but it's very well made

Also, remember the tier list, always remember the tier list

>>54170040

See >>54169863

Also, 'The GM can fix it' is not an excuse for shitty system design.

>>54170040
I reiterate
>Feeling like you're a joke character in the party is a shitty feeling
We're not competing, but one person *playing* Pandelume while another plays Gimli is a different experience than a passive story where we *observe* them co-operating. Try playing a 3.5 Fighter sometimes, and see if you get what I mean.

>>54170120
Agreed.

Though path of war characters do too much damage before level 6.

>>54170115

If both are presented as equal options, they should have roughly equal ability to interact with the game. Not the same ability, but equal ability. It is an important difference.

>>54170106
It has shitty options, and really shitty support (the first errata nerfed the weakest option in the game, this is inexcusable) but it's better than 3.5

Also, far quicker and easier to run

>>54170113
Balance always comes at the cost of diversity.

Show me a single game that's balanced and offers a wide range of diverse playstyles.

>>54170086
See my previous posts.

This obsession with balance seems to be a spill over from the video game world.

I feel like I'm literally reading the WoW forums where Warriors are crying about Mages being OP or some shit.

>>54170182
>Show me a single game that's balanced and offers a wide range of diverse playstyles.

Street Fighter?

>>54170106
Please tell me of the 5e power creep. Talk to anyone who plays 5e and they'll tell you that they're practically starved for content, not inundated with it. Please tell me how an Oath of the Crown Paladin makes Oath of Devotion obsolete.

>>54170182
>This obsession with balance seems to be a spill over from the video game world.

video games got the idea from D&D, not vice versa

>>54170150
If you feel like 3.5 fighters are shit then either don't play a fighter or don't play 3.5

>>54170163
They do have roughly equal ability depending on the situation. What are you talking about?

How are fighters and wizards drastically imbalanced in 5e?

>>54170182
L5R

Perfectly balanced? Hell no, but balanced enough

>>54170182

4e.

Very diverse playstyles, lots of unique options, relatively well balanced. It might look similar on the surface, but that doesn't make it any less diverse. The balance isn't perfect, sure, but it's all within the same generally functional range.

File: 5279517+_68c8745459117fceb45e7c861298f943.gif (403KB, 253x200px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 253x200px

>>54170174
>the first errata nerfed the weakest option in the game
Tell me more about this one. I did hear about ranger being reworked, but still nobody plays him.

>>54170203
>what are tier lists
That's probably the worst example you could have given me.

>>54170206
What idea are you talking about?

>>54170215

The utility gap. Casters spells still completely outpace what a martial can reasonably achieve with skills, even if you include the fact that skills aren't limited in the way spells are.

>>54170215
wizards can teleport vast distances, mind control people, turn people invisible and fly

In combat they're closer, but out of combat the sheer utility of the wizard is overwhelming, so much so that when I played a wizard, I got so sick of being able to just end non-combat conflicts that I stopped preparing any non-combat spells

>>54170220
About as balanced as 5e

>>54170228
I said that offers a wide range of diverse playstyles.

4e doesn't do that and it's not balanced either. There's plenty of overpowered bullshit in 4e.

>>54169947
>Never said it was.
No, you basically did.

>Why are you always comparing fighters to casters? They're not supposed to be able to do the same things.
>Because they're in the same game
>So they have to be identical in every respect?
>Comparable isn't the same thing as identical.
>Never said it was.

>>54170236
>What idea are you talking about?

game balance

>>54170235
They nerfed Wot4E, basically made some powers of higher level than in the PHB, and turned water whip into an ACTION instead of Bonus Action.

UA Ranger is pretty good, I wish I could play it though, my current group dislikes UA.

>>54170240
How are you going to fix that though? Wizards have always had more options.

>>54170246
See above.

>>54170249

>I said that offers a wide range of diverse playstyles.

And 4e offers that.

>>54170235
The weakest option in core 5e was the four elements monk, it had one thing going for it, the ability to spend ki to deal decent damage and either knock prone or pull the target closer to you as a bonus action, this was the only thing it got that was worth it's ki cost, everything else was vastly overpriced in both action economy and ki

Then in the errata, they made it a standard action, so now it's overpriced in terms of action economy and ki, just like everything else it gets, rendering the whole option worthless

>>54170256
Show me where in the OSR stuff it says that all classes are roughly equivalent in power.

