>3.X/Pathfinder >attacker makes attack rolls against AC,

>>54485930
4e in my opinion, but 5e is decent enough. 3.X/P is terrible

5e seems like a good direction, except that it seems like a good idea from a few people that the rest of the designers didn't understand so well.

For example, Int saves and Cha saves are largely nonsensical, and the former is almost nonexistant. Apparently, it's because they're saving them for psionics, but that's a particularly poor design choice, considering some people will not want to play with psionics.

All in all, it's something I hope to see improved in 6e, but until then, it works pretty well and I've also ended up homebrewing some more int save targeting powers just to keep it from being the go-to dump stat for everyone except the wizard.

>>54485930
4E since players actually have the ability to target specific defenses

File: 1462249031598.png (271KB, 600x843px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 600x843px

>>54486067

D&D 5e has no rhyme or reason to whether something targets Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.

The Player's Handbook spells are bad enough with this, but then you get to the Monster Manual and Unearthed Arcana: Mystic, and Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma saving throws become totally arbitrary.

It hardly helps that most monsters have low Intelligence and/or Charisma saving throws, so targeting those (e.g. Banishment) is usually very effective.

4e.

I could get behind 5e's method as a good way of reducing the sheer number of stats on the sheet but only if they bit the bullet and pruned the number of abilities to like, 4. Six different saving throws is too many. And in any case they ruined it by working in the dumb "proficiency" mechanic. If you have a good Con score then you should always have a good Con save for your level!

On the other hand I really don't like how 4e's method can encourage you to dump stat. Perhaps if each non-AC defense was contributed to by two Abilities, instead of taking the best of...

>>54485930
4e has the best system. 5e, by removing Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma from Fortitude, Reflex, and Will just makes them useless defensively.

>>54486208
It feels like something that could be explored with a lot of additional rules, but 5e has a hardline philosophy of trying to keep things simple.

Like, a spell that offered a choice between making a Cha save or a Wisdom save, with separate penalties depending on how you tried to resist the spell.

There's endless fields of unused design space, but in a way, it's good that they held back and culled a lot of the more complex ideas, because it made the game much easier for players to get into.

Still, the saves remain one of the less polished parts of the game, and I feel like the whole "each ability score acts as a save" may be a remnant from when they tried to simplify the game down to the point where skills weren't even a thing and instead pure ability checks were dominant.

>>54486208
Intelligence counters spells through logic(I'm pretty sure only some illusions use this one).
Wisdom is the classic willpower(resisting Sleep by sheer force of will).
Charisma is similar to Wisdom, but is used to resist possession by otherworldly entities(so basically, the stronger your personality is, the harder it becomes to expel your soul from your own body).

>>54485930
definitely 4e.

Even if you did the 6 stat breakup of 5e, the attacker rolling just makes things standardized.

File: 2f1111ff03c02951cfbd5d47bccec2cf.png (737KB, 700x990px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 700x990px

>>54486490

From the Player's Handbook alone:

• Why is Bane resisted by Charisma? No big guys, please.
• Why is Banishment resisted by Charisma?
• Why is Calm Emotions resisted by Charisma?
• Why is Confusion resisted by Intelligence?
• Why is Dispel Evil and Good (Dismissal) resisted by Charisma?
• Why is Divine Word resisted by Charisma?
• Why is Feeblemind resisted by Intelligence?
• Why is Hallow resisted by Charisma?
• Why is Magic Jar resisted by Charisma?
• Why is Planar Binding resisted by Charisma?
• Why is Plane Shift resisted by Charisma?
• Why is Seeming resisted by Charisma?
• Why is Symbol (Hopelessness) resisted by Charisma?
• Why is Symbol (Insanity) resisted by Intelligence?
• Why is Zone of Truth resisted by Charisma?

>>54486621
>spoiler
Do you feel in charge?

Definitely 4e

The idea that different stats effect different defenses is great. A super tough guy in full plate armor with a massive tower shield is very difficult to hit with a sword. But maybe he's not very quick on his feet? Throw things that would require swift movement at him and watch the carnage

4e is definitely the best system for pure combat, it heavily details what you can do in combat while leaving a lot of the out of combat stuff alone. Personally I like that the rules are so combat focused so when you're out of combat you aren't flipping through dozens of rulebooks

>>54486262
>>54486317
>>54486537
>>54486691

4e is awful. The saves are easily the most nonsensical, and only make sense in a purely gamist fashion, especially with how a character can choose one of two stats to apply to them.

They function fine for 4e-style combat, but the problem with 4e combat is that you have to turn off your brain and just let the powers resolve and then figure out what happened, often having to perform extreme mental gymnastics and shattering anything resembling a suspension of disbelief. But let's not get started on how 4e combat is a caged hydra of problems.

If anything, I would have applauded 4e if they just got rid of AC altogether and turned it into a pseudo-fire emblem-esque triangle, but I guess they wanted to keep the D&D sticker on the cover for the purpose of sales.

