How come 4e got a wave of misinformation and disinformation when

>>54546067
Because 3e fans had spent hundreds of dollars buying all the splatbooks for 3e and proved to be even more angry grognards than 2e fans, thus the irreconcilable hatred that lingers to this day and forevermore.

>>54546067
what are you talking about, give some examples

>the misinformation and disinformation lingers even today

The only thing that lingers is 4rrie butthurt.

"Losing the Edition War" seems to weigh pretty heavily on their minds, to the point where just seeing "3.5" is enough to trigger them.

>>54546067
Because people hate 4e. People at worst are just mildly disinterested in 5e.

5e isn't deep enough for anything to stick. 4e was so different from anything else up to that point that it took some time to learn the system. People who weren't willing to do that believed all the misinformation.
Building goofy and broken characters in 3.pf can be a lot of fun. Playing with a functioning combat system in 4e is also fun. 5e just feels incredibly bland by comparison.

>>54546067
Autists triggered by the loss of caster supremacy engaged in misinformation campaign against the best DnD edition.

Because 4e was shit, and 5e is good.

The thing that you have to understand is, most people are not very invested in a particular edition. This is why most people are playing 5e, yet the D&D fanbase has not doubled in size. Lots of people just plain switched to the new edition. Stop thinking that D&D fans are all either "3aboos" or "4rries" or AD&D grognards. I myself have played every single edition of D&D and I am currently running both 5e D&D and Pathfinder for 2 different groups. I like both games.

D&D 4e sucked because it turned martials into spellcasters. That's it. The system was stupid and didn't make sense. No one liked tracking all the powers and various other shit. No one liked tracking lingering bonuses. No one liked tracking ongoing damage. The game worked very well for what it was meant to be, but what it was meant to be was the problem. The idea was the issue, not the execution. Which makes it sad because 4e executes its goal perfectly. Some people, invariably the autistic sort who like to watch over-the-top anime bullshit, loved 4e because it let them be big damn fantasy heroes with epik powahz and blow the fuck out 90 orcs a day from level 1 (which you could easily do given that you started with 27 times as many hit points as an average orc warrior). However 4e players will outright admit there is no such thing as an "average" orc warrior, even though an average orc warrior would likely be a minion. They can only see things within the confines of the game's encounter design, further showing how divorced the system is from reality. A group of orcs jumping down from a wall 10 feet high to attack the players, would all die instantly from 2d10 points of damage. They might make their acrobatics check, but fully 50% of them would not only be unconscious, but dead. Hell, quite a few of them would be reduced to chunky spaghetti, taking over 10 times their hp in hits.

>>54546067
Because 5e deliberately marketed itself as a "back to old school style!" edition, and made itself as close to being an AD&D 2.0 as possible, whereas 4e dared to try and stand on its own and look at all the sacred cows it was carrying, rather than just blindly repeating everything from the dawn of the game.

>>54546349
Spotted the grognard.

>>54546349
Even now it continues

>>54546349
Is this pasta?

Now, were minions a bad idea? No, not necessarily. They accomplished their goal of being one-hit-kills. Except... this also was true in 3.5 where 99% of characters who hit a 5 hp orc would kill it outright. Maybe not at level 1, but that made sense. A fierce fucking orc with a 15 Strength and Constitution should NOT go down instantly from a 10 Strength wizard throwing a dagger. At least not 100% of the time. But that's how it goes in 4e. Because they are "mooks," they suddenly have the fragility of wet paper. This goes beyond being unrealistic: it just plain doesn't make sense. Heroic fantasy has its own kind of realism, and relative power level is part of that, sure. But if there's an army of orcs and they die from every single hit, what's the point of their Con score even existing? Saving throws? That's it. Also keep in mind: that fierce orc warrior has just as many hit points as a commoner. Or a cat. The whole "rats taking out the village" problem now applies to orc tribes as well. Wonderful to know.

And of course, 4fags will squeal "noooo! stop! this is a game about the HEROES so the system doesn't HAVE to be internally consistent." Well, you'd better hope you never ever have commoners involved in any combat ever. Never have anything attack a town and start ravaging the populace, cause some dumb shit will happen there. Even a burning fog effect that dealt 1 damage a round would instantly kill every minion dead.

But enough harping on about those. The real demon of 4e is the mentality of "let's put every class on the same mechanical framework, with once-per-day abilities, even though it doesn't make an ounce of sense for fighters, then autistically defend it on forums as 'narrative' for the next five years while we erase holes in our character sheets or spend extra money on little gaming stones to carefully arrange over the dots."

>>54546349
>>54546389
>implying anyone who played TSR editions will ever be fine with WotC/Paizo shit
I think someone's pants are burning.

There was nothing wrong with how 3.5 martials worked: the interesting options just sucked. Third ed had plenty of ways for martials to be interesting. Tactical feats, weapon style feats, even the combat expertise and power attack let a martial adopt a particular "stance" in combat to make him more effective. As interesting as playing a spellcaster? Perhaps not, but there was beauty in simplicity, and that is why a lot of people liked playing martial characters. Not having to keep track of 30 different spells was nice. Now, that shouldn't have meant that they were inferior in power level. But unfortunately it did.

Then Book of Nine Swords came out, and everyone hated it. People called the martials in it overpowered. This was not the issue. The problem was that it turned martials into spellcasters. This was a foreshadowing of 4th edition, and a prime display of Mike Mearls' complete failure at game design. Unable to reconcile wizards who run out of spells, with fighters who don't, he decided to make fighters cast spells, and give them weird monk-like energy powers and 30-foot flying leaps to make them more "viable." This helped spawn the camp of roleplayers who thought that martials should be like one of the heroes in one of their cancerous anime videos: able to ignore the laws of reality for no reason besides "well there's some magic over there, but not over here, but the world is MADE of magic [???], so that means I can do whatever the fuck i want. Rule of cool, right?"

This wasn't entirely wrong. The biggest problem with 3.5 martials was their vulnerability to spellcasters' SoD spells, and the 15-minute-adventuring day. Past that, is a lot of whining about utility, which is not a martial's job outside of skills. Despite what 4e's "utility" powers claim to imply, almost all of them are related to either movement or skill use. So it's not like 4e was any different in that regard to giving martials "utility" powers. Which is good.

>>54546212

By the time 5e hit a lot of 3.5 players had moved on to other systems entirely and matured as gamers. The die-hard fans just stuck with 3.5 or pathfinder or moved on to 5e without complaint- the three groups seem happy enough to stay separate and there's no need for shit talking amongst themselves.

4e felt like someone taking your toy away and saying "no more books for you, play THIS now! It's really different!"

But it's fine. I kind of like 4e now. Not like, for any game... but it has its uses, like most systems.

>>54546349

>D&D 4e sucked because it turned martials into spellcasters

Ah yes I recall mind controlling enemies, turning them into frogs and creating creatures of fire as my 4e fighter.

Was good times.

>>54546417

Or print out the cards with your abilities and flip them over when they're used...........

>>54546349
>>54546417
>>54546499

You seem to be incredibly convinced that having a list of abilities makes you a spellcaster and not what the substance of those abilities entail.

This is your first and most critical mistake. Confusing structure with substance.

Overall, 4e had a lot of good ideas. AC and attack bonus meshed, the numbers leveled up in a satisfying way (rather than the disparate fractional base attack bonuses and save bonuses and ability DCs and spell DCs of 3.5, which became wildly unbalanced), and even if fighters weren't any better than other classes at hitting things (a problem continued in 5e) they at least performed fairly well. And 4e was relatively balanced. However, Chess is also balanced. Monopoly is also balanced. Balance by itself does not make a good game.

4e had little in the way of interesting character options. It was a linear buffet of powers to choose from, rather than the feat-based character building of 3.5. Wizards of the Coast was so shit-scared of making over-powered combos (most of which resulted from bad wording and lazy loopholes) that they emasculated feats in 4e and almost excluded them entirely in 5e, most of the feats in the latter being so shitty they need to give an ability score bonus to be effective (lol).

>>54546499
This

>>54546545
>Ah yes I recall mind controlling enemies
Come and Get It

>>54546067
5e was designed to be as inoffensive as possible. 4e was designed to be as radical as possible. Radical change creates blowback. Inoffensive pap doesn't.

Here's your (You)

In short: 4e failed because it was too different. That doesn't mean it was good, although it did have some good ideas. The daily/encounter/at-will structure works remarkably well for spellcasters, even though it is a horrendous shitshow for martials. Perhaps the biggest sin of 4e is that its spirit continues into 5e: fighters are resource-based once again (see: battlemaster superiority dice, second wind, action surge) and ranger and paladin become almost full spellcasters (because WotC is so devoid of mechanical imagination to make those classes viable without loading them down with almost as many spell slots as a wizard).

4e will go down in history as the forgotten edition. You can claim it slaughtered sacred cows to try to improve the game, but you need to note: without its "sacred cows," there is absolutely nothing compelling or attractive about the D&D system, from any perspective. It is entirely a mistake. 4e is not a well-designed game because it tries to be D&D and not D&D at the same time; a goal it was doomed to fail at, and did.

File: YyicrOW.jpg (44KB, 500x474px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x474px

>>54546100
>>54546443
High expectations from an obvious troll thread.

>>54546067
Well 5e was actually good, so it got less criticism. Also DnD doesn't make up like 80% of all roleplaying anymore or whatever the number was.

>>54546581

Pulling someone at you is considered mind control now?

Jeeze I guess when I taunt a bull and it charges at me I'm just a fucking druid all of a sudden.

>>54546067
Because it wasnt disinformation? Its practically a controlled experiment.

>>54546545
>>54546569
Mechanically, 4e fighters were the same as spellcasters. Nitpicking the fact that they can't turn opponents into toads (which didn't even exist in 4e because that would be an un-fun Save or Die ability) does nothing to change that fact.

Unless you explain why a fighter can only use steel strike once per day, I will continue to maintain that fighters are spellcasters, because there is no explanation for why they can only do it once per day.

>>54546609

>Please stop reddit-spacing.

Not an argument.

>>54546634
>Unless you explain why a fighter can only use steel strike once per day

It's really really really hard to do.