>>54170249

So you're just going to outright reject facts?

4e offers a diverse selection of playstyles, and is functionally balanced. There are some weaker and stronger options, but they're unlikely to create a problem unless you go looking for them, unlike the minefield that is 3.PF.

That's what we mean by functional balance. It doesn't mean everything being the same and nothing being stronger or weaker, it just means that the vast majority of options will lie within the same relatively narrow range to ensure that everyone is able to interact with the system on the same scale.

>>54170249
More balanced than 5e, casting spells in L5R is a lot harder, maintaining concentration is harder, spells take a long time cast and it's easier to just fuck up and fail at casting a spell

>>54170285
No it doesn't. It just makes everyone a wizard with different spells.

>>54170318

Stop repeating lies and memes. If you don't actually know anything about the system, just admit your ignorance rather than looking like an idiot.

>>54170318

Ok, what doesn't it offer playstyle-wise? What mechanical things can't you do?

>>54170311
4e is boring because all the classes are homogenised. There are no distinct playstyles in 4e.

>>54170313
So basically "balance" to you means that spellcasters are shit. Gotcha.

>>54170349

Stop lying

>>54170326
I mean if 4e is so perfectly balanced and great then why was it such a flop.

I'll give you a few minutes to work this one out.

>>54170332
Nothing. Everyone can do the same shit.

>>54170375

>Nothing. Everyone can do the same shit.

Wait, so it's not versatile but there is nothing you can't do?

>>54170375

How is that in any way relevant to your original point?

Also, stop lying.

>>54170286
They also made stoneskin a 17th level feature, instead of a 11th level one as it was in the PHB.

>>54170396
I never said it wasn't "versatile" I said it was boring because all the classes were homogenised.

>>54170375
>why was it such a flop
Because is a neat board game.

>>54170349
Just because spellcasting is harder doesn't mean it's shit

Spellcasting in L5R is difficult, but extremely powerful, typically if you can get a level 3 spell off, you will end any fight instantly, but doing so necessitates protection, protection typically provided by a bushi, because you need three full rounds to cast a level 3 spell, and if you get hit, you're not casting that spell

This is a good way of doing powerful magic, because the martial is necessary for it to work, it's a lot like how 2nd edition did it actually

>>54170417

Stop lying

>>54170375

>Flop
>Financially successful, outsold its competitors while it was still in production

>>54170425
>you need three full rounds to cast a level 3 spell
Just spend void like nigga.

>>54170398
So you don't think that a more balanced version of D&D would be better received?

Maybe "balance" isn't that important after all then. Especially when it comes at the cost of variety.

>>54170417

But they are not. A Warden doesn't play like a Swordmage doesn't play like a Paladin and all 3 of them are Defenders.

>>54170318
>>54170349
>>54170417
Yes, I like my leather armor wearing wizards who hit people with their daggers. And my naturistic wizards who can summon animals and shapeshift. And holy wizards who inflict divine judgment on enemies who ignore them. Such homogenization.

File: balance.png (368KB, 902x662px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 902x662px

>>54170302
1st edition literally starts talking about class balance right in the preface and introduction, and how they nerfed and buffed some classes to keep anyone from being overshadowed. released 1978, MMOs were not really a big thing at the time.

>>54170451

How is that in any way relevant to your original point?

>>54170434
>sold worse than its predecessor and its successor

I mean if it was such a success why didn't they carry over all the brilliant 4e mechanics into 5e?

Maybe because it was shit? No... No that can't be it...

>>54170491

Every edition of D&D has outsold its predecessor.

5e contains a significant number of mechanics inspired by 4e.

Stop lying.

>>54170456
They all play exactly the same.

>>54170471
>my spells do physical damage instead of arcane
>woooooow so different much variety

>>54170491
Because 5e was made to appease the loud people

It really is amazing, they included what 3.5 fanboys complained about 4e healing surges were (which they weren't ) as hit dice and no one batted an eyelid, i have no idea how they managed to get away with that

>>54170528

Stop lying

>>54170528

>They all play exactly the same.