>>54486953

What are you even talking about?

>>54486621
Adarkar Windform, Air Servant, Allied Strategies, Ancient Carp, Arcane Melee, Armored Cancrix, Armored Galleon, Battleground Geist, Belltower Sphinx, Biting Tether, Blinding Spray, Body Double, Brilliant Plan, Broodbirth Viper, Bubbling Beebles, Cephalid Aristocrat, Cerulean Wyvern, Chasm Drake, Chromeshell Crab, Cloudheath Drake, Coastal Hornclaw, Coma Veil, Covenant of Minds, Covert Operative, Cruel Fate, Crystal Seer, Curse of Echoes, Cyclone Sire, Dark Maze, Deepglow Skate, Dispersal Technician, Diviner Spirit, Drake Umbra, Drelnoch, Enhanced Awareness, Ethersworn Adjudicator, Exert Influence, Faerie Invaders, Floodtide Serpent, Fool's Demise, Frostwind Invoker, Giant Crab, Glintwing Invoker, Gone Missing, Gryff Vanguard, Gush, Heidar, Rimewind Master, Helium Squirter, Hightide Hermit, Homarid Warrior, Honden of Seeing Winds, Hunting Drake, Illusionary Armor, Illusionary Wall, Illusory Ambusher, Infiltrator il-Kor, Intellectual Offering, Jwar Isle Avenger, Kiri-Onna, Lampligher of Selhoff, Laquatus's Creativity, Leyline Phantom, Library of Lat-Nam, Meloku the Clouded Mirror, Mercurial Pretender, Merrow Wavebreakers, Messenger Jays, Mindeye Drake, Mischievous Quanar, Mistform Wakecaster, Mnemonic Wall, Mulldrifter, Mysteries of the Deep, Mystic of the Hidden Way, Nimbus of the Isles, Oracle of Dust, Peregrine Drake, Perplexing Chimera, Petals of Insight, Pirate Ship, Precognition, Prism Array, Psionic Entity, Psionic Sliver, Psychic Spiral, Psychic Transfer, Pulsating Illusion, Quicksilver Geyser, Quillmane Baku, Red Cliffs Armada, Ribbons of the Reikai, Rishadan Brigand, Rite of Undoing, Rotcrown Ghoul, Rush of Knowledge, Salvage Scuttler, Sandbar Crocodile, Sandbar Serpent, Saprazzan Breaker, Scalelexis, Screaming Seahawk, Scrivener, Sea Gate loremaster, Sea Snidd, Sea Spirit, Search the City, Seascape Aerialist, Segovian Leviathan, Serpent of the Endless Sea, Shared Fate, Shimmerscale Drake, Shinen of Flight's Wings, Shrewd Negotiation, Shyft...

>>54487009
Sky Ruin Drake, Soratami Seer, Spin into Myth, Spire Monitor, Spire Serpent, Stasis Cell, Stormcloud Djinn, Stormrider Spirit, Stratzeppelid, Submerge, Surrakar Banisher, Switcheroo, Synapse Sliver, Synchronous Sliver, Talas Researcher, Talonrend, Tattered Drake, Temporal Fissure, Thassa's Devourer, Thoughtcast, Torrent Elemental, Totally Lost, Ulamog's Reclaimer, Vanishment, Vapor Snare, Vigilant Drake, Viscerid Deepwalker, Void Squall, Voidwielder, Wanderguard Sentry, Warped Researcher, Whimwader, Whirlwind Adept, Wind Spirt, Wu Admiral, Xenograft

>>54486621
Is it targeting their mental abilities? Intelligence.
Is it targeting the metaphysical being as an entity or their internal self? Charisma
Is it targeting their willpower? Wisdom

It's not a perfect rule of thumb but it gets me pretty close. Think about the spells logically rather than intuitively.

>>54487420
>Is it targeting their mental abilities? Intelligence.
>Is it targeting their willpower? Wisdom
Functionally no difference.

>Is it targeting the metaphysical being as an entity or their internal self? Charisma
Yeah, that explains Calm Emotions and Symbol (Hopelessness)... right?

>>54487420
>Is it targeting the metaphysical being as an entity or their internal self? Charisma
Legit autists have a sense of self so strong to the point they can't even comprehend the other. Does it mean they have absolute Charisma?

>>54485930
>4e
>attacker makes attack rolls against AC, Fortitude, Reflex, or Will
In retrospect this was elegant as fuck and should have been taken into 5e, because if works even if you strip out the AEDU power system and general highly specific encounter focus of abilities.

>>54486953
> The saves are easily the most nonsensical, and only make sense in a purely gamist fashion

U wot?

It's Fort/Ref/Will, just the same as 3.PF, which was originally instituted because it's a manageable number and anyone can grasp what they mean intuitively.

5e 6 saves are much closer to the offputting mess that was Save vs Spell, vs Death Ray, vs Polymorph or Petrification, because it's hard to say at a glance whether Int or Cha is a more valuable save or what kind of effects they protect your from.