>>54546637
The stuff above it was, though. However, you are unable to answer any of those questions, so instead you'll just focus on irrelevant bullshit. I've made my point. I'll check this thread tomorrow to see if someone has actually made a convincing counterargument, but given the way I've seen 4rries behave on this website, I won't get my hopes up.

>>54546634

> (which didn't even exist in 4e because that would be an un-fun Save or Die ability)

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Foe_to_frog

>Unless you explain why a fighter can only use steel strike once per day,

If that's your only criteria for what "spells" and "magic" are that they HAVE to be per day. And the concept of martial being something supernatural in nature and therefore equivalent to spellcasting ignoring theme and tone and what the characters ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH?

well I think that speaks for itself? Like... why have this argument? You're clearly not just interested in shitting on everything and being a pretentious twat so... yeah. Bully for you.

>>54546691
Then how come he can choose exactly when he manages to do it?

>>54546609

Because it's super fucking fun as hell to play.

And you can do multiple cool things per day, that question is pure troll.

>>54546706
>Because it's super fucking fun as hell to play.
No it's not. Why does limiting it to once per day make it more fun to play?

>>54546699
>http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Foe_to_frog
>save ends
It might as well just be magical chains holding him in place. The flavor just makes it stupider and smacks of Wizards' desperation to include polymorph while cutting its balls off. Same thing with the bodak, cockatrice, and basilisk in 5e. They are so shit-scared of actually fucking up a PC it's hilarious. Pussies.

>>54546634
It's because it is a game

>>54546713

How is that even relevant to what we're discussing?

You may as well say 3.5 sucks because the best classes (spellcasters) play that way under your logic.

>>54546692
Okay, wow.

Wow.

I'm gonna leave this one alone.

>>54546634
The explanation in the book is that dailies are taxing in some manner. Maybe Steel Strike is physically exhausting, or it could be especially hard on your weapon and repeated use would break it. It could also consume some sort of resource, those daily smoke bombs the rogue was dropping don't grow on trees, he has to make some more during the next extended rest.
As for martial encounter powers, they're typically flavored as being especially tricky. You could use them again in the same fight, but without the element of surprise it wouldn't be any more effective than a basic attack. It's much easier to avoid an attack you've already seen once.

>>54546727

Wow okay spaz.

I mean if you absolutely wanna be in a game of rocket tag one bad roll and you're dead that's fine?

I dunno why that's fun to you but having per day abilities is terrible.

>>54546699
>You're clearly not just interested in shitting on everything and being a pretentious twat so... yeah. Bully for you.
Um... yeah, I'm not just interested in shitting on everything. Only 4e and it's fucktarded mechanics. The powers system was not an achievement in game design, it was a cop-out to avoid an actual design challenge. It was a road bump in how D&D was meant to be, and there is nothing it does that 5e doesn't do just as well if not better.

>>54546692

I like 4e

that's the only argument needed. If the system fits the game I'm running I'll use it. I think 4e has its uses.

We don't have to convince you to like it. We don't want to play with you anyway. You're a huge faggot.

>>54546739
That's not an argument. FATAL is a game. Does that mean it's mechanics are good for roleplaying?

>>54546753
>I don't have an argument so I'll say "oh wow just wow" and take up three lines to make my post more visible and take up more space.
k

So, unless someone can do everything they do all day everyday with no limits, they're a spellcaster?
3.5 monks are spellcasters? 3.5 barbarians are spellcasters?

>>54546744
>You may as well say 3.5 sucks because the best classes (spellcasters) play that way under your logic.
It's a balancing factor for wizard spells being powerful. Also there is an in-world explanation for why spells cannot be used infinitely: it drains magical energy from the caster, which takes time to renew. This is accepted in-world and the characters are aware of it. Hence why it is acceptable for them to plan around it. 4e has no such explanation for why martials can only do things once a day. If it's because it tires them out, then why not make it based on Con? D&D wizards get bonus spells per day if they have high Intellect.

>>54546086
As someone who bought too many splatbooks, can confirm.

>>54546806
They don't get bonuses based on Con because only spellcasters get bonus spells and fighters aren't spellcasters.

>>54546758
He's arguing against narrative gameplay design altogether. Your argument is pointless

>>54546758
>Maybe Steel Strike is physically exhausting
Then you should get more uses of it for having a high Constitution. Period.
>or it could be especially hard on your weapon and repeated use would break it.
Then I should be able to take out a different sword and use the ability again. Easy.
> It could also consume some sort of resource
What resource is that?
> those daily smoke bombs the rogue was dropping don't grow on trees, he has to make some more during the next extended rest.
Except, by RAW, you could lock that rogue in a basement and he could make those smoke bombs out of nothing for 10 years. Wow, rogues can spontaneously create matter. Looks like they are spellcasters after all.
>As for martial encounter powers, they're typically flavored as being especially tricky.
Yet they can choose exactly when they use them, with 100% rate of success. Hm. If they are so good at using the power why can't they do it again until they've taken a breath.
>You could use them again in the same fight, but without the element of surprise it wouldn't be any more effective than a basic attack. It's much easier to avoid an attack you've already seen once.
So every single encounter power is some kind of sneak attack or feint?

>>54546806
Because it's a tabletop game of make-believe with rules not a simulation, Dolylist vs Wastsonian approach.

>>54546609
>reddit-spacing

Go back to /pol/, we've been doing this on /tg/ longer than you've been alive.

>>54546760
>I mean if you absolutely wanna be in a game of rocket tag one bad roll and you're dead that's fine?
Nice false dichotomy you fucking mongoloid. I'm sorry, the basilisk should do petrification damage, so if you're a level 20 fighter you're immune to it and can have a staring contest with it out of your sheer bad-ass-ness. That would be SOOO epic, wouldn't it. I bet that greentext would get lots of upvotes on Reddit, wouldn't it?

No. Stop being retarded. I'm sorry if you can't handle your character being in danger, or the kind of tension that creates, but it IS fun, and has been for the millions who played 3.5 and AD&D. Sure a lot more fun than flipping cards until they're all flipped then LONG REST TIME and get it all back. What a pointless fucking ritual.

>>54546067
It's not like 3.5 so it sucks.

>>54546776
>I like 4e
>that's the only argument needed.
Okay. Then run it, and stop participating in an argument about it's design.
>I like 3.5
>that's the only argument needed
Is equally valid.

>>54546830
>can confirm.
Get off this fucking website. No one cares what you "can confirm."

>>54546837
Then why can't my in-shape fighter do something tiring more often than an 8 Con fighter?

>>54546866
What, hitting Enter after every line like an obnoxious dumbass?

>>54546895
>Being this easily triggered

>by simple spacing

Yeah, that's an underaged /pol/ for sure.

>>54546850
>I don't need to have internal consistency in my rules because it's a GAME and therefore nothing else matters
My rules-set that does have internal consistency and associated mechanics is superior to yours, and more fun.

>>54546701
Because it's fun for players to have agency.

>>54546895
Because it would ruin the narrative. 4e is an action movie, not a simulation.

>>54546895
>Having more than 8 con.
Con is by far the worst stat in 4e and with the exception of specific builds and a few feat requirements there's 0 reason to ever raise it above 10.

>>54546895
That's how you format written information, your posts also use paragraph saving, but you have more words per paragraph.

>>54546906
I've been playing this game since before you were born. I started playing AD&D in '95. Don't fuck with me, faggot. I don't even go on /pol/.

>>54546910
>Because it's fun for players to have agency.
They have "agency" in every single other D&D edition. 4e powers do nothing to change that one way or the other. Unless you consider metagaming to be "agency." Agency is a buzzword and I doubt you even know what the fuck it means, dumbass. Unless you think it means "lol I rolled a nat20 so I get to do whatever I want because of rule of cool." Players get control over their CHARACTER. However, their CHARACTER has no fucking clue that he can only use steel strike once a day, because there is no in-world explanation of it. Thus you are metagaming (i.e. not roleplaying) when you use any of those powers. That is why 4e is NOT a roleplaying game. It's a storytelling game, and a shitty one with overcomplicated, slow-as-fuck combat at that.

>>54546349
>D&D 4e sucked because it turned martials into spellcasters.
>>54546634
>Mechanically, 4e fighters were the same as spellcasters.

Am I the only one whose going to ask "and this is a bad thing because?"

Everyone else seems to be arguing against the idea that fighters are spellcasters in 4e. I want to know why we should even care that they are, if they were?

>>54546933
>4e is NOT a roleplaying game. It's a storytelling game
ha...hm.

>>54546933
>Agency is a buzzword
Too much bait on the hoot m8, it'll sink to the bottom

>>54546949
Because martials are stupid and have to suck because the jocks bullied me in highschool.

>>54546918
Yeah I can see why it's the worst stat when you don't even get extra uses of an ability that tires you out.

>>54546925
There is no reason to hit enter after quoting a post, or for every line. Double spacing is just a waste of space.

>>54546917
>Because it would ruin the narrative.
Why would using an ability more than once, ruin the narrative?
>4e is an action movie, not a simulation.
I didn't know action movies had a group of characters fight four different level-appropriate encounters in a contrived area, rest for 8 hours, then do it again, ad nauseum. Good to know I've been watching the wrong movies. Too bad that guy in Die Hard could only shoot a gun once per day, otherwise he would have beaten those terrorists!

>>54546086
This and
>>54546067
a really aggressive ad campaign that shat on the old fanbase.

>>54546933
Yet you still have the mindset of the child you were when you started.

File: poole close.png (26KB, 296x113px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 296x113px

>>54546964
It's true, though. Agency is a load of shit. It's a meaningless buzzword. 4e powers do NOTHING for player agency.

>>54546968
I love martials being good. Hell I love even playing martials in 3.5. I only recently started playing a spellcaster in 3.5 at all. Nice strawman though, keep beating it and projecting your own insecurities.

>captcha a throwback to the good old days

>>54546987
How so? Because I don't accept overly contrived bullshit for the sake of flat, bland game with zero interesting mechanics?

>>54546992
>love even playing martials in 3.5. I only recently started playing a spellcaster in 3.5 at all

So you confirm you don't actually know what you're talking about

File: 1498493349028.png (80KB, 400x251px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 400x251px

>>54546692
See you tomorrow friendo!