No, they really don't. How does a swordmage play like a fighter other than 'Having powers'?

>>54170528
Maybe it's a wild thought, but perhaps you could give 4e a shot?

It's obvious youve never played it before, but if you tried it out, you might like it, and if you don't, then you'd be able to make better arguments against it instead of spouting misinformation

>>54170507
>Every edition of D&D has outsold its predecessor.
Citation needed.

AFAIK 3e outsold 4e by a significant margin. Though this could be attributed to the fact that it was in production for a longer period of time.

>>54170484
Well there you have it then. AD&D is perfectly balanced.

>>54170486
My point is that balance isn't really that big of a deal as long as people are having fun.

Case in point: 4E. Quite balanced but boring as fuck and poorly received by the community.

>>54170583

But that isn't relevant to what you asked.

>>54170182
>Show me a single game that's balanced and offers a wide range of diverse playstyles.

You're evading your own questions to try and support your assertions despite a complete lack of evidence or argument.

>>54170555
Because those powers do exactly the same thing just with semantic differences.

>>54170566
I have played it. I was super excited for it when it came out. I really wanted to like it believe me...

>>54170583
4e was boring as fuck until MM3, which also said how to fix the problem with the previous monster manuals.

If it's boring after that, you are obviously a shit DM

File: 1486268978268.jpg (158KB, 635x914px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 635x914px

>>54167491
Part 1

>What are the main differences between 3.5 and 5E?
3.5/Pathfinder have a whole lot more character options such as classes, feats, and race mechanics and can don’t have the stats max out at 20 like in 5e so 3.5 characters can deal a lot more damage than a 5e character could.

The skill system in 5e is a little too simplified. In 5e when you gain proficiency you are only slightly better at making a skill check than someone who isn’t proficient at all. So building a skill focused character in 5e is very hard to do and not as good as 3.5/pathfinder because of the skill rank system.

5e keeps most numbers small and attack bonuses low, so in theory if a group of level 20s encounters enough challenge rating 1s the monster could eventually kill them. In 3.5 it’s a lot harder for lower ranked monsters to stay a threat. I think they fixed that option a little in Pathfinder

>Which would you recommend for a new group and why?
Brand new, never played a game before in their life, new players can learn 5e really easy. Some people even nickname/shit talk that it’s baby’s 1st D&D for how simple and idiot proof it is. However after playing 5e for two years I find the skill system and combat a little bland compared to Pathfinder. Some of the classes in 5e feel very samey and characters playing the same class tend to not do much different from the other to stand out. For example, the 5e cleric is very simple and if you play one version of a cleric, you pretty much have played every version of a cleric in 5e.

I’d start with 5e to get the basics down and then if you’re players want more character options or more game mechanics move onto another system like Pathfinder or some other system entirely.

>>54170612

Stop lying

>>54170608
>>Show me a single game that's balanced and offers a wide range of diverse playstyles.
You still haven't done this.

Every game listed so far is either unbalanced or lacking in variety.

>>54170635

So you're outright rejecting facts and standing by your assertions despite being called out on the fact that you are lying?

>>54170612
>Because those powers do exactly the same thing just with semantic differences.

Alright, let's look at the basic defender feature of each of them:

Fighter: If a guy tries to move of shift around you, you get to whack him in the face and stop him from moving.

Swordmage: If you've put your Aegis on a guy, you can teleport next to him or severely reduce his damage whenever he tries to attack one of your allies.

How are those just 'Semantic differences'?

>>54170644
>my opinions are facts
That's not how it works anon.

>>54170663

This isn't about opinion. This is about facts. You have said things that are objectively untrue, and continue to try to use them to support your arguments. You are a liar.

>>54170652
>cherry picking
Every class has offensive and defensive abilities.

>>54170619
You are a horrible person, a truly terrible individual spreading pain and misery

Of everything, everything you could and should say about 5e and 3.5, you say that 5e's skill system is "too simplified" compared to 3.5

The 3.5 skill system is a horrendous monster that needed to be killed the moment it was conceived, even if you like everything else about 3.5, the skill system fucking sucks, the worst kind of skill system I have seen in any RPG

File: 1486271007163.jpg (148KB, 688x1000px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 688x1000px

>>54167491
>>54170619
Part 2

>Is there any benefit to using 5E?
As much as I like Pathfinder better, I do admit I love how easy it is to teach new players how to play and how much little effort you have to put into preparing for a session. However 5e does have very little variety of monsters compared to Pathfinder but converting them shouldn’t be too hard.