>>54486953
are you the same guy from >>54488429 or something? Because if you are, you need to tone that shit down bruh.

4e is the best just because it doesn't require as many rolls. Targeting an uncommon save and having to wait for a player to figure out what their stat is and roll it brings combat to a screeching halt.

>>54489781
>Targeting an uncommon save and having to wait for a player to figure out what their stat is and roll it brings combat to a screeching halt.
For the longest time I've wondered why combat is so unsatisfying to me whenever I play most systems and now I know why.

It's hard to maintain narrative flow when you have to stop the action every five seconds because the player forgot to add a modifier to his check and shit.

>>54487563
>Functionally no difference.

One is about reasoning past something, using your smarts to rationally dismiss an illusion for what it is.

The other is natural stubborness and a refusal to give in to implanted thoughts that aren't your own.

>>54489896

And the intuitive difference is so small that them being different things is just a nuisance.

>>54485930
4e attacker rolls vs static TN, defender never needs to roll, combined with 5e style of having 6 save stats, plus class design that gives every class an actual mechanical benefit relative to the function and flavor of the class in question for not dumping their core attributes.

>>54485930
On the surface, 5e, but it needed more work to be done to have it function properly. Most things are Dex, Wis, and Con saves due to legacy reasons, and they didn't spread out the saving throws well enough. There's a clear difference between the three 'strong' saves and the three 'weak' ones.

>>54490185
I think there's *supposed* to be a difference between the strong saves and the weak saves, since every class gets proficiency to one of each.

>>54486953
>The saves are easily the most nonsensical
>exactly the same saves as 3e
I don't follow

3.5 is best, makes the most thematic sense in that different situations have different defenses, and saving throws are simple

>>54485930
>you'll always have a weakness that someone else has to cover

How, exactly, does someone "cover" for your bad saving throw? It's not like they can do anything to influence the result.

Don't castrate me but I like 4e, it makes it much more simple.

Why is it so bad to have different situations be mechanically represented? Is it just that cool to hate Pathfinder?

>>54490926
If everyone has a bad Wis save, a mass Wis-targeting effect has a good chance to effectively end the fight. If some people in the group have good Wis saves they will likely be unaffected and can cover for their less Wis-endowed teammates while they shake off the effect.

>>54485930

4e's works a lot better with keeping it working the same for everyone. It also makes it easier to have non-spells targeting defences other than AC.

>>54491275
Shouldn't you have to save to roll against a spell?

That way, you don't feel like you got screwed over and there was nothing you could do about it.

>>54492096

But how is that principle any different if applied to attacks? Either way, it should all be resolved the same way.

>>54492184
Attacks don't take away control of your character unless they're the last hit point.

>>54492096
It's the same fucking thing.

>>54485930
Of those, 4e. In the real world, the best defense system is rolling against your defense (not as a contest, just a normal check) to defend against an attack.

>>54491097
Why are you obsessed with minutiae?

>>54494651
I feel it encourages tactical/strategic play, which is an aspect of TRPGs that I enjoy.

>>54486067
I hope they make things more complex in 6e... I don't like the "simple everything" rule

I'll take heavily homeruled 3.5 for now.

>>54494908
Crunch heavy systems are dead
Only Pathfinder is left

>>54492203
It does if it's a stunning fist/neither does a fireball.

>>54485930
The bsest system is homebrew OSR

>OSR
>attacker makes roll against whatever the DM says

it requires you to not have a shit DM, but that is an issue beyond mechanics.

>>54492203

Neither do most spells.

I think the Monk and Rogue would also laugh at that idea. 4e monks can Want No Trouble into you punching your mate and rogues stun people all the time.

>>54492203

That's an argument against save or dies/save or sucks, not an argument against unified defences.

>>54487803
Maybe immunity to mind effects altogether?

>>54486621
>Why is Bane resisted by Charisma?
You resist it by feeling in charge

>>54485930
i dont know why no one is supporting 3.5

Reducing AC to one number regardless of circumstance is one thing i hate about 5e. Flat footed and touch ACs are logical situations that happen, and are pretty easy to calculate.

The saves are also better than 5e. They arent tied to a stat, for instance you can have charisma based fortitude saves, so all stats are relevant in saves. However the 3 types of saves are logical and separate.

3.5 is a pretty decent system, only thing that really bugs me is hp bloat and balance

>>54496573

>The saves are also better than 5e. They arent tied to a stat, for instance you can have charisma based fortitude saves, so all stats are relevant in saves. However the 3 types of saves are logical and separate.

The fuck?

>>54496573
For much the same reasons why "weak saves" in 5e are pointless, so too are touch and flat-footed AC generally pointless.

There are few effects in the game that target someone's touch AC that aren't spells and there are few times when you can actually target someone's flat-footed AC that aren't generally pointless or given to you via DM fiat.

It's much easier to have it target a singular AC number than split it between a bunch of situational shit that just meant that you had to memorize more numbers.