>>54546260
This, pretty much.

>>54546349
>D&D 4e sucked because it turned martials into spellcasters.
No, you retard. 4e was amazing because it turned martials into spellcasters. That was its greatest strength! It gave them something to do beyond "Well, I'll hit him with my sword again, I guess" every round.

>A group of orcs jumping down from a wall 10 feet high to attack the players, would all die instantly from 2d10 points of damage.
Well, yeah. That's as it should be. A 10 foot fall is an entire building story; that's easily enough to cripple a person, and during a fight that'd be fatal.

>>54547008
>So you confirm you don't actually know what you're talking about
I DMed for a group of 3.5 players that included spellcasters for a good 4 years. Nice try, though.

>>54547023
>It gave them something to do beyond "Well, I'll hit him with my sword again, I guess" every round.
So did 3.5. You can say that the options were kinda shit (and they were), but that doesn't make the statement any less true. Stop strawmanning.

>>54547064
>You can say that the options were kinda shit (and they were), but that doesn't make the statement any less true.
They were all-around worse than "Well, I'll hit him with my sword again, I guess", and as result functionally non-existent.

>>54547064
If an option is complete shit, it's not really a true option.

>>54546992
Tell me how a 3.5 Monk's Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, Empty Palm, and if they take it Stunning Fist do not make them spellcasters, since these are all abilities that are limited per day (or per week)
Same with the rogue's Defensive Roll. Once a day. Obviously a spellcaster, there. Explain why they can't make more than one defensive roll a day otherwise, since a once per day ability has to be a spell.
A first level barbarian can rage once per day. This is obviously a spell. And he even gets more casts as he goes up in level, just like other spellcasters! Tell me how the barbarian isn't a spellcaster that doesn't get a single spell multiple times.

>>54547064
>options are shit and aren't worth using
>"I-It's exactly the same as 4e where Martial characters have pages and pages of different options!"

People shit on Martials in 3.5 because everything other than two-handed power-attack builds were shit. Grappling is a broken mechanic that doesn't even work on most enemies. Trips are invalidated by 6th level when flight becomes an option. Disarming doesn't work against anything that isn't a fellow human.

Sword+Board does so little damage and +2 ac is shit in the end. Two-Weapon Fighting is only worthwhile if you're a rogue, and even then it's still shit because of the huge Dex requirements just to pull off an extra 1d6+1 damage, at best.

Having options is not the same as having RELEVANT options. Saying you have 500 flavors of shit-flavored ice cream doesn't make any of it any more enticing.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (110KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1280x720px

>>54546971
>I didn't know action movies had a group of characters fight four different level-appropriate encounters in a contrived area, rest for 8 hours, then do it again, ad nauseum.
Guess you haven't been watching any the last decade

File: 1bce3a228fc278e425578b5a9f6b056c.966x954x1.jpg (204KB, 966x954px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 966x954px

The reason 4e sucked had nothing to do with its using narrative powers instead of agency powers, it had to do with it being a very deeply flawed boring system to play, with faults that while they do have various house rules and fixes, ARE present in the system itself, yet its fans vehemently insist aren't there, or aren't a problem.

The combat system pre-MM3 [and possibly even after ] is an overcomplicated padded-sumo slog.

There is way too much focus on movement, positioning, ongoing effects, class roles, and so on in the system.

Non-combat abilities are basically non-existence even for most Utility powers, barring a handful of Skill Abilities in PH3 and the godawful Ritual System, which is both too monetarily expensive and too slow to cast to be practical in play.

The Skill System ended up making most characters feel samey by about level 10.

It somehow manages the impressive feat of requiring even more bookkeeping then 3.X.

Its just a really, really, really bad system. And not bad like 3.X, which is also awful, in the sense of being an overcomplicated unbalanced piece of shit, but awful in the "This is really fucking boring" sense. And I'm sure someone will respond to this with a bullet-point greentext explaining why exactly I'm wrong, but I really don't care. 4e lost and no similar games are heading for the mainstream anytime soon, so any discussion of its merits or lack thereof is an autopsy, not a quality debate. Those who enjoy it are free to continue doing so, but in my own experience its quite possibly the worst RPG I've ever played.

Pic unrelated, its David Bowie.

>>54546634
>Unless you explain why a fighter can only use steel strike once per day

It's a mechanical conceit of the game to allow big ballbuster abilities in a way that makes their use memorable and useful for the player. It's once per day use means the player needs to often wait for an opportune time to use it, which narratively is supposed to be the character waiting for an opportune time to strike. It's a different take on how the narrative and mechanics interact, but it's not inherently weirder than barbarians getting angry in very specific increments of six seconds or how how hitpoints work.

>>54546349
Your issue with minions also shows your same issues with this different narrative structure. Minions let you run an encounter that doesn't work in 3.5, a big boss guy with a bunch of mooks around them. You could certainly try it, but with how borked 3.5's CR system is and how AC scaling works, the mook guys would likely never hit the PCs, and chewing through them would just increase the amount of book keeping and time wasted with everyone involved. Minions fix this by keeping the attack and defensive stats on par with the player while cutting the HP bloat.

There also is an average orc warrior, the raider, and its not a minion. In your scenario with a group of orcs ambushing the PCs, it's likely them who are doing the jump ambush on the PCs.

>>54546067
I remember making this image crop.

The advantage 4e martials have over martials in every other edition of D&D is the same advantage that MTG had over War or that Agricola has over Shoots and Ladders. If you never make choices as a player in a game then you aren't playing.

Why do we keep having these threads. How many more times can you keep saying "I hate 4e"? It's dead and like 10% of people still play it. Must you keep shitting on the corpse?

>>54547100
Why the fuck don't 3.x Barbarians get bonus rages for Con?! 3.x = verisimilitude broken forever. What a garbage game where Conan has to be a wizard.

>>54546417
>Except... this also was true in 3.5 where 99% of characters who hit a 5 hp orc would kill it outright. Maybe not at level 1, but that made sense.

Except attack and defence didn't scale for shit with those guys so before long they'd only be hitting on 20s. Minions actually kept pace with PCs.

>>54546971
Do you all remember that awesome action movie where the cool hero immediately dies when he confronts the villain due to getting poked by Finger of Death but then his nerd friend saves the day by casting Wish with a bunch of diamonds resulting in the situation being immediately resolved by deus ex machina?

But then to stay safe he takes an eight hour nap in his mobile extra dimensional mansion before paying a priest to bring his dumb jock friend back to life?

Such a solid flick.

>>54546971
>Too bad that guy in Die Hard could only shoot a gun once per day, otherwise he would have beaten those terrorists!

Die hard is basically the perfect example of 4e's healing surge system. It allows people to get more and more beat up over the course of the day without walking into each encounter with 'I am a soft breeze away from falling over'. You have the ability to get worn down without removing the risk of early battles.

>>54547230
>and too slow to cast to be practical in play.

1 minute it too slow to be practical? As most rituals were 1-10 mins.

>>54547230
>Non-combat abilities are basically non-existence

That's because skills were supposed to be the bread and butter of non-combat. You know, those things you get trained in for non-combat?

>>54547383
Except for the eight hour nap part, you've basically described Willow.

>>54546067
4e tried to be something different than 3.5e. 5e is trying to be as innoffensive as possible.
And it turns out that people get upset if you slaughter sacred cows.

4e would have been infinitely better received if it launched as "D&D Tactics" or another name that empasized its reliance on grid-based tactical combat, instead of the theater of the mind.
That said, I really enjoyed 4e because I come from a wargaming background instead of a rpg background.

>>54547473

See, I really disagree with this idea that 4e would have been better if it came out as D&D tactics. How would that have really helped? It would have removed most of the brand power of being the new D&D edition, it would have required a brand split to keep D&D going and it's honestly not very good as a wargame (As PCs and NPCs run on different rules so PC vs PC combat gets rather alpha-strikey).

It's an RPG first an foremost, just one that has a strong tactical side.

>>54546953

Depends on what you mean by "common practice." /pol/ didn't always exist and it certainly didn't leak like it does now.

File: Elvish_Berserker2.jpg (16KB, 300x220px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x220px

>>54546067

>a wave of misinformation and disinformation

Is this how you rationalize the general reaction to 4E?

4E did two things well: Combat and Class Balance. Unfortunately, it tragically mishandled everything else about being an RPG while trying to get at the MMO market by simplfying things, paring down systems, removing "troublesome" non-combat clutter.

4E had actual gearcurves and loot per level statistics built right into the game. Very mechanically solid, but utterly without any roleplaying spirit.

>>54546067
Pathfags and 3tards can't accept any deviation from their autismal charop sim, but subconsciously know their game is dying. So 5E at least is more similar, structurally, than 4E.

>>54547553
>4E had actual gearcurves and loot per level statistics built right into the game.

You mean like 3.5's 'Wealth by level' guidelines?

>>54547502
>it would have required a brand split to keep D&D going
Did Assault of the Giants, Betrayal at Baldur’s Gate or Rock Paper Wizard required that?

>>54547460
Not going to lie that kind of makes me want to watch Willow.

>>54547576

Those were board games, not full systems. Heck, Betrayal at Baldur's gate is just Betrayal at the House on the Hill with a D&D skin.

>>54547572
>>54547553
>ignore the argument and focus on a triviality.

>>54547473
It would have been utterly ignored if it was never a full blown new edition. It would be that spin off no one gives a shit about. I mean maybe that's better than hate, but far less people would've played itn

>>54547619

I don't think there is much of an argument to even discuss.

4E just wasn't that great of a DND edition, so of course it got more bad press than 5E.

>>54547576
I dont even know what those are

>>54547619

Alright then: What did it do badly for 'Being an RPG'?

As it had a better, more functional skill system than 3.5 did with less ability for spells to just flat replace them. Rituals existed but they existed as an expansion of the skill system rather than a replacement. Having non-casters be able to do stuff outside of combat was a hell of a lot better for role-playing.

It introduced backgrounds and themes to allow your character's backstory to have more actual effect on the game and to change up what skills a given class would be trained in.

It had an actually functional 'You don't need equipment' system to allow people to play games without an equipment treadmill, something that 3.5 couldn't do for crap with it's own attempt at it.

