[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Ph4th.jpg (66 KB, 360x450)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
I stopped playing DnD right before it released so missed all the drama surrounding it.
From what I've looked at, it seemed like it had some great ideas about making fighters and other melee classes a lot more useful. Did people really hate that fighters were just as useful as wizards at higher levels
>>
>>82310808
it nailed board game like balance and flow at the cost of abstraction. the abstract/meta portion was another layer to interpret through such that it triggers a certain threshold of autism. We can all 5d6 once a day in a 15 cone, but mine is ice attack yours is some ninja move "monkey steals the peach" and hers is a shart attack that resembles cartmen having a kami-yami-ha moment, and so on. felt thus too detached by perhaps just one layer from table top roleplaying.
>>
>>82310808
love the aesthetic of the books, think the idea of a RPG boardgame hybrid is neat
>>
Asymmetrical progression is a fundamental element of D&D. In 4e every class is practically identical mechanically.
>>
>>82310993
>Asymmetrical progression is a fundamental element of D&D
Why? For what purpose?
>>
>>82311006
So that characters feel different, get different times to shine, have different needs etc.
>>
>>82310808
>word for word and picture repost
This was answered completely adequately last time, bot-OP
>>
>>82310993
>>82311049
>impersonating me and making intelligent posts
To what end are you fucking with my branding?
>>
>>82311006
sacred cow / ivory tower
the original D&Ds were very particular about classes and levels
>>
>>82310808
I was pretty neutral on it before, and I even think (still) it's one of the better editions of D&D based on its intentions, but after seeing it shilled so much as being "interesting" and "fun" when it's not, it's getting extremely sickening to hear about just about every fucking thread, even in ones where OP clearly says they don't want D&D recommended or aren't even talking about it. 4efags, as well as the rest of the D&D crowd, need to get some reading comprehension and to get a clue.
>>
>>82311049
It does nothing to solve the end result though which is spellcaster supremacy past the early levels
>>
>>82311064
I don't know what to tell you anon it was the first image of 4th edition that came up when I googled
>>
>>82311121
It's not a problem when wizards all die at low levels because of their shit armor classes, d4 hit dice and typically terrible constitutions. It's literally intended as a mechanic that a wizard will not only lag fast behind martials in level but die frequently and need to be restarted, constantly being tempted to pick up martial levels in order to simply survive.
>>
>>82311006
It's there to address the martial/caster imbalance
>>
>>82311195
great in theory
didn't happen in practice at a lot of tables that had nice DM's
>>
>>82311195
>spellcaster supremacy
Not a single one of your arguments applies to Clerics or Druids.
>>
>>82311246
Clerics and Druids aren't that great in AD&D and both struggle terribly to gain XPs at low level either through kills or treasure, neither of which they are particularly adept at doing.
>>
>>82311232
>nice DM's
This is something that gradually went from being a thing that would actually spoil games to something that has become literally a codified requirement of the rules.
>>
It was designed during the era where everything was an mmorpg and everyone was playing mmorpgs, so they built 4e to feel like playing an mmorpg, even going so far as to design it to work best with a proprietary VTT that never came out. All of that resulted in a deeply unsatisfying system, despite it having a few solid ideas, such as the warlord class.
>>
File: 3.5.jpg (70 KB, 500x500)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>82310808
I could say things like characters being too samey or the dumb way it handled skills, but in reality I would say it's way more because of marketing. WotC really went wild saying that it was utterly superior to 3.5, breaking with a lot of third party publishers and making no bridge content between the editions to the extreme that they literally nuked forgotten realms and started again, this made a lot of people hold the edition in contempt even before it launched...you add that with the fact that the launch manuals really were flawed in ways that completely broken the game and the "3.5 player" mentality that endures to this day was formed
>>
>>82311397
They should have just renamed 4e "Chainmail" or something and continued to run with it
>>
>>82311480
Yeah the Pathfinder books happened around the same time too which added more fuel to the fire of the edition wars iirc
>>
>>82311498
This could have saved the game.
>>
>>82311543
Wizards literally created the market for Pathfinder with how terribly they handled 4e
>>
>>82310950
fpbp, we had some lovely games as a result of us roleplaying like mad to try and get around the inheritant "MMORPG-ness" of it all.
>>
>>82311006
Classes are inherently imbalanced in what they do unless you pull a 4e. Giving them different progression solves the power imbalance by giving it to them at different times. It doesn't matter if the wizard is better at level 17 than a level 17 fighter, the fighter will be 17 while the wizard is only 11.
>>
>>82311938
Or you might just not act like a retard and have classes of the same level have the same power, because what's even the point of having levels then if you don't?
If you want some classes to have bigger end game potential power than others, just up their level cap.
>>
>>82311938
That's not how AD&D XP tables work.
>>
>>82311938
It does nothing to solve the tactical interest of combat for each class though where the spellcaster has many options and strategy to pick from while the fighter has little else than swinging a sword
>>
>>82310808
They put crunch before fluff, and in the end that made it feel inorganic and overly gamey. RP was literally forgotten in the design and a super half-assed system tacked on when they remembered towards the end that it needed it, but you could tell they still didn't think it needed it. Basically they designed a boardgame and called it D&D. As others stated would have been successful had they sold it as it's own thing and acknowledged it for what it really was instead of what they were trying to replace.
>>
>>82311938
>unless you pull a 4e
Put effort into class design?
>>
>>82312383
But that's exactly what they didn't do with 4e. They put effort into GAME design then they forced every class into its confines, classes that their audience had a solid perception of. Insulting, really.
>>
>>82312033
Isn't that inherently unfixable though?
Either there are people in the game who can do magic and have more options than the people that can't, everyone can do magic so there are no classes limited to options that are physically possible, or no one can do magic so every class is limited the same way.