>>54485930
I fucking hate the cancer that is touch AC in Pathfinder.
The median touch AC of monsters at every fucking CR is around 12, it simply doesn't scale. The result is that at higher levels, targetting touch AC is an almost guaranteed "you hit" without any investment whatsoever, which is dumb.

>>54497829
yeah

The complete lack of balance between touch and flat-footed is ridiculous, they should increase together at roughly the same rate, with some monsters leaning towards one or the other, but instead, every monster leans towards flat-footed and so touch AC just gets comparatively easier and easier to hit

>>54497646
touch AC and flat-footed AC in 3.5 are targeted much more often than intelligence saves or charisma saves in 5e

Not to say 3.5's save system is good, it isn't, it feeds the already massive imbalance in terms of attribute value, along with save bonuses being stupid across the board, especially when compared with earlier editions

>>54498131
The real kick to the nutsack is how only mages benefit from touch AC.

With the exception of guns (which, of course, nobody fucking uses) there aren't really any weapons that allow you to target someone's touch AC.

On the other hand, most damage spells that force you to roll end up being against touch AC, which is a problem when you have shit like disintegrate that can easily chump a single target enemy if you apply meta-magic to it like maximize or twinned.

>>54490069

>plus class design that gives every class an actual mechanical benefit

But in everyone worked the exact same.

>>54498925

Nope. They shared a common framework and clearly defined roles, but how they actually functioned within that framework and how they executed those roles were distinctly different.

I think the reason why 4e fans come across as ornery pieces of shit is because while complaints made against Pathfinder, 3.5 and 5e are all rooted in experience from playing the game, it is extremely obvious how the vast majority of complaints made against 4e are made by people totally ignorant of how 4e works

Imagine if someone complained about how in 3.5 rogues can do too much stuff and how stifling it feels to only have access to each prepared wizard spell once, instead of being able to cast spontaneously

>>54499014
>it is extremely obvious how the vast majority of complaints made against 4e are made by people totally ignorant of how 4e works
Or maybe 4e is just a bad game?

>>54499014
I personally don't like 4e exclusively because of Healing Surges, but that's mostly because when 4e came out I was primarily playing the Healer role in my parties, and finally enjoying it because I had recently discovered Full Plate Frontline Clerics in 3.5e.

In my opinion, 4e's good for a pick-up game where you meet up with a bunch of people at a con or something, play for a few hours, then go home, likely never to see each other or play that game together ever again.

>>54499101

What don't you like about them, specifically?

>>54499148
Easy-access, no-thought healing for everybody.
>But anon, you can buy potions fairly cheap in both 3.5e and 5e.
Yes, but you have to buy them. Healing Surges feel like a cop-out so that parties don't actually have to think about their team comp at all.

>>54499172
Perfect example for >>54499014

>>54499172

That's... Not actually how they work, though?

>>54499172
>Easy-access, no-thought healing for everybody.
That's literally the opposite of what healing surges are.
Healing surges are a hard limit on how much healing you can receive in a day, nothing less, nothing more.

>>54498972

Nope, they functioned the exact same.

When I want classes, or at least a split between magical/physical I want a BIG damn difference in how they work. Powers were literally spells given a different coat of paint. This is why 4e looks and feels both boring and soulless to me.

This may also be our perceptions. To me a "common framework" is that each character still uses largely the same stats, common dice, and other such things. The 4e power system to me is just someone making the exact same house and painting over it several dozen times.

>>54499192
>>54499205
>>54499209
Look, I'll freely admit that I only played the starter kit a couple of times with somebody else DMing the system. If I'm wrong, then that's fine. I'm cool with being wrong.

That's how the healing surge thing was explained to me, and that's how it was used when I played.

>>54499259
>Nope, they functioned the exact same.
t. person who never actually played 4e

>>54499259

But you're just looking at the facade. Going inside, each house might have a completely different layout, a unique style, different conveniences or completely different functions for the spare room.

That is 4e classes. If you don't understand what you're looking at, of course they all look the same, but take a step through the door and they're all completely different.

>>54485930
I like how they split up the saving throws, really characterizes the abilities a lot more. I thought different ACs were kind of neat though, because it allowed more strategical approaches and more differentiation in battling physical enemies. I think 5E would have benefited from that as well as it is a lot less magic-centric as 3.X. Combined with actual purely martial abilities that target touch/flat-footed and less specific names for the two (dodge and soak are nice and evocative for example) the combat system would have been elevated from 'acceptable' to 'really good'

>>54499280

Actually I have, one game for a year.

>>54499283

I did go inside of those houses anon. They didn't have different insides, but rather similar insides. Sure they looked nice, but in the end everything was the same inside except in a different coat of paint.

>>54499270
Healing surges are limiting factors on healing

You get a certain number of them per day, depending on class and constitution modifier, and the vast, vast majority of methods of healing require you to spend surges to use them. Cleric's healing word? Needs a surge. Potion of cure wounds? Needs a surge. Rolling a 20 on your death saving throw letting you get up? Hold on there, you need to spend a surge, and if you're out of surges, you can't use any of those things at all

>>54499375
Haha what the fuck, that's not how it was explained to me at all. I mean that's shitty in its own way, but it's not the "easy mode healing" I was led to believe it was.