One skill based thing 5e did great was passive perception and I’ve been trying to figure a way to make it work in my Pathfinder games. It give you a number that the players can detect hidden traps, objects and sneaking enemies without telling your players to roll perception or rolling their perception checks yourself, giving away a surprise or making them suspicious if they roll too low.

I also like how movement in 5e is a meter that ticks down as you move through spaces. In 3.5 & Pathfinder if you can move 6 squares (30ft) if you move 2 squares on your turn and attack you can’t move the other 20ft since you already used your move action. In 5e you can move ten feet, attack and move the rest of your 20ft left to somewhere else. I house rule movement to work like 5e in Pathfinder and it doesn’t break anything.

>>54170685

And?

>>54170673
>You have said things that are objectively untrue
Like what?

>>54170685

How is it cherry picking to pick the core feature of two classes in the same role to demonstrate differences.

>Every class has offensive and defensive abilities.

That could be said for...most every game ever.

>>54170689
You must not have played many rpgs if you consider the worst.

That still doesn't change the fact that 5e is a terrible game to make skill based characters in compared to Pathfinder.

>>54170704

Almost everything you've said about 4e class design is factually untrue.

>>54170685
Warden: If a guy tries to attack an ally and you've used your mark on him last turn, he's rooted in place and grants combat advantage to everyone

Battlemind: If a guy attacks an ally and you placed your demand on him and you're adjacent to him, he takes exactly the amount of damage he inflicts

Paladin: if a guy attacks an ally and your challenge is on him regardless of where you are, he is hit for radiant damage equal to your charisma + a bit, this one doesn't take an action, so with multiple sanctions and challenges, you can punish multiple times

>>54170739
Give me an example of something I've said that it objectively false.

>>54170769
just because something isn't objectively false does not by extension mean it is objectively true

>>54167857
4e didn't really simplify things at all. It made combat four times as slow and made it impossible to play without minis on a square grid, while other editions allow you to play with gridless minis, hexes, or your imagination. Because all 4e classes were equally complex, there was no simple option to give to new or airheaded players like in other editions. Every class was more-or-less as powerful as a wizard, which is a good thing in theory, but they did it by making every class a refluffed wizard that you needed a fistful of power cards or four extra pages on your character sheet to play. Only a minority of players are interested in playing something that complex, and even fewer are capable of doing it in a time-efficient manner (looking up what their powers do BEFORE their turn comes around, for example.)

>>54170766
If you honestly thinkt that those abilities aren't essentially the same or at least VERY similar then I don't know what to say.

Keep playing 4e with whoever else still play it these days. I don't want people like you in my games.

>>54170612
>>54170528

>They all play exactly the same.
>Because those powers do exactly the same thing just with semantic differences.

http://funin.space/compendium/class/
http://funin.space/compendium/power/

Factually, objectively false.

>>54170788
So you can't give me an example of something I've said that's factually incorrect. Good to know.

>>54170802

You're literally retarded if you don't see how those are extremely different.

>>54170826
no, because everything you've said is subjective, it's all opinion

>>54170826

see >>54170824

>>54170824
>it's different because fighters do physical damage and wizards do magical damage
>also the powers have different names so they must be different

>>54170840
they're not "extremely" different, they're different ways to accomplish the same goal

The point is though that they're all more different than what a 3.5 fighter does compared to a 3.5 Barbarian, or what a 3.5 wizard does compared to a 3.5 sorcerer

>>54170861

Actually read it. Go on. Challenge your assumptions, learn something, and stop lying.

File: Strv202.pdf (1MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1x1px

>>54170484
Here's an even older one: "The D&D Magic System" by Gary Gygax in Strategic Review 2.2, from 1976, is a pre-AD&D look into the idea of class balance in D&D.