>>54546883

This guy thinks he's the only one who knows the rules of this board, so fucking funny. Do you get mad when your play dates don't follow the rules in your tree house? Do you insist on one brand of fun?

This thread isn't about game design btw, it's about marketing.

File: 1482317162598.jpg (42KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 576x432px

>>54547598
>Those were board games, not full systems.
Just like 4E

>112 Replies
Why the fuck do any of you keep posting in these bait threads

>>54547299
Because every thread is filled with lies and OP apparently is an archaeologist

Hey new fags go back to ytmnd I'm an old guy I played the games before you and I been to 4chin when moot owned it I know about d&d more than anyone and I says 4 edition is worse and I wanna do my moves as much as I want how did a wizard know he has no mana it makes no sense why balance a game you could have abstract combat be literal instead that sound fun like hp that makes sense if you really think about it in character 3.5 did combat better because playing a miniature based mini game combat simulator to determine the outcome of a combat in the story is only realistic when I decide it is based on my arbitrary preferences and no hard returns on tg I mean /tg/ fuck

>>54547682
See
>>54547230
Its an RPG, its just a very shitty one.

>>54547748
I love this. Go to the Pathfinder threads, be all

>"This game is unbalanced"

Responses are either "We know, its supposed to be that way" or "We know, here's some fixes we like to use"

Go to any given 4e thread, point out the combat system is a broken sloggy mess and the non-combat options are basically nonexistent, response is

>"LIES! LIES LIES HORRIBLE LIES!"

>>54547738
Because half of the posters are this guy >>54547770
And they deserve to be triggered. Bunch of autists who can't cope. Bitches better learn.

>>54547785
>"We know, its supposed to be that way"

I think this just about sums up the entire problem right here. You people are entirely unsalvageable.

>>54547794

What

So wait who are you, angry guy or everyone else? I'm one of the everyone elses, but I've barely posted.

>>54547785
>"LIES! LIES LIES HORRIBLE LIES!"

Have you ever seen a 4e thread? They are very first ones to talk about MM3 math and feat tax houserules.

>>54547785
>See
>>>54547230

That guy isn't actually right about the system or missing the forest for the trees.

Yes, 4e's toned down non-combat options. That was deliberate as the intention was to make skills actually important. Skills also don't ever get 'Samey' as a Trained person will always be significantly more likely to succeed at tasks than a non-combat person.

Way too much focus on movement/positioning is very much a personal opinion. It's a tactics-based game, what was to be expected?

While it requires more bookkeeping than a 3.5 martial it requires a lot less than a 3.5 Spellcaster.

It isn't flawless (I mean I like the system and I wouldn't call it such ever) but he's not actually touching on the actual flaws of the system save a tiny edge case (That of rituals being too expensive. They are not too time consuming like he says but they'd have been better off making the cost in Healing surges rather than gold. It was a bad holdover from 3.5's material components)

>>54547863
No, I'm completely right about the system, as evidenced by the fact that it sucks and didn't sell well.

The main complaints about the system, summarized even more then I did above, is the overly long and overcomplciated combat system, and the terrible lack of good noncombat options. That's both sides of the RPG. There's combat, and non-combat. If both of those suck, your RPG sucks, and the only potential fun to be had is in the roleplaying itself, which can be done without rules at all.

>>54547934
4e sold better than 3e.

>>54547934

>and the terrible lack of good noncombat option

Did you miss 'The skill system'? The basis of non-combat options? Or are you purely talking about spells?

>is the overly long and overcomplciated combat system

God help you if you run into a combat system with some serious complexity. 4e's was pretty damn simple. It had a lot of options but the base system had less moving pieces and exceptions to the base design than 3.5 did.

>>54547934

What made the 4e system complex? Is 'Standard Action, Move Action, Minor Action' seriously too much for you to handle?

>>54547945
>>54547958
>>54547971
>Yes goyim, the flaws don't exist. That's why it didn't lose most of its market share to a competitor who basically ripped off its predecessor wholesale, and its successor definitely ISN'T a backlash that eschewed almost every defining feature it had.

>>54548017
4e outsold it's rival for most of it's lifespan tho

>>54548039
I'm gonna need some sauce to go with that wine.

>>54546067
Here's the simple fact of the issue.

3rd Edition and the OGL ruined the RPG industry by conning all the other RPG makers into making 3rd party content for D&D instead of their own games. This was the explicit goal of the OGL in the designers' own words. Fuck 3.5 and all its fans with a rake.

Remember, kids: everything 4e does is badwrong, even if other editions do the exact same thing (either worded differently or worded the exact same way)
It can't possibly be that someone just doesn't like it themselves, the system itself is horrible and shit and should never have existed!

>>54546499
>There was nothing wrong with how 3.5 martials worked: the interesting options just sucked.

That WAS the problem

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but 3.5 martials were boring as hell to play. Giving them the same basic mechanics as spellcasters was not the answer either, but it was better than the tedium of a 3.5 fighter

5e does this the best, martials have special abilities that function completely differently from spellcasters while still be interesting

>>54548355
Additionally in 5e as a martial if you want to do something interesting in combat you simply roll a stat/skill. You don't check to see if you have the feat that allows you to do the obvious thing. Disarm? Go for it. You don't need to be a battlemaster. Parry? Trip? Shield bash? Bull rush?

>>54546067
4e got a bunch of bad press due to wotc making a bunch of poor business decisions all at once.

I don't know what misinformation you're talking about though.

>>54548280
This but unironically.

>>54546228
5es core system is reasonable enough that people don't hate it.

And there's DMG and tons of homebrew for the people who need more mechanical variety.

>>54546067
>How come 4e got a wave of misinformation and disinformation when it first came out

Probably because Wizards decided those things would make good advertising pitches and filled all their previews for 4e with them.

>>54546067
Because 5e has nothing to make fun of. It has like 2 splats, everything else is either fanmade or unearthed arcana and is written off as non Canon when it sucks

>>54549183
I mean, that's assuming people who shit on 4e even read the books.

Most 9of them don't even know essentials exists (which is pretty funny since essentials was explicitly made to address their "fighter is a wizard" complaints).

>>54549214
Yes , most of them left before essentials came out.

But essentials still has AEU.

People who hated 4e because of the aedu are unlikely to be any happier with any kind of 1/time period framework.

Is the 1/ time period part most of them hated, not whether it was per day or per arbitrary "encounter".

And that's before you consider the people who avoided it because of wotc business decisions, or the people who didn't like the exploded time jump mockery of the realms they were given, who primarily played d&d as "the forgotten realms rpg". (yeah those people exist, but they are not most of 4chan).

>>54549277
>Is the 1/ time period part most of them hated, not whether it was per day or per arbitrary "encounter".

Well, they also aren't even 1/time period anymore, since you get 2, 3 etc. uses of power strike/smite/whatever your encounter power is.

Which is also how battlemaster works in 5e.

>>54546949
Having all the classes play the same, amazingly, is not many people's idea of improvement. Let's say everyone had a disarm at level 7, once per encounter. Sure maybe it is flavored as a shield bash or an arrow to the hand, but the end result is the same. It isn't a question of which class has abilities that fit your style, but what skin you want your multitool to have.

I am loathe the bring up an MMO in a 4e thread, but the same thing happened to WoW. Cataclysm homogenized all the classes and people quit in droves.

>>54549307
>Sure maybe it is flavored as a shield bash or an arrow to the hand, but the end result is the same.

I mean, not only is that not even the way 4e works (not every class has the same powers, and every class has a selection every level, instead of just "you get this") the shieldbash requires you to use a shield and be in melee, while the archery one is done at range and requires a ranged weapon. If that alone didn't make them different, if one is attached to the fighter, now the guy you disarmed is also marked, and if the other is on the ranger, the target also takes some extra hunter's mark damage (and it was probably a minor action or something).

>>54549294
Battlemaster is more like monk.

Nothing stops you from speaking the same maneuver until you're out of sup dice.

>>54549344
>Nothing stops you from speaking the same maneuver until you're out of sup dice.

Just like nothing stops the slayer from using the same flavor of power strike until he is out of power strikes.

>>54549307
Symmetrical character options are less interesting.

Same reason why they ditched it in warcraft iii, and why not everyone in start fighter plays the same as Ken/Ryu.

>>54549355
Yeah. I guess those are pretty similar.

A lot of people really hate battlemaster though,(even though it's mechanically the best fighter )

>>54546581
>>54546545
I get to move every enemy and allie to wherever I want on the battlefield retroactively because......uh.....TACTICS!

>>54548417
>You don't check to see if you have the feat that allows you to do the obvious thing. Disarm? Go for it. You don't need to be a battlemaster. Parry? Trip? Shield bash? Bull rush?
This is true, the only issue is that it isn't explicitly discussed in the PHB, so players often don't think about it, and DMs are afraid to let things happen when it might step on the toes of a characters class abilities. Shield Bashing and bull rushing are obvious ones, they both are represented in feats, so what do you allow from them that isn't just a "shove" or "shove+move" already?

>>54549380
>A lot of people really hate battlemaster though

.... really? I thought it was the most popular version.

>>54549380
>A lot of people really hate battlemaster though
I have never seen that stance taken, ever. It's usually
>Battlemaster should have been the basic fighter template
>All martials should have maneuvers
or, at the least
>Battlemaster is the best designed martial

>>54548417
4e has grab and bullrush as universal options as well... which is actually the same as having grapple/shove in 5e.

And improvised actions are quite a bit better in 4e than in 5e.

>>54549341
I am just speaking hypothetical. I skipped the 4e drama because my group started a World of Darkness megacampaign. So I don't even know the particulars, I just wanted to see people discussing why others seem to hate it.

>>54546776
BUT YOU CAN'T USE THAT ARGUMENT OF LIKING A GAME IF IT'S PF, NO WAY!

Fucking 4e hypocrisy strikes again.

>>54549380
Personally my biggest gripe with 4e (mechanically) was 1/time period. Essentials improved that badly for me, but that wasn't my only mechanical dislike. I'm not after that "take on 90 orcs at level 1" genre that 4e goes for, either.