>>54497829
That's because the way normal AC scales is a shitty solution.

>"Oh, this monster hits harder/gets more abilities, so the CR is higher? Crank up the Natural Armor bonus!"

Even when there's absolutely no reason why something should be tougher than, say, a turtle. It's born out of the conscious decision to have a BAB-AC arms race, even though there is little justification for it.

>>54487849
'Players roll saves' is a dungeoncrawler thing to keep rolling for the DM rare and restricted to combat. It's supposed to keep focus on the characters when encountering a trap or harmful environment effect instead of having stuff 'done to you'.

4E isn't a dungeoncrawler, so ditching it is appropriate. 5E is, so it isn't.

>>54499374

Can you explain further? Because your description doesn't line up at all with my understanding of how 4e actually works. What about the classes seemed at all similar to you, beyond the formatting?

>>54499472
>4E isn't a dungeoncrawler
It's literally designed for "x encounters per day" play style, which is exactly what you have in dungeon crawling.

>>54497829
>Touch AC: Piss easy
>AC: Mmok, but eventually becomes easy to deal with
>CMD: Pfhahahahahahaha, man, you wasted 12 feats and 300k GP for fucking nothing

>>54499482
I think he doesn't like that there are no unique subsystems, such as how Pathfinder had Spellcasting, Psionics, Initiating, Akashic Magic, etc.
While 4e classes are all very different on their own merits, they largely function within the same subsystem.

>>54499487
>It's literally designed for "x encounters per day" play style, which is exactly what you have in dungeon crawling.
No, that's exactly the opposite. Dungeoncrawling has a LOT more variance in amount and number of encounters, doesn't assume an even playing field like 4E does (very little long term buffs present, very standardized equipment, standardized 'utility' abilities).
While 5E uses some of these elements as well especially for classes like the Warlock, their presence is much fainter than in 4E, as for example its encounter powers require an hour rest as opposed to 4Es 5 minutes.

To condense each into a single sentence:
Dungeoncrawling is stumbling upon a sleeping, mature Dragon at level 2, sneaking past him to his treasure chest only to have no knock spell prepared, and then get ambushed while resting.
4E is X level appropriate encounters per day + 1 boss or else you'll just nova the latter.

>>54499259
>When I want classes, or at least a split between magical/physical I want a BIG damn difference in how they work. Powers were literally spells given a different coat of paint. This is why 4e looks and feels both boring and soulless to me.

Ah, yes, the good old "casters have extra system given to them while non-casters get nothing". Yeah, that sure was the pinnacle of game design, shame they tried to move away from it.

>>54499414
Exactly

And that's the problem, there are legit complaints about 4e, and people may not find it to their tastes, but complaints like your original one are the ones that get continuously repeated, and they don't apply to 4e at all

You can see how this would get infuriating

>>54499621
>Yeah, we have a nice subsystem for magic, but martials are kinda lackluster. wat do?
>I know, let's just rip it out completely!

>>54499621

Nice strawman bro.

See >>54499640 for my summary.

I'm not for giving martials nothing, I just want them to feel unique on their own. Look at Fantasycraft for example, there martials can kick ass and chew bubblegum but feel different from casters.

>>54499640
>what are rituals

>>54499640
I mean, i can see why people thought of "powers" as bland, but what's the alternative? There isn't much variance in how can you make abilities different in tabletop - they all essentially boil down to "pick a thing from the list".


In my dumb homebrew system i let fighters choose from a number of options to add to their normal attack (i.e. Attack can become Powerful Attack, or Cleaving Attack, or if you got more prefix "slots", Powerful Cleaving attack). Is it still too same?

>>54499698

I guess that's just a preference thing. I don't give a fuck about different subsystems, because the end result is what matters. Half the time subsystems just seem to be different ways of getting to the end result, which I find a lot more boring than taking one subsystem and using it to do a lot of different things.

>>54499698
>Nice strawman bro.

That's literally what they did in 3.x/PF tho.

>>54499702
wut? replied to the wrong post?

>>54499714
Different recharge timers,
5E is going in the right direction. Casters have dailies, very limited at wills and a little bit post encounter recharge. Martials are either completely at will or completely per encounter. Goes a VERY long way to differentiating classes simply because you must manage your resources very differently, and builds narrative cohesion because you can load off stuff like daily recharges on mages, where people can accept it, while keeping martials in a more natural-feeling at-will/per-encounter area that people associate with how stamina would work for a fantasy hero.
different interaction interfaces,
each class should have things he primarily targets. That, sadly, 5E did not do. To help with this, I think touch/flatfooted AC should be brought back. Martials should be targeting two forms of AC and one or two saves, Casters should each be targeting around 3 saves and maybe one kind of AC depending on class. Extended Rock-Paper-Scissors systems are easy to understand but add a lot strategic depth.