>>82311938
They should just have the progression in XP needed to increase the level be the same but the abilities increase in a level that actually has them be equal. Level 17 in any class should mean the same amount of power, even if it's comparable to what would historically be a Level 11 wizard and a level 17 fighter in older editions. Also makes it easier to use in a world where XP isn't a popular mechanic.

>>82312383
abstract everything into board game mechanics without a corresponding coherent reality. e.g. the fighter is definitively not capable of anything supernatural, but can swing his sword a certain way to achieve what would logically be supernatural effects, and he can do so only once per day for no stated reason.
>>
>>82312528
>the fighter is definitively not capable of anything supernatural, but can swing his sword a certain way to achieve what would logically be supernatural effects, and he can do so only once per day for no stated reason.
Why can a wizard only cast a spell once per day?
>>
>>82312528
There is so much complexity to real life martial combats that it is a disservice that most editions of D&D have no tactics for the fighting classes
>>
>>82312674
Well the simple answer would be "because that's the way the magic works". You can do that when referring to things that don't actually exist, as opposed to humans, swords and arms which do.

The actual answer I believe is that you memorise unthinkably complicated arcane syllables and gestures, so complicated that you can only memorise so many at a time. The spell then feels like it burning behind your eyes waiting to escape and then when you unleash it it's gone and whatever the no real life analogue thing you did that let you fit it into your brain goes with it.

>>82312772
Agreed. What is physically possible without magic is a pretty large design space. Do you know any system that doesn't abstract that as much but still runs fast? Or at least feels better than "I attack" every turn.
>>
>>82312809
5e actually manages a pretty decent variety of martial archetypes with interesting and distinct mechanics. It still feels a little too much like "fightan magic" with limited uses per short or long rest but I don't know the cure for that.
>>
>>82310993
i really want to know which idiot at TSR thought "druids have to duel to advance each level and oh yeah you have to start at 0 XP 3/4 of the way through your progression" was a good idea
>>
>>82312850
Distinct isn't the most important thing in the world though?
In terms of mechanics I enjoy the Battle Master probably the most of all the pure martials to play, but I can recognise that its existence makes the game worse.
It's much more fun to play a game where everything reasonable can be attempted by anyone who has the idea to do it, instead of something as simple as feinting being walled off in the mechanics of a single archetype of a single class. Similarly I think regardless of how much easier it makes it to make engaging mechanics and differing classes, having MMO cooldowns on how often I can pull off a sword technique wounds the verisimilitude that makes the whole game enjoyable in the first place.
>>
>>82313273
D&D's abstract combat hurts my ability to suspend disbelief in the first place so why should I care?
>>
>>82313346
Of course it does, it hurts everyones, but suspension of disbelief is subjective so everyone draws their line in different places. Martial cooldowns make it worse and cross more peoples lines. So no, you personally don't have any reason to care because it sounds like it's already well over your line.
Out of curiousity, what is your line? That is to say, what would the combat system need for you not to feel that way?
>>
>>82312463

Not really? Fighters don't work like Paladins, don't work like Wardens etc. Classes were not all made the same beyond there being a baseline power framework.
>>
>>82312528
>abstract everything into board game mechanics without a corresponding coherent reality. e.g. the fighter is definitively not capable of anything supernatural, but can swing his sword a certain way to achieve what would logically be supernatural effects, and he can do so only once per day for no stated reason.
That's been in plenty of editions. Barbarians, for example, rage no matter their actual mental state and only have a certain amount of angry per day. Games always have aspects that don't line up with reality.
>>
>>82313273
>It's much more fun to play a game where everything reasonable can be attempted by anyone who has the idea to do it, instead of something as simple as feinting being walled off in the mechanics of a single archetype of a single class.
Then what's the point of having a fighter class? You need to give a class unique capabilities or it has no identity and you'd be better off playing something where swordfighting is a skill anyone can learn instead of a class.
>>
>>82313422
Let's be real here: you need to translate that dude's speech from "all classes feel the same in 4e" to "I cannot solve every problem by myself as a level 16 wizard in 4e". They don't like being on the same level as non-casters, they would much rather go back to the 3.5e paradigm of sorting through a bloated spell list and using it to bullshit their way through every encounter. They don't actually want to play a game where you fight monsters in dungeons.
>>
>>82313422
That baseline power framework is a huge thing. Why should the way a fighter and a wizard function be comparable in that way?
Also regardless of if the system did make the classes work/feel different from one another within that framework, they still didn't work or feel like the preexisting understanding that the audience had of how those classes should work, or in the case of the non-magical classes, the essential basic logic of how the world works possessed by everyone.

>>82313431
Barbarians having x/day rages is new to 5th isn't it? In 3rd raging made you tired for a certain amount of time, and you couldn't rage while you were still tired, but could once you'd recovered. Which seems believable enough to me. Other than that before 3rd rage wasn't a codified ability, barbarians were just illiterate fighters that hated magic.
I know you can't have a 1:1 recreation of reality and I don't expect it, but some things are just taking the piss.

>>82313472
The fighter is better at doing those things. He is uniquely more well trained, more resilient etc. He is uniquely capable with a specific role, just without unique walled off mechanics.
>>
>>82313598
>Why should the way a fighter and a wizard function be comparable in that way?
Why should a cleric and a wizard work the same way, when the D&D novels have never treated clerics as having a spell slot system? Because the game is very artificial and puts people with different power sources on the same system for purely game reasons.

Seriously, why do Clerics and Wizards work the same? They have no thematic links, they don't even use the same magic and the novels have never had clerics be spell-slot based (Both the Pool of Radiance Trilogy and the Cleric Quintet treating it more as a drain-based system like Shadowrun).