>>54549391
>>54549399
What you're describing is what I see in 5eg, but in meats pace everybody I meet doesn't like the "bean counting" or whatever.

Personally I'm of the opinion that battlemaster should be how the whole class works.

>>54547230
The thing that always gets me in 4E deates is the simple fact that 4E was literally so horrible that a bunch of shit-eating retards could found a company and be quite successful on the single premise that their product 'isn't 4E'. If your edition is so hated that people rather give their money to Paizo, don't try to convince me of its quality, that's just ridiculous.

>>54549404
>And improvised actions are quite a bit better in 4e than in 5e.
In what way? The 5e DMG has lists of various interactions that might occur, personal favorite being entirely submerged in lava, so i'm not sure i understand how 4e is "better" at GM discretion and circumstance

>>54547572
No, literal loot drops, prepackaged loot that you collected when you killed monsters at specific levels.

>>54549441
"submerged in lava" isn't really an improvised action imo (but it also exists in 4e anyway), but to answer your question, it has a table that details what the minimum damage/effect of an improvised action should be, to make sure that it's at least not an absolute waste attempting them. I had that happen in both 3.5 and 5e, most recently when I tried to do literally anything other with my rogue but land that SA, and found that compared to doing damage it was pointless.

>>54549461
Oh, you mean like the treasure/loot tables you roll in every single edition of D&D?

>>54547814
Only if forced to, because otherwise they like to maintain the illusion their game is unbroken and perfect to people who haven't played it yet.

>>54549355
>my slayer is now to exhausted to use power strike
>but he's still fit enough to use this other /encounter ability!
still retarded.

>>54549479
The other /encounter abilities are utilities, which makes the "you only rarely have the opportunity to use these" a reasonable fluff.

And you can even build him to only have at-will utilities and never encounter this problem if it really triggers you.

>>54548111
they're basing thsat claim on sales totals, which ignores the number of books that you actually sell in favor of how mucvh money was made (2 books cost less than 3 books, and therefore the numbers were skewed).

You should have seen them freak out when PF started outselling 4e. It was all lies and misinformation apparently.

>>54548280
Funny, this was the exact same argument 4e players used about anyone who liked PF. Oh wait, this is STILL the same argument they make about PF.

>>54549406
>>54549432
Mostly not badly. Damned phone. *

>>54549438
WotC killed off a product people liked. The subcontractor that published dragon magazine (which was well regarded at the time) renewed that discontinued thing when wotc terminated their magazine contract rather than go out of business, and it paid off for them.

Paizo was around long before 4e. They were d&ds official magazine and subcontinent company. Like UA, but with 10x the content, and monthly adventures and dungeons and new character options, and the same writers wotc used, and official wotc backing. They did that for a long fucking time.

Wotc pulled their business out from under them to make dungeon and dragon into shitty web articles, the 4e gsl was so unreasonable no business could afford to touch it, and the backlash against 4e was in full swing. So they banked on their setting and adventures they had started publishing in like 2006, revised 3.5 to go along with them, and 9 years later they're d&d's biggest competitor.

>>54549496
It only happened after 4e went out of print. Living game selling more than a game that is discontinued isn't really anything surprising.

And none of the sales data actually took Insider into account, which is another massive swing.

File: Improvised damage.png (720KB, 550x917px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 550x917px

>>54549473

>>54549404
>4e improvised actions literally punish your character for trying to use them
>this is a good thing
Wat.

>>54549514
That's improvising damage for environmental effects.

Where is your rogue going to improvise a vortex to the elemental plane of fire from?

>>54549521
... no they don't?

>>54547023
>That's as it should be.

Come on man. This is supposed to be a game of heroic fantasy, and you're saying it's supposed to have unrealistically lethal falling damage? A broken leg or twisted ankle is not instant bleeding out.

>>54549473
>randomly rolled loot
>prepackaged loot drops based on strict level guidelines
>the same thing
You're a fucking moron.

>>54549527
Why would non-environmental improvised damage EVER be better than a weapon? Dropping a chandelier, or a boulder trap are good things to do, and also environmental. As for improvised weapons, 5e has rules for that too.

>>54549508
There's a reason the first several pf campaigns are actually for 3.5.

>>54549509
Funny, that's not what the reports indicated.

But you won't bother showing any reports that prove your claim. Those reports "don't really exist, you just have to take our word for it".

>>54549533
Page 42 literally has the GM fuck over the character trying to do improvised actions which are much much worse than any 'power' simply because if they didn't, you wouldn't buy splatbooks to get more powers, you'd just use p42 to make up powers.

The fact that you are trying to expl;ain this away as 'no, it really dowsn't fuck over characters, it's a feature not a glitch!' shows how far backwards you'd bend over to defend a shitty rule system.

>>54549399
I hate Battlemaster because it's nothing but a shit, watered down version of classes I actually enjoyed.

>>54546949
It adds a very unnecessary and very hard to look past layer of gameyness that makes it hard to get immersed in the game.

>>54549540
>Why would non-environmental improvised damage EVER be better than a weapon?

It's not strictly about damage, it's about effects.

4e had the effects scale as you level as well. Your rogue at level 1 may jump over the ork and dazzle him ("the fuck is he doing?"), at level 11 jump over the ogre and blind him (drop his cape on his head), at level 21 jump over the storm giant and stun him (literally steal his thunder).

It also has movement related stuff and environmental stuff too.

>>54549569
They later amended that with better numbers. Improvised actions should rival at-wills/encounters/dailies depending on the situation, which makes the encounter/daily ones always worth doing, since that saves your own encounter/daily powers for later.

>>54549604
Doesn't stop me from getting immersed at all and it stops the problem of every single 'stamina' system in existence where your optimal move is to spam your most effective attack. If anything, it's harder for me to get immersed in playing a 3.5 or 5E Fighter because they're both limited as fuck.

>>54546499
>The biggest problem with 3.5 martials was their vulnerability to spellcasters' SoD spells, and the 15-minute-adventuring day.
No, it's that the game is set up so that they're pigeonholed into doing one thing on punishment of being completely fucking useless at everything if they don't and that over half of the game is denied to them, you giant fucking retard. The only things that ever solved those issues even a quarter as well as ToB did were magically oriented ACFs like Wildshape and Mystic Ranger and literal spell-granting prestige classes like Runescarred Berserker. Feats never, ever, EVER let plain martials work the way you're claiming.

There is one thing I haven't seen addressed.

Fighters in 4e can't choose the exact moment when the conditions are right for their limited abilities. The players do.

>>54546883
>I get to decide what people can say on /tg/
Stop posting and lurk more you absolute dipshit

>>54549475

You've literally never read a 4e thread. Whenever I see 4e mentioned, it's with those caveats, because we actually understand the flaws in the game and want people ot be able to enjoy it, so we acknowledge, explain and fix the flaws rather than defending it as perfect. That's more of a 3.PF thing.

>>54549853

This has been explicitly addressed. 4e martial powers are based on narrative design conceits. It's a very different basis than D&D had used before, and a lot of people hated it, but that doesn't mean it was inherently bad or wrong.

>>54550110
It's not even a 3.PF thing outside of a certain faggot's threads. /pfg/ would never, ever tell you that 3.PF is a perfect game unless they were trying to troll you.

>>54549534
If you want a bunch of minions to jump down from a cliff onto the players you just say that it happens because you're weaving a narrative. Do you think it's fun for the players to sit and watch as you roll checks for 10 dudes?

>>54550144
Give them those featherfall windows.

>>54550144

I think that whole argument shows why some people don't get 4e. 4e's rules aren't the laws of physics of the setting, and they don't pretend to be. They're narrative and mechanical principles to make use of in that specific context, to help guide the action and keep the game fun. All these weird implications they claim prove the system is broken just aren't something that would ever actually happen, because the system doesn't work that way. They just assert their old assumptions onto the system and bitch because they don't make sense any more.

>>54550139

Fair point. Most rational fans of things are capable of discussing its flaws. It's just the 3.PF defence force who will adamantly insist it's perfect and then act like everyone else does the same.

>>54549475
It's in the OP post in almost every thread

>>54547230
Gotta say, this is pretty much the best 4e post-mortem I've seen.

>>54550241
Sounds a lot like the 4e defense force.

>>54550301
Literally every line it says is false.

Except the David Bowie one.

>>54550325
I think 4e doesn't have so much a defense force, as a core playerbase who are really sick of people spreading shitty memes.

>>54550325

I've honestly never seen that be a thing. Every account of 4e I've seen has acknowledged it's an imperfect game, and not for everyone. I like it because I enjoy what it does, and it does that particular style of heroic fantasy tactical combat better than anything else.

>>54550337

Well, some of it is false, other bits are just assertions of opinion it attempts to treat as fact.

>>54550369
I typically just get annoyed at tired old memes like "HEALING SURGES ARE FREE EASY TO ACCESS HEALING FOR EVERYONE" or "MARTIALS ARE JUST SPELLCASTERS LARPING WITH SWORDS".
Especially since neither is true.

>>54550388

That last one is especially annoying because it's a pure D&Dism. The idea that any kind of resource system or activated ability makes a character a spellcaster doesn't really exist outside of that space.

>>54550509
To me, the worst part is that 5e "hit dice" are actually free healing for everyone just like what 3aboos said healing surges were.
YET FUCKING NOONE BITCHES ABOUT THEM

>>54550388
The thing I get tired of is people insisting that people must "just not understand 4e" if they said that they don't enjoy it, and the things it is designed to do and the niche it attempts to fill are not things they're interested in.

I'm also tired of the 4rrie meme that all reasons someone might not like 4e are the result slanderous misinformation by the anti-4e illuminati.

Both these things are commonly brought up on this board, and both are patently ridiculous.

>>54550534
Yes, they do, in the cases you're able to use them outside of when you're resting.

Healing from rest has always been in d&d.

ded edition is forgotten, real D&D has returned

>>54550562
5e is less D&D than 4e.
Instead of the high power greatness feeling of previous editions, you feel like a fucking janitor after real heroes in 5e.
Most of the time, it's a better idea to hide a mob of commoners than a single """hero""" in 5e due to how shitty, incompetent, and low-power 5e PC's are.