>Magic-use was thereby to be powerful enough to enable its followers to compete with any other type of player-character, and yet the use of magic would not be so great as to make those using it overshadow all others.

>The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in their competition. Magic-users must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. The new class, thieves, have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the referee is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of player-characters. It is the opinion of this writer that the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals, for that will maintain freshness in the campaign (providing that advancement is slow and there is always some new goal to strive for).

This one predates even Space Invaders, let alone WoW.

File: 01e3bddc-edae-4f49-a0f2-3786637eef36.jpg (41KB, 360x550px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 360x550px

>>54167491

For a new group, the amount of material in 3.5 is just asking to overwhelm them with a labyrinth of awful rules and options. The edition's bloat is a sticking point even with experienced players.

5th edition has far less of this bloat (but if the core books don't feel like enough there's unearthed arcana). It's also got a rulebook that helps guide newcomers through the process better, and a leveling system that better introduces new players to their classes and abilities organically (assuming you start at level one).

>>54170843
Okay so don't go claiming that it's factually untrue then.

File: 1361859510579.jpg (220KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 600x600px

>come back home
>/tg/ still feeds the troll
i know you guys have weird fetishes, but please stop. You aren't gonna convince him, he isn't gonna tell something that's not bumfuck retarded. It's pointless. Go prepare cool campaigns instead.
you guys DO play RPS, right?

>>54170884
who the hell do you think I am?

>>54170884

>If I ignore the proof that I'm lying it doesn't exist

>>54170906
Watching a troll act like an idiot makes me feel good about myself

"There are people this stupid out there, and I'm not one of them" is a good feeling, even it's all just for show

>>54170906
>RPGs*
fuck.

File: Great Googly Moogly.jpg (253KB, 743x883px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 743x883px

>>54170797
>while other editions allow you to play with gridless minis, hexes, or your imagination

(You)

>>54170797
The whole point of 4e was for Wizards of the Synagogue to sells their minis and monthly subscriptions to D&D Insider to the goyim.

They didn't just copy the mechanics of MMO's they also copied the fucking price structure.

How anyone can play and enjoy that garbagefest is beyond me.

>>54169947
>If you want variety you have to accept the inevitable imabalances that come with it. It's a tradeoff. Deal with it.
You can have different margins of imbalance. It's not all or nothing.

Just because variety necessarily introduces some imbalance, that doesn't mean it has to be as insanely imbalanced in one specific direction as 3.PF.

>>54168025
It was. They took a lot of the complaints about 3.5 and fixed what they could to make 4e.

I'm going to make a really dumb analogy here, so bear with me for a moment.

3.5 was like an old bike people had. The seat was touch and cracked, the wheels wobbled a bit, and one of the handlebars was missing a grip. It was a technically functional bike as long as you replaced the duct tape keeping parts of it on at times, and it got you from point A to point B well enough.

He decided his bike was annoying and gave a list of complaints to..the bike company or something, idk. So they gave him a new bike. Sure the wheels were a little wider than he was used to, but it was cleaned up, the busted parts replaced, and it worked much better for what he needed the bike for.

But being one of the many autists that infests this hobby like myself, he realized it was a different bike and lashed out. He didn't like his old bike, but he hated change more and latched onto his old bike with a death grip. Then a company like Paizo comes along and offers him basically his old bike, but with some extra bells and whistles, and the other handlebar grip torn off, and painted a slightly different shade of red. It has the same problems, some added new ones, and some extra meaningless bullshit, but it was familiar enough that he was willing to take it because he disliked the change the new bike would cause.

And then for 5e, they took the new bike, tossed out a lot of the fixes, and tried to keep the old problems while making them less obvious, like using duct tape instead of a handlebar grip.

So basically we're just fighting over whoi has the better bicycle. Except no one does because they're imaginary bicycles. or something.

>>54169902
4e had a lot of really fun classes.

I'm still pissed we're never going to get another Warlord as long as Mearls is in charge.

>>54170182
Apocalypse World

>>54171270

Warlords are the fucking best. My first and still favourite 4e character was a Dragonborn Bravura Warlord. Leading from the front, taking ridiculous risks and kicking ass for Bahamut with an eventual Paladin multiclass.

>>54170249
>I said that offers a wide range of diverse playstyles.