>>54499824
>wut? replied to the wrong post?
Nah, I replied to the right post.
You just completely missed the fact that 4e has the rituals subsystem so wizards can still do fancy shit if they want.

File: 1485962590452.png (1011KB, 706x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 706x1000px

>>54499824
5e's resource management is cancerous with the ONE HOUR SHORT RESTS bullshit.

>>54499824

Balancing people who rely on long term resources against people who rely on short term resources is a fucking nightmare, both design and GMing wise, and as 5e has very much shown, it's very hard to make the latter anywhere as interesting as the former.

I don't think it's impossible to execute it well, but that I've yet to see a system do so makes me sceptical.

>>54499852
5e's resource management is borked because it runs on the assumption that you'll have 8 fights per day ans have time for 3 short rests, when it's far more likely you'll have 4 fights per day with maybe one short rest if you're lucky, making short rest classes far weaker and long rest clases far stronger

>>54499824
>while keeping martials in a more natural-feeling at-will/per-encounter area that people associate with how stamina would work for a fantasy hero.

Essentials, nigga. Do you play it?

>>54499837
It's not about how fancy your shit is, it's about how interesting doing fancy shit is mechanically.

>>54499981
It's more interesting than 3.x spellcasting.

>>54499578
I think he can't convey how a mechanic can be split from fluff. 3.x Barbarian rage and plenty others are x/day, but no one calls it magic.
But build a framework (to avoid learning several subsystems) and everyone goes insane.

File: SpookyDebating.png (7KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 500x500px

>Hold Person physically paralyzes you
>Wisdom save
>Dominate Person brainwashes you
>Wisdom save

>>54499611
>Dungeoncrawling is stumbling upon a sleeping, mature Dragon at level 2, sneaking past him to his treasure chest only to have no knock spell prepared,

Thank fucking god, Knock opens things with a loud audible *knock*. It'd get the dragon on our back.

Better have a tenser's disc to carry it out without sound, which also happens to be a ritual, i.e. infinite.

>and then get ambushed while resting.

Wow, if only I had some sort of ritual just for such an occasion... some sort of hut...

>4E is X level appropriate encounters per day + 1 boss or else you'll just nova the latter.

That's how 5e/3.x works you fucking mongoloid. Because casters are full on daily resources and nothing else, if you don't drain them they'll be at 3-5x "average" power at a boss battle.
Just compare a paladin full on slots vs one who only has two or so left.

Meanwhile for 4e characters daily resources are only something like a 50% boost. You can still have a challenging fight even if everyone has all their dailies, without pulling any bullshit, because only 1/3rd of your class depends on them.

I also like how just because it's actually possible to use 4e encounter building guidelines to build level appropriate encounters easily somehow removes the option from the DM to put a red dragon that fucks everyone if they try to fight it in the party's way. As if the game being actually balanced stops you from unbalancing it somehow.

>>54499929
No, I dropped 4E about a year after release because during that time we never once had a fight that felt like an actual combat between people and more like an elaborate version of final fantasy tactics of chess or something, but that's subjective and I won't hold it against the system.
What difference is there to Essentials compared to core?

>>54499986
That's pretty subjective, mate.

>>54499992
>But build a framework (to avoid learning several subsystems) and everyone goes insane.
Yes. Having narrative differences equal mechanical differences is something very important for games people perceive to be simulationist. I think that was the biggest mistake made in 4E, they took a simulationist brand-name and slapped it on a gamist system. Imagine if the new Vampire Edition suddenly gave you tables for encumbrance, tracked limb damage and had 50 entries in its skill list. Groups of upset neo-Goths would be marauding through the streets lynching the people responsible.

>>54500119
>What difference is there to Essentials compared to core?

For starters, fighters and rogues get alternate classes that only have at-wills and encounters.

>>54500119

>D&D
>Simulationist

>>54500167
And rangers too. Basically, all the martials.

>>54500119
>What difference is there to Essentials compared to core?
People who like 4e generally hate Essentials.
In other words, you'd love it.

>>54500107
I don't even know why you're so hostile or what point you're trying to make.

>>54500176
Except warlords, they were too fun for essentials.

>>54500196

Too fun for anything D&D while Mearls spouts that stupid 'shouting hands back on' bullshit.

>>54500173
>Jump DCs modeled after real life olympic records
>a subsystem for every weird fringe situation to achieve fitting results
>not simulationist

>>54500177
That's not really helpful, mate. Why do 4E fans hate it? Why do other people love it? Would you elaborate, it's been years since I held a 4E book.

>>54500208
>Why do 4E fans hate it?
It included new subclasses that functioned exactly like 3.x/Pathfinder martials, which were mind-numbingly boring as a result, just like 3.x/PF martials.