>Barbarians having x/day rages is new to 5th isn't it?
No. Right from the 3e SRD:
>Rage (Ex)
A barbarian can fly into a rage a certain number of times per day. With it starting at 1/Day at level 1 and 6x Day at Level 20.
>>
>>82313598
>He is uniquely capable with a specific role, just without unique walled off mechanics.
So every single person is capable of pulling off Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon swordplay without any special training?
>>
>>82310808
Many, many things but mostly it wasn't designed with the gameworld in mind.
>>
>>82313645
Yeah I don't know what the fuck I was thinking about barbarians. It's late, I haven't played 3rd for years, memory playing tricks on me. Still it still means that that kind of thing is new to 3rd and the WotC era. It's not inherent to the game that martials have to have x/y powers.

>>82313661
No they shouldn't, but everyone should be able to swing a sword. My point is not that martials cannot have unique mechanics. It is that they should not have, and do not need those unique mechanics that can only exist through preventing other classes from trying things they should be able to try, or through having immersion breaking cooldowns or similar things that only exist on the table without an analogue in the game world. Me and Tyson Fury can both try to throw a punch but he is going to be a lot better at it than I am.
If you have some good examples of things only a fighter of a certain level, or a certain type, should be able to even attempt, then those are the kinds of mechanics that make sense to be unique.
>>
>>82310993
Nah, 4e had classes and it had roles, and they were all somewhat different, even if there was some overlap

If by "play the same" you mean they use the at will/encounter/daily power format and deal damage in increments of weapon damage or flat die, then yeah, that was the general structure of every class.

It was broken down Into roles, which actually gave classes distinct purposes in combat rather than "here's a grab bag of random abilities good luck" like 3.5 and 5e often are, and added ways to effectively do things like healing or holding monster aggro much better than any other edition. It was the best edition for classes that usually get shit on like fighter or barbarian, they actually had more to do than just auto attack like a fucking npc, and monsters had some really creative and in depth soft "ai" to the way they worked with the different monster roles.

Classes within a role also had a lot to make them feel distinct. In the leader role for example warlord had abilities which focused on granting allies extra attacks or free movements, while cleric focused on direct healing and area of effect radiant and fire damage.

As a system it was way ahead of its time and shockingly well built for wotc, and had a TON of support with 3 phbs, 3 monster manuals, several dmgs and item compendiums, 1 or sometimes 2 books for each power source of classes. In my opinion 4e was the gold standard for wotc and I'll never understand how people accepted 5e as it's replacement (although critical role had a massive hand in that and likely saved the franchise by pure normie meme power)

But it really bothers me when people try to reduce 4e down to "its just the same powers over and over again". Yes, there were a few that were the same or similar, but there were literally hundreds, maybe thousands of powers, that's bound to happen. Most 4e criticisms just come off as dishonest
>>
>>82310993
>that fucking druid advancement
why
>>
>>82313937

https://advanced-dungeons-dragons-2nd-edition.fandom.com/wiki/Druid
>>
Yeah so ultimately this guy's complaint about 4e is that martials aren't bound by our real world's rules while casters aren't allowed to cast "Implode the Earth's Core" in more words.
No one who likes 4e is looking for "reality". It's a game focused on running action-adventure narratives, and we want mechanics that represent that rather than a specific world.
No, you cannot simulate a world with 4e's rules. You can tell a story, and it is much better at naturally creating these stories than many other systems. The fighter only using a daily power once per day can and should always have a dynamic justification, not one that determines how all fighters across the entire setting always work.
Tl;dr 4e is for people who actually play games instead of worldbuilding hobbyists. And if you don't like that, fine, nobody gives a shit. Just please do some self-introspection and game analysis before you go on an argument about how RPGs "should be", because you fucking suck at getting your point across in a way other people can understand it.
>>
>>82313963
>https://advanced-dungeons-dragons-2nd-edition.fandom.com/wiki/Druid
> Druids can use all magical items normally allowed priests, except for those that are written (books and scrolls)
...the thing named after the LEARNED CLASS of the Celts can't use writing?
>>
>>82314179
Honestly I don't see how 4e rp and skill rules are any worse than 3.5 or 5e, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument of it from anyone either
>>
>>82311815
>roleplaying like mad to try and get around the inheritant "MMORPG-ness"
So you had to work harder to get around the inherently shit system, and it just so happens that because you worked harder than normal, you got better results.

That's like saying you like having chairs and shurikens thrown around a dance hall because it makes all the dancers make such elegant movements.
>>
>>82313924
To be frank, I found the "you use your powers to define your combat abilities" aspect of 4e actually one of my favorite parts of the edition. Especially because it worked whether you were a caster or a bruiser.

I mean, outside of aesthetics and the tradition of damage type resistance, most weapons were interchangeable in many editions of D&D; they had their different damage values and critical threat ranges, but they all did the same thing in practice. 4e gave bruiser characters powers that specifically keyed off different kinds of weapons, and also gave different weapons unique properties. Wielding a greataxe or an executioner's axe wasn't just flavor, there were some actual mechanics to it - the latter would hit less, but it would do much higher damage.
>>
>>82311938
>>82311049
>>82310993
That's retarded though. I know DnD isn't a video game, but there are plenty of JRPGs that manage a balanced system and this has nothing to do with fluff so why the fuck are we on a high-horse about crunch?
That's not even what most people criticize 4e for. Its not about the XP, its about the entire boring MMORPG style system where you get boring skills, etc.
Why are we talking about the most boring and, depending on the group sometimes even trivial, aspect of D&D? Almost every GM I've had to varying degrees essentially just says "OK, you level up now" anyway.

What a dumb thing to focus on.
>>
File: 4e Scroll of Wish.jpg (88 KB, 640x482)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
>>82314528
Agreed. Other than dropping Craft/Profession and breaking up Knowledge (X) into distinct skills like Dungeoneering, Arcana, Nature and Religion, I can't really see the difference between 4e's skil list and 3e's.
>>
>>82314461
If historical inaccuracy bothers you then I've got bad news about paladins in D&D editions 0 through infinity.
>>
>>82314685
>its about the entire boring MMORPG style system where you get boring skills
...Will somebody give me a list of the 3e skills and what they do? Please? Because I keep hearing this "3e had much more immersive skills" argument and I cannot find the evidence for it.
>>
>>82314528
I can't remember specifically, but as an example of 4e being all stupid and video game-y, it had a skill that's just something like
>make a ladder out of arrows
This isn't creative roleplaying. They made a skill that someone could otherwise just have any other number of ways and said no this is 1 very specifically ability that you either can do, or can not do.