...so 4e?

>>54171044
And yet they cancelled D&D minis a couple of years in. And what was supposed to be the main point of D&D Insider ended up being permanent vaporware.

>>54171270
>we're never going to get another Warlord
A real shame, is a really neat archetype.

>>54170906
Bless me father for I have sinned I have never been to /tg/ confession, and these are my sins. I have argued with a casterfag, and even though he made no new or compelling arguments, I bickered with him nonetheless. I am sorry for these sins and all the sins of my life and I ask for absolution and penance of thee my father

>>54171270
>>54171296
>>54171345
What even is a warlord from a lore perspective? Do we really need another martial class?

>>54169782
>When was the last time Wizards and Clerics were distinct from each other?
Uh...4e

>>54171296
I remember playign one that was basically Medieval Hong Kong Phooey. "Lazy" Warlord who's (in-character) combat ability was as bad as his ego was big. And his ego was fucking huge. He even had his name changed to Hero because he was the "Hero of my own story" style douchebag.

His method of attack granting was basically running up and ineptly attacking an enemy, then an ally smacking the enemy in the face because Hero was leaving himself wide open like the doofus he was, and then Hero assuming he did all the work there.

That was a great game. Hero also had a real fucking uncanny habit of rolling Nat 20s when it came to History checks. Specifically just History checks. It was strange as hell.

>>54171390
>What even is a warlord from a lore perspective?
A warlord, duh.

>Do we really need another martial class?
What do you want? More elves and more casters?

>>54171399

Lazylords are such a strange and wonderful thing, but I fucking love them.

The only class in the game where your required equipment might as well be a deckchair. Just sit back, relax and let the peons kick ass for you, with a bit of modest encouragement on the way.

>>54171409
Explain to me what a warlord is and how it's any different from a fighter lorewise.

We have enough elves and wizards as well.

>>54171444

Because they're a heroic leader of men, valuable for their tactical acumen or inspiring presence more than for their skill at arms. A fighter might be a sterling soldier, but a Warlord is the officer who ensures his soldiers can fight to the best of their ability.

>>54171444
The warlord is a charismatic leader and/or an army officer. Basically a more "social" oriented warrior. Like the Noble class in the Conan game.

>>54171444
The simplest way I can think of to explain it is:

A Fighter hits you with his Fullblade
A Warlord hits you with his Fighter.

Warlords are still fighty, as was every martial class in 4e to a degree. They don't have quite the damage output of a striker, but they're main role in combat was to inspire the rest of your party, and generally make them better at what they're already doing. That and handing out off-turn attacks like candy on halloween.

They're basically military-leaders with a "lead by example" style of inspiration. They could get up close and personal, but their main goal was making everyone else be the best they can.

>>54171466
So they're just better than fighters then.

>>54171474
It just seems really redundant to me. Aren't Paladins supposed to be the charismatic leaders?

>>54171514

No? Neither is better, they have different but equivalent and mutually beneficial skillsets.

Y'know, the foundation for good class design in cooperative RPGs.

>>54171514
Weak bait.

>>54171500
You're kinda making it sound like a bard now.

So basically the warlord is the guy standing around barking orders at people without actually doing any fighting?

>>54171514
>Aren't Paladins supposed to be the charismatic leaders?
No, they are holy warriors and the god's chosen. Unless you mean the historic paladins.

>It just seems really redundant to me
Sorcerer, Mage, Cleric, is redundant, why not just "magic dude" class?

>>54171514
>Warlocks just seem really redundant to me. Aren't Sorcerers supposed to be the charismatic casters?

>>54171547
The warlord is the guy barking orders at people while fighting.

>>54171550
Sorcerers and wizards are redundant I agree. Clerics are different though.

>>54171547

Depends on the Warlord. Lazylords do that, but others get stuck in. The difference is that, rather than doing the direct fighting of the Fighter, they'll have an ulterior motive. A distracting attack to open up an opportunity for an ally, some clever manoeuvring to put an enemy at a disadvantage or get an ally out of trouble... Or just charging in and brutalising the fucker so hard everyone else is energised and gets in on the action.

>>54171547
Admittedly they did have a bit of overlap with Bards, as Sorcerers do with Wizards, or Paladins do with Clerics.