>>54500119

Essentials nerfed martial classes to the ground while pushing the already powerful wizard up

It was doomed from the beginning though, anyone who would like Essentials had already jumped ship to Pathfinder, and only the people who liked how 4e worked before were still around and hated the backtracking to 3.5's "fighter's aren't allowed to be interesting" mentality.

Also, since fucking when is D&D simulationist? It tried in 3.5, but I think everyone can agree that it failed pretty fucking horribly at that particular goal

>>54500208
>Wizards can turn you into a statue
>Paladins literally piss holy water
>Druids can turn into a T-Rex
>Throwing a crossbow is better than shooting it
>A mid-level wizard can eat several great axe blows to the face
>Arbitrary once/day, 3/day, etc. abilities
>not gamist

>>54500238

Being fair for that second to last one, D&D has always said HP was an abstraction when describing it. Unfortunately, they then forget it and design half the system with it as meat points, while the other half still treats it as an abstraction, which can get very confusing.

>>54500184
I'll try to explain without the agression then. Please excuse the greentext.

>adventuring is this thing I made up that relies on the party wizard being an idiot in 3.x and 5e.

>You don't need to drain resources in 3.x and 5e, but you absolutely must in 4e to make an encounter challenging... except that's flipped, because 4e setup is focused on making every encounter have the same baseline, while the over-reliance on spellslots in 5e means you need at minimum 6 encounters for a "balanced" day.

>in 4e you can only fight level appropriate things, if it's not party level +/-4 it doesn't even exist... right? It's not like I can just put a dragon 10 levels above you guys in there because I'm the DM.

All the implications in your post are false at the very least, or exactly the opposite of how the truth is.

It's hard to believe you are not being willfully ignorant, if I don't assume you are an idiot.

>>54500225
That makes sense, 3.x martials would have benefited from something beyond magic item management, no doubt about that.
How did the casters work? Back to daily-only?

>>54500230
Remember, this is the system that made you roll your stats, because in real life you can't determine your abilities either. Fucking Runequest already had point buy, IIRC.

>>54500238
Magic is magic, but the magic rules are very specific and don't get broken.
Throwing a crossbow IS better when you're as strong as a fucking demigod. Throwing a fucking pebble is better.
And of course it has some abstraction, every game must have, or it would become unplayable like that one modern firefight focused spec-ops game with D1000 hit tables. Phoenix Force or something.

>>54500273
>adventuring is this thing I made up that relies on the party wizard being an idiot in 3.x and 5e.
Maybe my choice of words was suboptimal, when I referred to dungeoncrawling, I meant that very distinct old-school style that defined the earlier editions up to 3.X

>You don't need to drain resources in 3.x and 5e, but you absolutely must in 4e to make an encounter challenging
Somewhat yes. 3.5 has a lot more instakills built in than 4E. A balanced 4E encounter is a lot less swingy and potentially lethal even than a somewhat 'balanced' 3.X encounter. And as you yourself said, Rituals in 4E make it hard to get completely screwed by your spell choice as a prepared caster, so an encounter might be randomly more or less challenging because of what spells you readied.

>in 4e you can only fight level appropriate things, if it's not party level +/-4 it doesn't even exist... right? It's not like I can just put a dragon 10 levels above you guys in there because I'm the DM.
Of course you can, but in 'oldschool' style you were actively encouraged to do that sometimes. 4E encourages 'fair' encounters.

>>54500441
>How did the casters work? Back to daily-only?
Depends on the specific class. Some did lose Encounter powers entirely.

>>54485930

Am quite happy with 5th, but it has no where near the content of 3.5, someday, it will be better i think.

>>54500001
Hold person prevents your brain from sending signals to your body. It doesn't actually "paralyze" you, per se.

>>54499852
Shorter short rests is an essential homerule for 5e. I personally use Numenera-inspired rules for short rests (first one is 10 minutes, second is an hour).

>>54500493
>not using short rest=8 hours and long rest=7 days
plebs

>>54500493
>Spell that attacks your body on a physical level
>Wisdom
>Spell that magically changes the way you think
>Wisdom

still doesn't make a lick of sense. Hold Person should be Constitution or Strength.

>>54500536
For my next game, I plan on using:

Short rests:
First - 5 minutes
Second - 1 hour
Third+ - 8 hours

Long rests - 7 days

>>54500554
Did you literally 100% ignore what I just said about Hold Person? It has nothing to do with your body on a physical level. It stops your mind from telling your body to move.

>>54500554
>Charisma
>A representation of your force of will
>Wisdom
>A representation of your observation and common sense
>Will saves use wisdom, not charisma
>The majority of spells which would be countered by willpower in 5e use wisdom saving throws

why?

>>54500581
Honest answer: holdover from when will saves were wisdom-based, ignoring the fact that charisma was used for will in 4e, and not wanting Wis to be the default dump stat for literally everyone except clerics and druids.

>>54500566
Yes. You said it "stops your brain from sending signals to your body." Not anything about the "mind", the BRAIN. That's physical, not metaphysical, and as such is not a Wisdom save.