IIRC, they also made fireball something you can only cast in combat. Its fucking gay. Every skill is just like a stilted, automated action.

Oh no, its great; It really makes me imagine my character just running around running into walls without ever stopping his feet or actually hitting the wall. It really makes me FEEL like I'm repositioning my in-game avatar to press A at the right angle so he can perform some scripted machine animation.

Sure its balanced, but the cost is that it removes everything that a TTRPG is supposed to fucking be. You might as well just have your GM screw around in RPG Maker instead.
>>
>>82310808
Because it was overtuned MMO-like garbage with mechanics completely divorced from what "makes sense" in-character, i.e. not an RPG.

>>82310979
>love the aesthetic of the books
The aesthetic of the books is absolutely fucking atrocious, and genuinely the worst part of 4e, for fucks sake. How the fuck can someone *want* nonsensical nu-Warcraft art? Has the brain rot really gone this far?
>the idea of a RPG boardgame hybrid is neat
That I can agree with, and if the game had been launched as a Descent-like hybrid boardgame instead of an RPG/D&D game, I think it would have flourished.
>>
I got to play a pixie warlord who shouted at people and made them hit things while never having to hit anything herself in the entire time I played her. I don't care what anyone says. It was awesome and I regret ever moving on.
>>
>>82310808
WotC basically decided to remake D&D with the mechanics of a mainstream video game.

That's the big issue here. If it were some other game, people wouldn't care so much, but D&D was an extant game with it's own mechanics and history, and WotC walked in and was like "lol but what if it played like an MMO and it operated on video game logic?"

It even had that generic MMO cartoony aesthetic, which I particularly despise, but I digress...
>>
>>82314804
And by the way, anyone who argues that 4e is good is most likely not used to being a creative roleplayer and doesn't understand the value of these moments.
>>
>>82314832
You might be actually autistic
>>
>>82314461
>learned class of the celts
>still can't read or write
Sounds about right to me.
>>
>>82310993
This. Its not a bug for some people in a system to be better than other people, its an objective representation of reality. When you make everybody equal magic-users no longer feel magical, but mundane.

>Inb4 Reality, Magic, Hurrdurr
Oh, for fucks sake. Part of the reason D&D feels both compelling and exciting is because its a fantasy realm with just that little bit of old-school realistic charm. Do adventurers meet up at the base of the lightning-powered Megazord? No, they meet up at a tavern or a bathhouse, almost invariably. That doesn't mean people want the series to be realistic, they just want it to follow the tropes for which high fantasy is known - drunken dwarves, beautiful elves, and of course, casters being more powerful than most folk.

The unfortunate truth is, not everybody is equal. The world feels a little bit more authentic when you have a class of people who study/pray/are born into the upper class of power, as a physical representation of people in real life who study/pray/are born into the upper class of power.

It breaks immersion when you add to this the idea that training really hard somehow makes you into Goku. You know what working your fingers to the bone gets you in real life? Bony fingers. People who expect to gain learn to work smarter, not harder - either by maximizing gains, minimizing labor, or forcing someone else to do the labor.
>>
>>82314846
>argues against strictly rules-bound gameplay
>argues in favor of creative problem-solving rather than neatly categorized and labeled powers limited to specific function
>autistic
Sounds like something a retard autist would say, retard autist.
>>
>>82314897
Begone namefag
>>
>>82311983
What part of the concept of levels made you think characters of different levels had to be roughly equivalent in power? D&D isn't an MMO.
>>
>>82314897
>he does know about skill powers and essential classes
Ha ha ha. Oh wow.
>>
>>82314846
>Slightly increases the noise to signal ratio .
Cool story.
>>
>>82310808
It took arguably the worst part of 3e: CR which was to create this mythical quantifiably "balanced" encounters (to cut down on the arbitrariness of older editions where dumb players thinking they were CW-show-protagonist-safe were getting cut down left and right before they had to wisen up) which ultimately led, with a more complicated spell/skill/rule system, to combats at anything north of 6th level taking an hour, or hours in the case of stuff 11+ (that is if the PCs stuck around to fight it out, which I'll get into later)
4e took that and elevated it to a science, but in doing so they made combat which 3e had made too central (and had enforced with all their module designs and those of paizo's dungeon run), so that hours-long combats were inevitable no matter what kind of game you wanted to run
It tried to give RPG/exploratory elements a modicum of the same breadth of rules with skill challenges, but they were a pale imitation, basically asking for a series of roles and having either the players or DM narrate the results based on the die roll. You know, instead of having them ask questions and attempt things on their own which based on what the PCs have chosen might not require a dice roll at all
Back to the combat part, 3e was still more deadly with NPCs/monster able to deal out greater damage because they mostly worked on the same metrics as the players, but at the same time the players had greater resources to fall back on, so if a high level party was cornered by overwhelming odds, then they could huddle up and teleport away to lick their wounds and plan and counteroffensive, perhaps one that didn't force them to fight the enemy at all or at least not on their own terms. 4e's ruleset didn't really allow for asymmetrical warfare in the same way as any previous edition.
>>
>>82314691

Oh yeah but I can kinda see where one led to the other but I have no clue how anything druidic led to the druid class.
>>
>>82314528
Same here.
For real, i have started with 4e, then played some 5e and now we are doing 3.5 because i don't want to dm anymore and the dm is "odlschool". Never ever was it harder to RP with 4e than 5e or 3.5e. In fact, 3.5e is such a clusterfuck of stupid fucking useless piece of informations that it sometime take hour just understand what we can do under certains situation. Did i mention that the dm loved 3.5 because it's "oldschool" and the best edition ever because there is a fucking rule for everything ?
I am astonished by the sheer quantity of fucking garbage you need to read just to do simple shit in 3.5. As i remember, in 4e, when the player had something he wanted to do, the dm shrug, ask for a roll and BAM OVER.