While he could be the back-line order-barking guy, a Warlord was typically in the thick of things with the rest of the front-line.

Think of a Warlord as a more of a front-line Bard, and his charisma was more of a force of personality than the Bard's sex appeal.

>>54171547
Have you seen/read Drifters? Oda Nobunaga is a warlord, Shimazu Toyohisa is a fighter.

>>54171572
>learn magic
>tell gullible goy that god lend you his power
EZ religion, EZ live, EZ money, same class.

I haven't played much of 5e but already I'm not really a fan.

Not quite sure what it is but it feels so bland and uninteresting.

>>54171600

5e is an incredibly safe game. 4e, for better or worse, was WotC trying something new, and they suffered for it. 5e is an attempt to appeal to everyone in the most inoffensive way possible.

It's interesting, despite massive initial positivity and still great player numbers, I'm seeing more and more enthusiast members of the hobby becoming bored of it. It worked initially, but because they played it so safe (and have a very limited release schedule due to internal stuff at Hasbro/WotC) it lacks lasting appeal for those with more than just a casual interest.

The dumb thing about warlords is that their abilities are twisted around the rules of the game they're in. They aren't really suited to roleplay the part of a brilliant planner or leader, because most of their powers don't work unless they're hitting someone with a melee weapon, and none of their powers work outside of a fairly short radius. They can't, for example, formulate a good plan for the future or command an army in the field that takes up more space than the range of his powers. And even a warlord who's supposed to be Int-heavy can't put his plans and insights into words. If he's not physically there doing it himself, none of his shit works.
Real leaders know how to delegate. It's almost the defining trait of leadership. Warlord's can't.

Their ability to heal people just by yelling at them also strains suspension of disbelief. And before you complain that HP aren't meat points and represent fighting spirit or whatever, that's only partially true. There comes a point at which you lose enough HP to be literally physically injured, even in 4e.

>>54171677
>>Their ability to heal people just by yelling at them also strains suspension of disbelief.

Ay, I was wondering when someone would post this bait. Took you long enough.

>>54171677

Powers are an abstraction suited to small scale tactical combat. Mass combat is beyond the scope of 4e, and if you're engaging in it the GM will be improvising anyway, so what the powers say doesn't actually matter.

Also, fuck you, there is nothing strange about warlord healing.

>>54171677
>play 4ed mage
>instead of D&D mage I'm the CC guy form a gook MMORPG
wew

>>54171677
This is 4e we're talking about.

Nothing makes sense but nobody cares as long as it's mechanically balanced.

>>54171752

Alternatively, it makes perfect sense if you work with the systems internal logic and understand how it does things, instead of trying to apply it in ways that it was clearly not intended for.

>>54171773
>it makes perfect sense if you just perform Olympic level mental gymnastics

>>54171797
>rewriting some flavor text requires rocket science

>>54171797

I guess it must feel like that if you're staggeringly unimaginative and mentally inflexible.

4e has always made perfect sense to me, because I came to the system on its own terms rather than making assumptions rooted in older versions of the system which are no longer true.

>>54171797
>being retarded
HP in 4ed is like an action movie or a shounen, you get only light wounds and bruises until you die. But (you) already know this, right?

>>54171797
I always thought people saying 3.PF gave a generation of TTRPG players brain damage was just a meme, but I thank you for proving to me it wasn't.

>>54171825
>a fighter can only perform a certain manoeuvre exactly once per day

This makes zero sense. It's only there for gameplay reasons.

There are dozens of other examples. 4e is a joke and I'm glad it's dead and buried.

>>54171704
Even small scale tactical combat is not an environment that makes sense for the warlord. Every warlord power with the Weapon keyword makes no sense unless you have some kind of brilliant but fickle intelligent weapon that will tell you how to lead your friends to victory, but only if you keep hitting things with it.

Also, consider the implications of all the warlord's "buffing" abilities. Every PC could be making extra attacks every turn, healing themselves without even taking a moment for a second wind, and having higher stats in general, but they're too stupid to realize it without some guy reminding them that they can. They never learn that this guy isn't magic and they could just do the sort of stuff he says without being told to.