>>54550625
This is only true for mundane things. A mob still won't be able to cast meteors, wish, simulacra, etc.

But yes, fighter is always going to be just "equal to a lot of guys (except worse action economy)".

I'm actually sorta annoyed how he can fight like 100 enemies at 20, but the moment the fighting stops he's only like 50% better than a level 1 chump.

>>54550658
>A mob still won't be able to cast meteors, wish, simulacra, etc.
All of which are so watered down compared to older editions you might as well use low level mercs to do whatever you wanted to do with these spells instead.
They even probably demand less compensation than """heroes""".

>>54550673
They are still better than what a "mob" does.

I want to see low level mercs destroy everything within the area of meteor shower, or clone the king so he can be at two places at once, or kill the tarrasque for good.

>>54550688
>I want to see low level mercs destroy everything within the area of meteor shower
Just order them to pillage the place.
>or clone the king so he can be at two places at once
Kings typically have doubles who can impersonates them, so it's a non-issue entirely.
>or kill the tarrasque for good
Fine, you have a whole single edge case where a scroll of wish is needed. And even then only because the authors decided to fiat that a wish is mandatory.

>>54550714
>Just order them to pillage the place.
The point is that there may be an army there that stops them. Meteor shower also removes the army.

>>54550726
>Each creature in a 40-foot-radius sphere centered on each point you choose must make a Dexterity saving throw
40-foot radius is fucking tiny.
You'd be very lucky to kill 30 people with that.

>>54550733
sure, and it was just 1 spell out of the, what, 4-50 a high level wizard has a day.

Hell, maybe he has his own mercenaries in the form of a skeleton horde.

>>54550746
Still not worth hiring over just a gang of peasants who will do the job better and cheaper.
5e's lack of scaling by level and lack of any interesting high-level content whatsoever just makes it feel WAY TOO DULL.

>>54550750
>lack of any interesting... content
Fixed. The only time I've had less fun playing D&D was playing 3.0 and running headfirst into trap options because they weren't traps in the game I came from.

>>54546067
>>54547265
Might I ask what the image source is?

>>54546349
>5e is good
If you've never played tt sure

>>54550817
but anon, liking traps is gay

>>54550876
Only if you want to see them railed in the ass or see them rail another guy in the ass.

>>54546067
(((misinformation))

>>54550888
What if you want to be the one doing the railing in the ass?
Or what if you are the trap?

>>54550535

It's fine to not enjoy it. I'm a big 4e fan and I wouldn't want people to play it if they'd rather be playing something else.

On the other hand: I get kinda tired of the many instances of <Blatantly False thing> is the reason 4e is bad. 4e has it's flaws (Some were fixed with time, some remain) but people seem to focus on things unrelated to that.

>>54546545
>Ah yes I recall mind controlling enemies... as my 4e fighter.

C O M E A N D G E T I T

>>54550955
>You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring them close through their overconfidence, and then deliver a spinning strike against them all.
>mind control
:thinking:

>>54550937
That's all on you.

>>54550958
What if you are fighting cautious things that wouldn't get overconfident?

>>54550969
It's a narrative power, just like many other things in 4e.
You choose when a narrative element comes into play.
Come and Get It, as an ability, lets you, as one of the narrators, declare that "and here the enemies got overconfident and made a mistake".

>>54550955

That sorta runs into the area of 'Where does being really good at something and where does mind control split off from each other'. It's a problem Exalted runs into a lot with it's social system.

Monks have a similar power, Drunken Monkey. You hit a dude, then he makes an at-will attack against someone (Including himself). The fluff behind it is tricking the guy into lashing out badly/slipping and injuring his friend.

Still, if you judge 'All attacks vs Will' to be mind control I GUESS you could call it that.

>>54550969

Then it's likely got a very high Will defence.

>this painstakingly slow group-think contrarianism that will eventually convince /tg/ that 4e is better than 5e
Starting to see this shit more and more. Pretty hilarious to monitor from the outside objectively.

>>54550976
What if you are fighting a race that is best known for never getting overconfident or falling for taunts?

>>54550958
If an enemy unit used the same effect on the PCs, would the player not argue that unless its a mind-control effect, his PC would be too cautious and experienced to fall for it?

>>54550993
It's not that it's better, but it's definitely a more viable alternative than what the memes would lead you to believe.

>>54551009
You. Are. The. Narrator.
There are lots of entirely canon books or stories where races make mistakes or decisions not in line with their usual behaviour.
>>54551015
That would be literally advanced autism. 4e is a narrativist system at heart, it doesn't even pretend to be simulationist. If you can't accept that some abilities are narrative-driven in nature rather than representing an actual in-universe ability, the system isn't for you.

>>54551009

Which race is that? I can't think of any that are completely immune to trickery. Even golems are capable of being confused (If anything, more capable than most as they are dumb as the rocks they are made of. They have very poor ability to actually think things through and judge something to be a trap.).

>>54551009
They could have extra defenses against the keywords or outright immunity.

>>54550993
That's really never going to happen.

It's the dream of these sad guys, but the sad truth is that fresh blood is poured into /tg/ daily, and the handful of human cysts that still play 4e can shitpost as much as they want, but more and more people will just keep playing 5e.

In fact, just two months ago 5e players became the majority of all roleplayers, with 51%+ of the population.

>>54551015
If he hit your will defense, then obviously you weren't.

It's just as stupid as saying Blackleafe would never be hit by an arrow, he's too fast for that!

It hit your AC, and Blackleaf is now bleeding out, what are you going to do about it?

>>54546800
They aren't spellcasters but they're also expressly stated to have a power source other than martial, so... Guy still has a point.
If you're not drawing on a source of magic, be that psychic, divine, arcane, or primal, then why are you warping reality, and only able to do so a finite number of times a day? Charles Atlas superpowers don't work like that. Batman isn't only able to be sneaky 3 times per day, hawkeye isn't only able to snipe someone from a mile away one time a day. If you are a normal human, who get your abilities through exclusively the training of your body, then it's just a capability of your body. It's not until you start messing with magic or ki that you have limited times per day.

You could maybe make a case for stamina, but stamina is a pool system, not a bunch of buttons to press. I would be fine with giving martials a stamina pool, like psionics get a power point pool.

But 4e's idea of martial prowess as consumable disconnected abilities makes no sense.

>>54551015

Not if it passed my will defence. That's why I HAVE a will defence. To resist both mind control and trickery.

>>54550985
Originally, it went against AC. Pretty silly, ha ha.
And isn't it going against Will qualify it as attempted mind control?

>>54551053
>And isn't it going against Will qualify it as attempted mind control?
Nope.
Will can just as easily represent seeing through trickery.

>>54551047
>Batman isn't only able to be sneaky 3 times per day, hawkeye isn't only able to snipe someone from a mile away one time a day.

Worth noting that neither do 4e martials.

You try to use trivial shit as example; they can do trivial shit all day. What is limited is their extraordinary stuff.

>>54551047
>hawkeye isn't only able to snipe someone from a mile away one time a day

Considering 'Trick arrows' is his theme, he's had many many times in comics he's gone 'Well, I can't do that again' as a result.

>>54551047
>But 4e's idea of martial prowess as consumable disconnected abilities makes no sense.
See:
>>54551028
>>54550976

>>54551053

Yeah, vs AC was pretty silly. Changing it to vs Will made a lot more sense.

Like how Drunken Monkey also hits vs Will for Monks.

File: 17475.jpg (20KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x450px

>>54546850
>Because it's a tabletop game of make-believe with rules not a simulation

4e is, and that's exactly the complaint. It feels like a game, not storytelling with dice.

You hear people comparing it to vidya, this is what they mean. It wholehog sacrifices verisimilitude for the sake of balance and unified mechanics.

>>54550976
Then maybe that's an approach that some DMs and players may not be fond of.

As a DM, I tend to like it when players add content to a story by defining organizations, their backstories, lore, etc. When players start defining actual events, however, things get weird. Its one things to use game mechanics to describe organizations or people -- its another to have an ability that enforces that. Dos this mean that all enemies with too low a will defense fall to overconfidence every time? Even when they know they're outmatched?

What you're describing is that 4E then assumes all players are also narrators to at least some extent, and are effectively defining the actions of their enemies. And that's kinda weird.

>>54550985
Eh, fair argument. Doesn't mean its not mind control, though. Imagine a Woody Allen-esque goblin -- a slimy, completely unconfident sack of sad -- bravely charging the PCs after having watched all his friends die.

Its a mechanic that produces situations that don't make sense unless you assume that either magic is involved (and mind control, in this case) or the NPC's character has changed.

>>54551087

Seems like it's pretty heavy on Gamist and Narrativist, weak on Simulationist.

>>54551093
>Imagine a Woody Allen-esque goblin -- a slimy, completely unconfident sack of sad -- bravely charging the PCs after having watched all his friends die.

Come and get it is only 3 square burst, so you could just fluff it as the fighter acting as if he gave him an opening to run away.

>>54551093
>And that's kinda weird.
Just a different approach.
Many systems are narrativist in nature, it's not a bad thing per se, mostly a matter of personal preference.

>>54547081
then the issue is that the alternative options were bad, not that they had no options.

I posit we fix those options, and maybe give them additional ones, rather than recompile them to work like a completely different class.

>>54551108
>I posit we fix those options, and maybe give them additional ones
Aka exactly what 4e did.

>>54551047
>I would be fine with giving martials a stamina pool,
I wouldn't and you wouldn't either if you weren't fucking retarded. Do you think it's a coincidence that the only time that kind of system doesn't end in using a tiny stable of moves, less than a *fourth* of what you'd see under AEDU, is 3.5 psionics? And it's all because they end up with 36 individual powers with the ability to nail almost any kind of weakness and whose cost can be scaled up for more power? It's not.

>>54551058
What if a character is a spellcaster or is using a ranged weapon and would have zero inclination to move forward? Why would he move forward, even if "tricked"?

My suspension of disbelief is on the line here.

>>54551125
You could always flavour it depending on the exact situation and context.
For example, one situation could be that you scared them into trying to escape and the only path towards escape was by running past you.
It's all very context-dependent, all in all.