Let's not forget about caster supremacy. REALLY, it's that bad ! REALLY BAD ! I didn't tought it was this wrong. But now i'm a true beliver.
I usually play martial class in RPG, and when i started 4e, i really felt that everyone was contributing. Everyone was doing his part. I didn't feel that i was superior to my comrades, we just had different niche. Everyone was shinning it was beautifull.
I now play a druid in 3.5 and BOY, IT'S DIFFERENT. For real, it's not even like i'm trying to cheese everything on purpose but GODDAMN. I have been here from the start of the campaing and i can assure you that i have gradualy physically FELT the PAIN of my friends when playing. It's hard, i fear for my life. I begin to smell the scorn coming from them. One of the player is a 1rst time mage player, and it's slowly starting to click. The paladin, barbarian and rogue are seething.

People saying caster supremacy is normal because low lvl hard hight lvl easy should be hang.
In a fucking game about cooperation you let some player completely overshadowed the others not even because they are good but just because some classes are shit ? Come on !

And let's be clear, i don't think 4e is the perfect, but when you have reference, you can compare...
>>
>>82314804
>IIRC, they also made fireball something you can only cast in combat. Its fucking gay. Every skill is just like a stilted, automated action.
No? They expressly had rules for 'So I want to use my powers out of combat'.
>>
>>82313924
explicit combat roles are inferior to implicit combat roles and hybrdizing turn to turn. Core classes are almost entirely identical, and two books after core quality of content drops dramatically. These fundamental issues are just a small part of why this game was a wonderful experiment we need to learn more from, but needs to be discarded. Move on to 13th Age, Lancer, ICON, Strike, or the strengths of 4e will remain trapped in 4e forever.
>>
>>82314846

As an autist, I take offense at being compared to that person.
>>
>>82314985
>Core classes are almost entirely identical
They really are not.
>>
>>82314832
>4e is good is most likely not used to being a creative roleplayer and doesn't understand the value of these moments.
>implying these moments are limited to 4e and not just to the DM
If I tried to make a ladder of arrows in my 1e campaign, my DM would laugh me out of house and home
>>
>>82314998
Compare the phb2 and phb3 class design to the phb1 design. Furthmore, the developers of 4th edition when they went on to make another game said that classes are too samey and fixing this was their primary design goal. So shut the fuck up.
>>
>>82315014
>Compare the phb2 and phb3 class design to the phb1 design.
I have and I still think you're talking nonsense.
>>
>>82314985
>Core classes are almost entirely identical
>two books after core quality of content drops dramatically.
>needs to be discarded.
Why are you so filled with hate and lies about 4e?
>>
>>82315014
>the developers said the classes are too samey
>therefore they are because they said so okay?
>>
>>82310808
Because it blew chunks. People are just mad that it got replaced by a worse version. But hey, glad 4rries knew my pain before I moved on from D&D.
>>
>>82314897
"Dude like, you can't do that because it's not a power but you totally cannot ask the dm to do something creative even if it's the rules, that's like totally retarded right ?"
>>
>>82315014
Can you list two classes that have design that are "too similar"?
>>
>>82310808
It's because of sheer autism and the first monster manual released was so fucking dogshit
>literal hill giant swipe does 1d8 + 5 damage or so when the PCs at the start have 20-30 or so HP
It got better with time and I love the system, but I can see how people tried to play it, had a 9 hour combat, and never again'd
>>
>>82314733
Here's a character sheet, skills on the right. At first level you took your Int modifier and you class skill ranks by level, quadruple that number and allocate them as you see fit (with some stipulations that some classes cannot take some skills and that if you take a skill that is not one of your "class skills" you need to invest two points to get one actual point of use out of it).
Note that for almost everyone, that meant "one of my class skills, plus spreading points out across Spot, Listen, and Search" 9 times out of 10.
4e then said "that's dumb, let's make those searching skills one skill, get rid of most of these worthless skills like "Use Rope" that should just be a background thing or just a Dex check at best and make the actual skill list one that you're either trained in or not."
5e then took it, got rid of the Endurance skill (the sole Constitution-based skill in 4e) and tied it to the Proficiency bonus but it was still either you're trained or not.
4e also had you add half your level to skills so that you would always at least have a chance at higher levels of actually making various checks.
>>
>>82314804
Tell me you never actually read the system without telling me you never actually read the system.
>>
>>82315073
Forgot image, sorry. Here is the sheet.
>>
>>82315047
Our fix was to double NPC damage output and halve NPC HP. Made combat faster and more deadly.
>>
>>82315041
>depending entirely on GM fiat is a GOOD thing
>haha yeah you can grease that with the grease spell even though you don't have the grease power obviously haha
Yet more autism. Many such cases.
>>
>>82315073
And is that a bad thing ?
>>
>>82315042
I already have
>>
>>82315100
No, 4e's skill list is far superior to 3e/3.5 because it was actually usable without needing to be a Rogue or Bard.
>>
>>82315108
>I already have
What? Where?

>>82315014
>Compare the phb2 and phb3 class design to the phb1 design. Furthmore, the developers of 4th edition when they went on to make another game said that classes are too samey and fixing this was their primary design goal. So shut the fuck up.
>>82314985
>explicit combat roles are inferior to implicit combat roles and hybrdizing turn to turn. Core classes are almost entirely identical, and two books after core quality of content drops dramatically. These fundamental issues are just a small part of why this game was a wonderful experiment we need to learn more from, but needs to be discarded. Move on to 13th Age, Lancer, ICON, Strike, or the strengths of 4e will remain trapped in 4e forever.