>>54500596
but instead, it makes charisma the default dump stat for literally everyone except warlocks, sorcerers and paladins

>>54485930
>it makes dump statting dangerous
It really doesn't, though. The only relevant Saving Throws in 5E are Con, Dex, and Wisdom which just gets you right back to the Fort, Ref, and Will of previous generations. The others might come up, but they're pretty much just ribbons. There's a reason that classes largely only get a single "strong" saving throw.

>>54500596

Having three saves and two stats for each seems to make so much sense compared to the other options, even without talking about whether to universalise the rolling system or not.

>>54500617
Even Con doesn't seem to be nearly as relevant as the other two.

>>54500605
D&D isn't real life. You shouldn't be thinking in terms of a nervous system.

>>54500615
You're forgetting bards. Already, this is twice as many classes without an automatic dump.
Also, anyone who wants to talk good, which includes lots of party-face rogues.

>>54500617
The difference is that now strength and intelligence are more viable dump stats than ever before.

>>54500623
I was working on a variant saving throw system for 5e that would do something like this. The main takeaway was that saving throw DCs should be bumped up to 10+prof+mod, because merging cha+wis saves into "will" that relies on either (and doing the same for the other stats) raises saves across the board.

>>54500623
It does create its own problem though, at least, it did in 4e

it meant that having high strength and high constitution was a mechanically bad idea, same with dexterity and intelligence, and wisdom and charisma

>>54500658
>It stops your brain from sending out signals
>Well that sounds like a con save to me.
>YEAH WELL YOU SHOULDN'T BE THINKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE BRAINS, THIS IS D&D

I'll be over here until you get your goalposts settled in one place

>>54500658
>Str and Int are more viable as a dump stats
Absolutely. Now that a Dex character can just use Finesse weapons without even looking at Str, and now that Intelligence doesn't matter for fuckall with languages or skill proficiencies, they join Charisma on the list of "Depending on your class, this shit can be an 8" attributes.

>>54500673

Yeah, it's not perfect, but it still seems better than the alternatives. I'm actually working on something taking ideas from 4e, and part of it is trying to make every 2 stat combo valid and useful.

>>54500673
It was pretty uncommon for a class to actually need two of the same defense stat for its features, though, wasn't it? You usually had a really high Primary, a smaller but still good Secondary, and then enough to get like 14 in a Tertiary which helped buff up what you wanted as opposed to what you needed.

>>54500686
To be fair, dexterity is a viable dump stat for heavy armor classes. They tend to have enough HP to not care as much about dex saves, which are almost always just to mitigate direct damage anyway.
I think at the end of the day, con is the only non-viable dump stat, which at least means the stats are relatively balanced.

>>54500749
The problem is theming

It is a mechanically bad idea to have a guy who is both strong and resilient, or quick in both mind and body, or capable of both influencing and reading people

>>54500673
It wasn't a bad idea because those abilities did different things. It was, however, de-incentivized because of the Defense spread. But those abilities still have their own independent meaning for classes. Besides, that really just plays to the class design behind 4E. You were expected to have one very high primary Defense, a good Secondary, and a slightly weaker Tertiary. Meanwhile, you normally had 1-2 attack Attributes which were almost never in the same Defense.

>>54500780
It really isn't though, since individual ability scores mattered very little to actual skill checks. Remember that in 5E you already get half of your level added directly to every Skill and that training gets you a flat +5 bonus to a proficient Skill. Losing out on 1-2 points from an ability score is pretty insignificant in the grand scale of things.

>>54500673
There were viable STR/CON builds, though, such as the Earthstrength Warden.
The few high-OP Earthstrength Wardens I've seen were pretty fucking terrifying.

>>54500807
but it's only 1-2 points at early levels, it's upwards of 7-8 points difference at max level

>>54500441
>Maybe my choice of words was suboptimal, when I referred to dungeoncrawling, I meant that very distinct old-school style that defined the earlier editions up to 3.X

Okay, yeah, that's clearer.

>And as you yourself said, Rituals in 4E make it hard to get completely screwed by your spell choice as a prepared caster

I meant 5e rituals. 4e rituals had a lot of drawbacks compared to 5e rituals which are basically always available for no cost other than time. 4e rituals also aren't explicitly part of your progression, so you can't just pick them as spells to learn.

>, so an encounter might be randomly more or less challenging because of what spells you readied.

This basically never happens in modern D&D with any half-way competent wizard past level 2. If you mean old school, sure, I can see that.

>Of course you can, but in 'oldschool' style you were actively encouraged to do that sometimes. 4E encourages 'fair' encounters.

That's just adventure design. The only way 4e encourages it is making fair encounters possible et al.

>>54490817
Not that guy, but they're not saves but defenses. All saves in 4e are: roll a d20, 10+ you passed it. Sometimes penalty/bonuses are attached to those saves

>>54501055
He's not talking about saves, but rather about defenses and using the wrong word. Notice how he talked about Saves while saying that you could choose which of two attribute bonuses to add to them.