>>54551125
That breaks my suspension of disbelief an order of magnitude less than the countless examples of stupid rules prior to 4E.

>>54551093
That would also be a really tactically poor use of the power, so unlikely to come up, and even if it did, the effect would be more or less the same as the fighter moving up to the goblin and hitting it with a basic attack, flavor it however you like.

>>54551093
>Doesn't mean its not mind control, though.

Eh, as I said in another post it's one of those areas that's really hard to mechanically represent. How do you separate 'Fooling a guy' and 'Mind control' if you want to have it actually have effects other than 'GM Adjudication'. It's something that Exalted has struggled with for the longest time (Especially when you can have long-term effects on a characters personality).

I'm ok with 4e having non-mind control in the form of trickery. As it allows non-spellcasters access to vs will effects. I'd be more iffy if it was Exalted's long-term effects.

>>54551125

You pulled out suck a sick burn of his mum that he charged foward on emotion before his brain kicked in.

>>54551015
>If you can't accept that some abilities are narrative-driven in nature rather than representing an actual in-universe ability, the system isn't for you.
That's a fair argument. That's also why I'm not a fan of it, and that's probably why I disliked it intensely when it came out (not like 3.5's simulationist setup made any sense anyway, to be fair).

Simulationist games are a dying breed, unfortunately. Narrativist is far more popular these days.

>>54551045
>>54551049
There's a difference between a defense against an outside action and a defense against yourself. Few players will have a complaint about something happening to their character. Many, however, will complain when you tell them *how* their character acts.

People often treat their characters as extensions of themselves. Without a magical explanation to make it seem legit, you may get complaints about removing player agency.

>>54551137
Isn't a pull being towards you?
Also, this power seems to be applicable outside of context dependent circumstances.

Do you sort of understand though that this is the sort of thing people didn't like about 4e?

>>54551144
Isn't this an encounter power?

I've had players who will happily abuse extra abilities just to do something silly. I could definitely see one of them using this in such a way.

>>54551103
Fair argument.

>>54551155
>Many, however, will complain when you tell them *how* their character acts.

Yeah, a good GM should likely work with the player to make sure that such an effect fits in a flavorful way. A wizard might not charge forward if he thinks he's got a tactical opening but might let his emotions run away with him if the guy tells him that his dead master cried like a bitch in his last moments.

Life as a minion, especially a high-level minion, must be surreal. Nothing bad has ever happened to that character. You ever broke an arm or a leg? You ever cut yourself by accident or taken a hard fall? Not these guys. Including the ones who literally live in hell or some other deeply inhospitable place.

>>54551162
>Isn't a pull being towards you?
The situation I described would imply running towards you.
>Also, this power seems to be applicable outside of context dependent circumstances.
Yes, and?
Again, 4e doesn't try to simulate a world. That wasn't ever a goal of the system.
Instead, it presents itself as a set of narrative tools to play out a story with. Sure, you can use narrative tools in deliberately nonsensical contexts to get nonsensical results just like you could deliberately write a book that doesn't make any sense, but why?

>>54549414
nigga then what is this
>>54546883

>>54546067
I miss standing still and full attacking every round.

4e was a fucking disaster.

>>54549495
if I'm the DM I can't.

File: 4e.jpg (92KB, 494x671px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 494x671px

>>54551165
>I've had players who will happily abuse extra abilities just to do something silly. I could definitely see one of them using this in such a way.

So what makes this a 4e-only problem to you?

>>54549514
heavily reminds me of the damage table for traps in the DMG.
in fact, probably just call them "improvised traps" and it's fine.

>>54551169
Hey, at least a high level minions has otherwise good statistics to protect them from incidental damage. Imagine how tough life must be for the average 5e commoner, a small group of regular bats could end them in an instant!

>>54551213
Because, as mentioned in other posts, it doesn't make sense unless you assume a narrativist game system.

If my players mind control a guy off a bridge, its fine -- though depending on the system, they're less likely to if it uses up abilities they'll need that day.

If my players know they'll get the ability back in the next encounter, they'll happily waste it. And then we have Gobby Allen charging the PCs will "bravery".

The "running away" explanation someone else mentioned works, however.

>>54551169
see >>54550179

>>54551245
True. But at least he didn't die from scraping his knee.

>>54551266

Hey, he used to be an adventurer like you.

>>54550509
>The idea that any kind of resource system or activated ability makes a character a spellcaster doesn't really exist outside of that space.
I would call Naruto Ninjas and DBZ fighters spellcasters. They use mana to shoot fireballs. They just also fight with martial arts.

>>54550625
>high power greatness feeling of previous editions
HAA
Clearly never played any OSR. Old DnD is about ever-present danger from even the most easily overlooked, and using your wits to navigate these hyperlethal death labyrnths by the skin of your teeth.

>>54551257
It is narrativist, who said it isn't?

>>54551298
AD&D still ends up with higher power, more reliable PCs than 5E does by miles.

>>54550625
AD&D you get a Freehold at level 9 specifically because peasant armies were useful. What are you on about?

>>54546067
4e was bad because it gave players too many powers to use. The remnants of that shit ideology are still in 5e, so I use the optional extra long rest rules to make sure that the players can use their abilities as little as possible.

>>54551329
Except, in AD&D, heroes were still useful.
In 5e, """heroes""" are worthless trash.

>>54551337
It doesn't really matter, does it? Unless you also keep throwing 6 encounters a day at them, you'll end up with the same number of abilities used in the same number of game time.

>>54550958
>causes a will save

>>54551355
A will save that represents seeing through trickery to avoid falling for it, not mind control.

>>54550978
just a will save, no.

but attacks VS will that then let you dictate that characters next action seems pretty mind controlly to me.

>>54551031
Modrons are incapable of emotion and only think logically.
Overconfidence is literally not a thing they are capable of.

>>54551366
>I don't understand the difference between manipulating someone and actual mind control

>>54551366

Attacks vs Will are 4e's will saves. Everything is attack vs Defence to make it line up nicer (Mages can get attack boosts/penalties, less rolling outside your turn)

>>54551381
They could be fooled into thinking this is an opportunate time to attack, though.

>>54551381

They are, however, not immune to deception. They would be a prime one for fooling with a fake opening.

They'd also be a creature with a very hefty will defence so fooling them is still quite tricky. I'd likely line them up with Will > Fort > Ref for defences.

>>54551399
I think modrons are more mechanically intelligent than wise or charismatic. It feels to me like lying to a creature which probably struggles with the concept of a lie would be incredibly easy.

>>54551383
Is there actually a difference? In real life, that's a philosophical question, and without a mechanical difference, it is in 4e too.

>>54551409

Yeah, I was thinking of them in the context of a monster rather than a PC.

As a PC race I'd likely go +2 Int, +2 Dex or Con with a racial bonus to will like Eladrin get. Or just let a player refluff Warforged for simplicity.

>>54551424
There's a mechanical difference
It's called the Dominated status

>>54551440
There's also the 'Charm' keyword.

>>54551434

Addendum: Could do an interesting things with a racial power for them

Logical Response:
Trigger: You make a save or skill check and do not like the result
Effect: You may treat the roll as if you had rolled an 11.

Negation of Chaos[Racial Feat]:
There is no such thing as luck. Everything can be predicted...and countered.
Effect: You may choose to expend your Logical Response racial power as an immediate interrupt to a critical hit against you. Treat that hit as if it was not a critical.

>>54551245
High level minions live near high-level environmental hazards. Imagine if you will the life of Zontor the Lucky, a legion devil minion who lives in hell. Depending on what layer he lives on, maybe he has to deal with regular meteor storms, sudden geysers of lava, or ice that can freeze an archdevil solid. In any case, he has to deal with the bigger, meaner devils who outrank him and their constant punishments and machinations. If Zontor takes even a single point of damage from any of this, he's instantly dead. Imagine what conversations between him and his squaddies are like.

"So where's Balphagox? He take a vacation day?"
"Nah, he got eaten alive by a pit fiend."
"Rough. How about Zaxakor?"
"Oh, he skinned his knee on a rock. Bled out instantly."

>>54551499
And yet they could still wade through lower level monsters as if they were nothing- clearly a testament to the minion's great skill despite his frailty.

>>54551028
If I'm gonna play a narrativist, gamist system why would I play 4e instead of something rules-lighter and more overtly so like dungeon world?

Of course, the same could be said about 3.P and GURPS for Simulationist, and is done so on many occasions, but oh well.

>>54551574

Mostly because Dungeon World is one of the worst PBTA games ever?

>>54551574
My personal reason: because 4e with post-MM3 math has fun as hell combat. I never had nearly as fun combat in any other tabletop.

>>54551582

Having a battle on the back of an Ebberon Lightning Rail was a fucking ball in 4e. The extra focus on positioning and movement (Especially forced) really helped the scenario. It's not a proper train fight unless someone gets kicked off the side, after all.

>>54551574
Because one of them has FFT-esque tactical combat and the other doesn't?

>>54551499
I mean, it's a fun skit idea, but fundamentally misunderstands how NPCs work in 4e.

Things like HP and powers simply don't matter until they start directly interacting with the party. This is why you don't have a list of all the cantrips and rituals that a mummy lord has access to in 4e.

The minion rule itself is a further abstraction on top of that. Nobody is "really" a minion; they are just minions when compared to the party/whatever it is fighting. You could have a tribe of kobolds who are a fair fight with full stats and all that shit come back as a horde of minions with simplified stat blocks 10 levels later.

>>54551645
>literally nothing outside the PC's perception range matters
>TOTALLY NOT AN MMORPG GUIZE!

>>54551065
>>Batman isn't only able to be sneaky 3 times per day, hawkeye isn't only able to snipe someone from a mile away one time a day.
>Worth noting that neither do 4e martials.

>Lurkers Cloak: Rogue Level 2 Utility 1/Encounter:
>"Until the end of your next turn, you gain a +2 power bonus to all defenses while you have any concealment or any cover."

>Perfect Shot: Rogue 25 Attack 1/Daily
>Ranged Attack. Target 1 creature granting combat advantage. "you hit the target and deal 4[W] damage."

Try again.

>>54551657
>4e=MMORPG
Non, fuck you
4e is a FFT/Disgaea game

>>54551657
In an MMO, things outside the PC's perception matter. Spawn rates and whatnot. I've made mints in digital money based on this.