Not seeing any classes mentioned there.
>>
>>82310979
My group is trying 4e and I want to like it, I honestly do, but the layout of the books makes it so hard for me to grok the system. Every class is basically a list of powers you can choose from, but each power is a rectangle of stats AND these rectangles are arranged in two columns that go to the bottom of the page and then you need to jump back to the top of the page to get to the next column... These powers are all so similar that this information could have so easily been formatted into a table with the relevant information grouped together. The fact that I'm reading this in PDF definitely makes it worse, but I think that it would still be a shit experience in a physical copy. I fucking hate it.

I'm trying to choose a class, but each class is like 15-20 pages of nonsense that all looks the same and it's made all the worse by the fact that this could have easily been avoided, but they were going for their unified aesthetic and it just makes the game a much worse experience. It's form over function and it pisses me off.
>>
>>82315108
Where? I checked the entire reply thread and it's not there
>The handbooks
No bitch I mean classes, like if you're gonna say the fucking fighter is like the wizard because
>>hurr durr encounter and daily powers!
Then just say it so everyone can disregard your trash opinions
>>
>>82315095
>using a fucking stupid exemple that doesn't make any sense
>haha that will show them they are the autism haha
Bruh
>>
>>82315117
One of the main reasons my group still plays it is when I was in high school I spent half the semester compiling every book, then compiling every power and feat for every class into different documents for ease of searching.

>every class is a list of powers
It's a bit deeper than that because the powers really impact how you can play a class. A lot of classes get starting powers that help you fulfill a role and each class has a size able amount of feats to pick from that can really vary it up.
It's unified enough that most classes, with the exception of the seeker (god bless it's soul), are balanced without any being "I replace you" and they're all equally fun to play in combat.
>>
>>82315095
>>depending entirely on GM fiat is a GOOD thing
It ultimately is, after all d&d is a game of trust and teamwork, even with the DM
If you can't depend on the DM for a quality time, then why even play
>>
>>82315117
I won't say for other but in contrary i find this layout better. Once you get use to it, it can be really easy to use, at least it was for me.
Same for monster profile. As a DM, it was infinitly better to search and use monster in 4e than any other editions i have played.
I would dare to say, it's because form = function in this case.
>>
>>82315140
The system seems fine, I like the idea of characters basically being a list of powers. What I really hate is how unreadable the classes are.

I don't suppose I could trouble you for a copy or link to your documents...
>>
File: Character Builder.png (1.09 MB, 1440x900)
1.09 MB
1.09 MB PNG
>>82315117
Get the Character Builder. You can still find it if you look hard enough.
>>
>>82310808
HP inflation which needed what amounted to halving it across the board to fix, armor scaling harshly restricted what enemies were usable without utterly fucking over the party, and classes were very tedious to design due to every one of them having a large range of powers.

That and keywords should've been implemented directly into the power description itself.

The presentation of monster statblocks however is completely unparalleled. The game was easier on the DM in that way to the point of hilarity. Running some monsters in 2e and 3e involved having to flip through two or three books but in 4e everything is right there on a single page.

>>82311228
The imbalance in 2e was fixed by giving fighters amazing saving throws, high damage, multiple attacks per turn, and most importantly: Being able to adapt their attacks to the situation. Once a wizard started casting, he wouldn't be able to change the spell or the target without losing it. Fighter crits and oneshots someone on his first attack? Well someone else is about to get his ass beat.
>>
>>82315169
I can get you it, I just need to scrub it of any stuff my friends left in it
>>
>>82315201
post link faggot
>>
>>82313937
If you think that's weird you should look at their spells per day.
>>
>>82314804
>IIRC, they also made fireball something you can only cast in combat.
A table rule that only existed in the playtest in order to test the RULES AS THEY WERE FUCKING WRITTEN
>>
>>82315229
Fuck you. Literally the first result on Duck.
>>
Reminder that there is literally no videogame that is a rules-accurate version of 4th edition, even loosely.
>>
>>82313558
No. My point is exactly the opposite. No one character should ever be able to do everything. Yes, it is a problem in most editions that some characters at some levels CAN do everything (although if anyone makes sense in fantasy logic it is for it to be high level wizards). In 4e EVERY class can do everything. Sure that's balance but it's not worth the price.
>>
>>82315116
>>82315123
If fighter and wizard being far too similar in phb1 was not an issue, why was it changed so quickly in phb2 and phb3? I'm going to trust the designer of 4e over some random anon
>>
>>82315281
You don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>>82310808
Had an inflexible DM at the helm and it was hell. But in general I disliked skill challenges, the magic item treadmill, boring feats, and paywall rituals.
>>
>>82315291
Anyone who levels any single criticism whatsoever at 4th edition has no idea what they are talking about. Clearly, its a flawless game that cannot be iterated on to improve.
>>
>>82310808
Board-gameyness. The same reason why 5e is shit too. And 3e for that matter.
>>
>>82315285
>If fighter and wizard being far too similar in phb1 was not an issue, why was it changed so quickly in phb2 and phb3?
Except it...wasn't. The Warden isn't exactly some crazy paradigm shift, nor is the Artificer. The only instance I can think of notable changes happening was with some Psionic classes and that was mostly a failure design-wise.
>>
>>82315285
Bitch that's not an answer, which two classes are too similar?
>why was it changed so quickly
What was changed fucko? What was fucking changed?
>the designer of 4e over some random anon
>implying a designer actually said anything about this or shitted on 4e
>>
>>82315296
>Clearly, its a flawless game that cannot be iterated on to improve.
No one is saying that. It's more 'The particular complaints being thrown about here don't make sense'.

Like more legitimate complaints with 4e could be say:
>MM1 creatures being a bit on the dull end and the math not being perfected there.
>It taking a while to realize that hard-locked racial stats are bad for a game that doesn't end up with 'hits on 2s' very quickly.
>Psionics promoting repeating the same power over versatility.
>>
>>82315201
I have access to the information, but what I'm really looking for is is a way to clearly read the information in a well organized way.