>>54171909

Thank you for proving my point. You don't understand the system and refuse to try, so you blame it for your own failure.

>>54171913

3/10, you got a few replies

>>54171921
>ad hominem
>doesn't present an argument
4e cucks are the worst. Go play your shitty minis wargame and stop posting in d&d threads

>>54171909
God I hate what 3.PF did to this hobby.

>>54171969

There's no need for one. By your statement, you've proven you lack the ability to understand the game, so instead you complain about it in ways that only serve to let people who actually understand the system know you're stupid.

>>54167950
here's your (you)
4e trash lol

>>54171999
How is that in any way related to 3.PF

4e cucks are autistic. You point out a valid flaw in 4e and they start sperging about 3.PF for no reason at all.

Go ahead and explain logically why a fighter can't swing his sword a certain way more than exactly once every 24 hours.

>>54172081
>How is that in any way related to 3.PF

The brain damage that system gave to players. The sort of which you continue making yourself a case example, and are exactly the sort of reason why no one takes 3.PF players seriously.

>>54172081

>Go ahead and explain logically why a fighter can't swing his sword a certain way more than exactly once every 24 hours.

The point is that this isn't actually the case. It's just you applying stupid assumptions to the system rather than taking it on its own terms.

>>54172120
I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm not a 3.PF player.

>>54172139

I'm sorry about whatever accident inflicted the brain damage instead, then. Lucky you didn't play it, or it could be so much worse.

>>54172139
I'm shaming the game, not you. You don't have to be in denial.

>>54172171
>>54172154
Like clockwork.

Everytime you criticise 4e, the 4e cucks lash out at 3.PF

Like wtf niggers. Nobody's even talking about 3.PF. I'm talking about how dumb the 4e mechanics are and so far you can't even defend them.

>>54172198

Because you aren't making a real criticism. You're misunderstanding the game and saying something stupid. There isn't any real response to that other than to point and laugh.

>>54172213
Explain to me why a fighter can only use brute strike once a day.

I'm waiting...

>>54172248
Same reason Barbarians can only be angry x amount of times per day in 3.PF.

>>54171514
No. They're nonmagical melee bards.

>>54172295
I don't play 3.PF

Are you able to talk about 4e without mentioning 3.PF? Holy shit dude that game must have deeply traumatised you.

>>54172248

Because you're still being stupid and making an assumption that the system does not support.

Powers are narrative abstractions, martial powers doubly so- They're called 'exploits' for a reason. They represent a fleeting opportunity to do something truly spectacular. The character, in universe, isn't aware of the existence of powers or that one was used, they just know they made use of an opportunity to kick someone's shit in.

But you won't accept this, or will continue to fail to understand it, because this line of conversation never goes anywhere.

>>54172248
Because otherwise you get Essentials Fighters or the 3.5 Fighter, which were both shit, or you get Warblades. Their design doesn't work in 4E because outside of consumables they're decoupled from resource management entirely.

>>54172338

People keep assuming you play 3.PF because you keep making statements and assumptions that are rooted in how 3.PF works. It's just a little suspicious that you're so eager to tell everybody that you've totally never played it at all, too, despite posting in a thread directly related to it.

>still falling for the oversimplification + pretending to be retarded
Stop giving him (you)s.

>>54171633
If gambling didn't involve risk it wouldn't be gambling, it would be just doing the thing that makes sense.

WotC took a risk. It didn't work out how they hoped. So they went back to what worked for them before as the basis for their next venture.

>>54172356
>>54172373
Why can't you just admit that this is purely for balance purposes and that it makes zero sense otherwise?

Oh right 4e cucks are mentally deficient.

Enjoy your dead game.

>>54172410

>Offered a full logical explanation of why it makes sense with the systems internal logic
>Reply just repeats the same bullshit

7/10 you got more replies out of me than you deserve

>>54169447
Take note of this poster.

Essentials classes were made for these retards and they don't even care.

Even when the battlemaster is basically the 4e Slayer.

It doesn't matter to them because it's the presentation they care about, not what things mean.

>>54172430

It is the weird thing about people who hate 4e. They're obsessed with structure and formatting to the point of ignoring actual mechanics in favour of how things look. It's bloody strange.