>>54551499
It sounds like those devils have some pretty hellish living conditions.

>>54551645
>stats changing relative to PCs

This offends me.

>>54551674
>"Until the end of your next turn, you gain a +2 power bonus to all defenses while you have any concealment or any cover."

That's... not sneaking. Rolling the sneak skill is sneaking.

>Ranged Attack. Target 1 creature granting combat advantage. "you hit the target and deal 4[W] damage."

And that's not the only way to snipe. You can just make an attack. That's a specific way to snipe.

Are you really this retarded?

>>54551674
>Batman
>Level 2 Rogue

>Hawkeye
>Rogue

>>54551582
The combat is the worst part, though. It's painfully slow, and it's hard to explain away all the abstract game rules that represent nothing in either the game world or the story of the characters.

4e isn't a narrative game. At all. People who defend it claim that all the unrealistic parts of it are narrativist, but really they're 100% gamist. (while this may not be universal, it's a pretty good rule of thumb that narrative games almost never resolve combat one attack at a time.) Powers, action points, and all that other horseshit don't represent any essential parts of an adventure story, nor do they represent real things in the game world. They are moving parts that make for more strategic options in a game. The numbers inflation doesn't mean anything to the characters or to the story; it's a phenomenon limited entirely to the rules of the game.

>>54551701
>It's painfully slow
t. someone who never played with post-MM3 math, which was explicitly mentioned in the post you're replying to

>>54551657
5e has more narrative combat whereas 3/5e have simulationist combat systems. It's not that hard to understand.

>>54551712
That's a popular glib answer to anyone who criticizes your favorite failed system (right behind some variant of "git gud,") but actually I did. I even suffered through Essentials, and it did not speed things up in an meaningful way.

>>54551729
I fail to see how your assertion makes sense, then.
In my experience, the typical combat lasts 2 rounds. Sometimes 1 round, sometimes more than 2.

>>54551712
It's still a slog. Not strictly because of hit points.

>>54551068
Because he ran out of ammo, not because he wasn't capable of it anymore.

Hawkeye works like 3.P special ammunition. When you run out of ice arrows, then you can't do it anymore, but not a moment sooner. Buy a lot of arrows, get a lot of shots. The ability is from his equipment.

If 4e handwaved ammo then I would say okay, fine, it's representing limited ammunition as limited number of uses of the power. Very narrativist for the usually nitty gritty DnD, but whatever.

But it doesn't. Instead despite his powers running on his physical prowess and his supply of arrows alone, there's also some magical number where it just shuts off regardless.

Which implies he's pulling from some mystical source not his own body and not his arrows. That he's not shooting an arrow good but rather casting "Shoot Arrow Good. (Ranger1/Rogue2)."

>>54551739
That's really fast, even in heroic we average 3 rounds, maybe 1 less if you don1t count cleanup.

>>54551729
I'm pretty sure going from 5 round combat where half or more of the attacks being thrown around are missing to 3 round combat where attacks are connecting at least 60% of the time unbuffed is going to make a huge difference.

>>54551765
Well, I mostly played striker-heavy paragon.
Even with very high-power encounters way above DMG encounter building suggestions, they tended to blow up quickly.

>>54551764
>Because he ran out of ammo, not because he wasn't capable of it anymore.

Yes, and why does he run out of ammo...?

>Hawkeye works like 3.P special ammunition.

BZZZZT! Wrong!

It's a narrative contrivance, like spidey's webshooters malfunctioning or whoever in an action movie running out of bullets so he has to fist fight the last guy.... it's the same reason. It's so stuff is more exciting and less repetitive.

>>54551739

We tend to go 3-4 but we're an oversized party so we fight oversized groups of threats.

>Martial powers don't make sense!
>y?
>Because I'm choosing to interpret them in ways that make them not make sense!

>>54551729
"This game isn't simulationist" and "This game has tactical combat" isn't criticism unless you're completely retarded.

>>54550944
Like many who don't enjoy 4e, the biggest issue is: I don't enjoy games where I play as a narrator rather than just as my character. And therefore the degree of abstraction required for its narrator-centric mechanics (which is higher than in other editions of d&d, where it still grates on me) is simply too ubiquitous for me to really get into it as a a game.

It doesn't help that I'm also not so interested in its diabloesque murder superpower powerscale.

Im pretty sure neither of those are false. They certainly seemed to be core design features when I played it for a year back in 2010.

>>54551499
>>54551645
Who cares about realism and internal consistency? our player base won't ask such tricky questions!

>>54551778
The main thing that made 4e slow wasn't the monsters' numbers but the fact that every player had too many options every turn, especially those players who love fiddling with a million options and take way too long to decide anything. Having 5-12 slightly different versions of "I hit it with my sword," a dozen ways to spend move/minor actions, and the choice of when to use action points is good for nothing but helping optimizers and theorycrafters masturbate. In a truly narrative game, you wouldn't need any of that shit, just what's at stake and maybe why each side is fighting.

>>54551925
>Im pretty sure neither of those are false.
Neither of those are usual complaints about 4e.
What you said is good, understandable, and reasonable.
What grates more is that over 90% of the time, people complain about shit that isn't even related to 4e.

>>54551953
>What grates more
I meant to say:
>What grates most people here

>>54551028
>you are the narrator.
This is the thing most widely disliked about 4e.

>mechanics do not directly represent in-universe abilities.
And this implementation is what is most widely hated, often without the understanding that they are the narrator in 4e, not the character.

Incidentally, that's also why I have minimal interest in 4e.

I don't hate it. I suppose I would play it if I had a friend who insisted on running it.

But I'd never go out of my way to play it.

>>54551939
How is it the game's fault that your table fucking sucks at evaluating the state of the board or being able to understand when to use certain powers? Why would you ever, EVER play what amounts to a tactical combat RPG with players like that?

>>54551038
Really. How about that.

Well, pathfinder has been starting to Peter out, at least in terms of new book sales. (anecdote) everybody I know who wants pathfinder books already has the ones they want, and rarely is paizo putting out something new they want to add to their collection.

>>54551925

Yeah, those are legitimate reasons. Different strokes for different folks.

My personal announce comes when it's stuff like 'It makes roleplay impossible' or other blanket statements that just get me confused.

>>54551087
And verisimilitude is the main thing I want from an RPG.

And clearly I'm not the only one.

>>54551925
>It doesn't help that I'm also not so interested in its diabloesque murder superpower powerscale.

I mean, you can just fix this by not using minions and using elites/solos instead.

In fact you'd have to use a LOT of minions for it to get diablo-esque imo, but sure.

I mean, I know you don't want to play the game anyway, since it doesn't really have anything you want, but this sort of hyperbolic misinformation is exactly what I have a problem with.

>>54552016
And there's the "git gud." You guys are so predictable. It's classic magical thinking to blame the end-user when your favorite product fails.

>>54551099
Exactly. And that's not what people came to DnD for. It started as scaling down a wargame to individual combat i.e. gamist simulation.
They then added systems for things other than doing damage, but kept this same mindset when deciding their construction. By 3.5 it was maybe about 2:1 Simulationist to Gamist. Not as fiddly as GURPS but enough that class balance was a secondary concern to verisimilitude. (see infamous Pathfinder comment about catching computer mice and weapon cords)

And some people complained about the effect this was having on their game. Some players were much too powerful, while others relegated to little more than autoattacking silent meatshields, basically a summon.

So 4e threw that philosophy out the window for something wholly gamist narrativist.

This means that in mindset, 4e is closer to 13th Age, Fate, or Apocalypse World than it is to anything that came before, which is why people say it's "not DnD."

But much like New Coke, despite it being a product many wanted, for the vast majority, it's not the kind of experience they bought and played DnD for. So they left for someone who could offer them what they HAD been coming for.

5e, as best I can tell, was an attempt to simplify and better balance 3.5 rather than scrap all and start anew like 4e Still simulationist, but with enough gamist to remove the literally campaign/group-ending problems 3.5 could exhibit as a direct result of the system in worst case scenarios.
And then they threw Background traits and inspiration points on there, along with a bunch of examples everywhere, to have a sliver of narrativism, just in case it ever decided to go nuclear the way lack of gamism did.

>>54552059
>I choose the wrong system to do what I want my player to do
> The system must be at fault

>>54551103
then shouldn't he be running AWAY from the fighter not towards?

>>54551112
no, 4e changed the system entirely.

Here's how to fix your versimilitude for 4e, if you are such a fucking baby.

Take martial classes.

Take a pen.

Write "Weapon-caster" over "Martial".

You can now just pretend they are actually magical.

Sure, the game loses the option to play "pure martial" characters, but apparently your mind wasn't able to handle them doing anything that isn't hitting things with swords, so it's not a great loss.

>>54552016
The people who are attracted to heavily tactical RPGs are exactly the same people who take the longest turns. People who don't really want a tactical RPG, people who just want to play a role or tell a fun story, will make quick, sub-optimal decisions and then let it be someone else's turn. The players who fancy themselves brilliant planners, the optimizers, are the target audience of 4e and they're the problem.

>>54551597
>>54551675
Agreed. It plays like an srpg.

But not close enough as to actually be a good fit for an fft or disgaea campaign, both of which have the pcs on roughly the same powerscale as the rest of the world, and have a much closer to 1:1 match up of character action vs player decision.

>>54552086
depends on the situation? I was thinking he was cornered, or the fighter was blocking his escape, or something and the fighter gave him a way out.

>>54552097
>both of which have the pcs on roughly the same powerscale as the rest of the world

That's just fluff. 4e can definitely handle this.

> and have a much closer to 1:1 match up of character action vs player decision.

I mean... how do you know? How do you know how much is an abstraction in those games?

>>54550837
Really late so I hope you're still here. The manga is called the ancient Magus bride

>>54551115
mind restating that word soup, Mr Sheen?

>>54552093
I don't agree with you.
Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, but I played 4e for years and it actually is the opposite that is true
Non-tactical players take the longest turn because they don't know what to do
Tactical players follow the flow of the battle and know what to do when their turn come. They also know their abilities much better than the non-tactical players