>>82315221
That would be greatly appreciated, thanks. I don't want to impose. I'm still going to be playing the game for the time being even if I hate the formatting.
>>
>>82315293
A major part of running 4e is having to change somethings
>paywall rituals
Yeah they're just fucked honestly and almost the worst part of 4e, the only way to fix them is just ignore them or give the players piles of free regents that they can't sell for crack money
>>
>>82315281
I don't get it, like for exemple, how a barbarian is doing the same as a cleric ? Sure, every classe have a mean to self-heal but obviously, for the cleric it will be his niche whereas the barbarian will not fill the same role in the party.
What do you exactly mean by every class can do everything ?
>>
>>82315318
See, at least listing some of the flaws does wonders to make this more of a conversation. I'm not sure how many anons I am arguing with. 1? 3? But the level of adhominem attacks makes everything feel very toxic and disengeinous.

Anon, can I ask if you prefer 4e to its sucessors, 13th age, ICON, Lancer? What do you prefer about 4e that you don't get out of these games?

I very much like the class design in 13th age and I like how escalation forces players into hybrid roles based on the timing of the encounter, and I think the inability to dump with a nova adds a great deal to combat. Novaing is definitely a problem again in Lancer. That being said, after playing alot of Lancer I miss the very clean feeling of '10 is a hit' and I think boons and banes should be in more table top games.

I think its strange that people consider pathfinder 2 to be a sucessor to 4e, what an impressive feat of mental gymnastics
>>
>>82315351
13th age is boring and shit, its balance is all over the place and the math is awful - You might as well be jerking off for the first two rounds of any combat for all the good it'll do most of the time. I much preferred playing 4e, trying to solve the 'problems' of spamming encounter powers at the beginning of the battle just made the actual fighting annoying and unsatisfying with how dailies stack up against at-will powers and how inconsistent things are.
>>
>>82315329
Personnaly, i think it was a nice addition, you could have a full martial party but it gave you more edge and wasn't the "i cast I WIN" spell type. We didn't had to much problem with money in my experience but yeah, maybe the prices could use some adjustment.
>>
File: sleepy times ahead.png (7 KB, 355x171)
7 KB
7 KB PNG
>>82315323
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PORX8dKbemtqy61P3R_AZ4mNeT5lmr5O?usp=sharing

It's a lot of data and I'm going to bed right after I post this so the first part will be done at some point
I'll try to leave you with some directions for navigating the folders contents
Categorization- this is all of the meaningful character options that aren't items or rituals (rituals kinda suck but hey your DM might be nice)
The base page of character categorization has most of the decisions that aren't powers and classes, like feats, races, and paragon paths. Familiars has it's own folder because there's tiers of familiars and a lot of them.
Feats can be a bit hard to read because there's literally over a thousand of them. Use the sorting option and control f to find feats that actually apply for you.
>powers
Go to classes, they're split up by power origin so I remember which is which when I'm trying to build stuff. Avoid essentials classes, usually denoted by parenthesis or strangeness like Vampire.
>actual class png format
I hope you have good eyes because it's a bit pixelated. Each page is separated by the power types and get higher level the further they go down. They also have details about health/armor proficiency/defense bonuses/innate class features.
I hope you can enjoy 4e and that this will help
>>
>>82315386
The major reason I think they're bad is because in all my time playing 4e I can't think of a time someone stopped to use a ritual besides raise dead or make magic item
Raise dead costing money that varies is a great idea, just so players actually feel dying
>>
>>82315386
>have a familiar
>want to cast a ritual that would temporarily enlarge it into a mount
>just for funsies
>can't justify the price tag because i'm stuck paying for actual important shit
Thanks I hate it
>>
>>82315386
>>82315418

My preferred alt-cost for them is 'non-permanent rituals of your tier cost Healing Surges, rather than gold, non-permanent rituals of a lower tier don't even cost that unless they're a really powerful outlier'. Classes that have Ritual Caster (Which are mostly low healing surge classes) get a couple of 'Only for rituals' charges that can be used instead of healing surges.

The hardest part is sorta going through and working out 'how much is this really worth?'
>>
>>82315433
I flubbed it a little bit and made it so a player could get it tattoo'd on them for more than the ritual costs, but they can cast the ritual for free once per day
I will be stealing the idea of using healing surges for temp rituals
>>
>>82315454

The first time I did it I had to quickly make the 'non-permanent' amendment because players got up to some silly nonsense but at least it got them liking rituals.
>>
File: image3.jpg (1.47 MB, 3024x4032)
1.47 MB
1.47 MB JPG
>>82315405
>https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PORX8dKbemtqy61P3R_AZ4mNeT5lmr5O?usp=sharing
Hey, thanks so much. Seriously.
>>
>>82315367
Balance is a meme in games about dice. Even in systems where its a more attainable goal there are still massive gaps between the optimized and unoptimized.

As for the first two rounds of combat, have you tried using more accurate powers, held actions, setting up a team mate, or using a buff/debuff/terrian effect? It sounds like you just got annoyed instead of learning the system.
>>
>>82311938
>It doesn't matter if the wizard is better at level 17 than a level 17 fighter, the fighter will be 17 while the wizard is only 11.
That's not how it worked even in grog D&D where classes had different progressions. The wizard would be only a level behind at most.
>>
>>82315910
The wizard could end up more behind than that at tables with xp for gold, gold spent on magic items didn't give xp, and gold spent on carousing was worth double xp.
>>
>>82315941

Yeah but fighters needed magic items more as unless you've got a magic weapon, there's a lot of foes you can't hurt at all and nothing stops a wizard being a College Student and doing both nerdery and excessive drinking.
>>
>>82315941
The wizard doesn't need nearly as many magic items as the fighter.
>>
>>82315952
Yes, but fighters were also more likely to find gear they were happy with in treasure hoards than wizards were. Scrolls are also magic items, and buying scrolls was (and still is) a common way for wizards to expand their spellbook(s).
>>
>>82315954
they do when spell scrolls are magic items too.
>>
>>82315959

So is 'kicking the shit out of the enemy wizard and stealing his spellbook'. You can be pretty sure a spellbook has spells in it, you can't be sure an enemy swordsman has a magic blade.
>>
>>82315969
they still don't, 95% of spells are garbage
>>
>>82315977
enemy wizards didn't necessarily have all of their spellbooks on them or nearby. remember that back then you had to have a separate spellbook for each level of spells, not just one spellbook for all of your spells. And while you are right, you can't be sure an enemy swordsman has a magic sword, a large percentage of old modules had pretty nice magical swag for fighters built in. In practice, being a wizard is more expensive than being a fighter, at least in all of my experience.
>>
File: iu-6.jpg (679 KB, 1000x1000)
679 KB
679 KB JPG
>>82315979
well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>>
>>82316000

Yes but wizards need those spellbooks to recover spells. If they're traveling, they likely have the spellbooks with them (or any spell they cast is one they can't get back) and if you're doing a home invasion like most player characters the wizard likely has his spellbooks in his home.

I'll agree that a lot of old modules didn't have spellcasters with spellbooks a tonne but that's more due to design sort of assuming that enemies existed just for the encounter you had with them, rather than the enemy being concerned about 'So what do I do tomorrow if I've used up half my spells?'
>>
>She also had a weekly Pathfinder game with a friend who is a power gamer, and every morning after that game she’d yell at the lead designer (whose office was on the other side of mine) about how broken the Pathfinder rules were… but she wouldn’t let him make changes to the core rules to addrss the problems the power gamer exploited.
Funniest shit I've read in months.
>>
>>82312809
>Well the simple answer would be "because that's the way the magic works". You can do that when referring to things that don't actually exist, as opposed to humans, swords and arms which do.
Why? It’s a game, abstraction of real life is necessary to play it. People know that you can keep trying at disarming your opponent in real life as many times as you like but for gameplay purposes your fighter can only do it once per day.
>>
>>82316048
Not just that, but spellbooks could be hidden in a secret room the party didn't detect, or even in a different location or plane altogether. It's possible that by killing the enemy wizard the knowledge of it's spellbooks' locations are lost forever.
>>
>>82316476

The wizard in that case needs to be able to get there every single day to recover spells. Not to say that spellbooks can't be hidden but 'Extraplanar' generally means that's a lot of spell slots spent each day just getting there and back, all while hoping an Ifrit doesn't decide to grab the book.
>>
>>82316516
sure, it's definitely a high level move, but a fairly trivial one for something on the caliber of a lich. i fully acknowledge that we are getting off in to edge cases here.
>>
>>82314815
looks good, idk what you want
glad we agree the system is pretty nice in its own way, my idea is to construct adventures in a way that is like a self contained board game, that would be cool to pull an entire module out of a box set and just play with some friends for a few hours like any other game
>>
>>82315430
Due to the way gold scaled (By a factor of 5 every 5 levels), the prices for rituals got negligible once you were a few levels higher.

The ritual you talk about costs 25 Gp at level 4 when you can first get it. During level 4 if using the example parcels and getting geared up and consumables through treasure a party of 5 is getting 1680 GP (336 GP per member). For level 10 the frivolous spending money in the example is 10.00 GP, at level 15 it's 50.000 GP.

Those 5 GP quickly become negligible once you get a couple levels. Though I have experienced DMs being very reluctant to give out those big amounts of money, which might have been part of your problem.
>>
>>82314990
Shut the fuck up. Why the hell do you halfbrains HAVE to insert yourselves into regular online groups and tell us you're autistic? Sit in your dumbass corner and don't bother other people. If I wanted to interact with you I'd volunteer in a home for special kids.
>>
>>82315405
>Feats can be a bit hard to read because there's literally over a thousand of them.
So it fell into the exact same pitfall as 3e?
>>
>>82310808
Board game packaged up as a ttrpg. It shouldn't have tried to be something it wasn't.
>>
Don't download >>82315405
it's just a troll nesting multiple .zip files
>>
File: file.png (61 KB, 555x596)
61 KB
61 KB PNG
>>82317981
No it isn't. Are you retarded or something?
>>
>>82310993
So is in 5e
>>
>>82311006
So every character fills a niche within the party and teamwork is necessary in order to have a good outcome, everybody in the parrty can have their moment to shine (that isn't always combat) feeling useful and so on.
>>
>>82318386
This is exactly what 4e achieves though and the other systems fail to do
>>
>>82311087
>fucking with my branding
Well, two things. First off, that's retarded and you brought this on yourself. Don't be a namefag if you don't wanna deal with being a namefag. Secondly I literally couldn't tell that other anon wasn't you. Your ""branding"" is totally safe.
>>
>>82311342
Clerics were pretty good in AD&D, they didn't have the same raw damage output than wizards, but the summons and their broken version of "Wish" (I can't recall the name) made them really good at high levels. Let alone resurrecting and healing and making all your carefully set traps pointless.

Druids on the other hand I'd agree, their niche in 2e was killing other spellcasters for the most part, but there were anti spell caster kits that came later that were flat out better at that.
>>
>>82312012
In theory it was supposed to be for that. But then you add in demihuman penalties and everything stops making sense (although a level 11 Wizard will always be better than a level 17 fighter because after level 10 2e wizards were irremediably broken)
>>
>>82313472
>>82313472
>Then what's the point of having a fighter class?
That he is better at it because he is far better trained for it.

A wizard may try to feint, and be successful out of sheer dumb luck, a wizard who has "acrobatics" (for instance) as a background skill, will be able to do it better than the previous wizard, not just relying on luck but reflexes and memory, but a fighter should be able to do it no problem and also have extra stuff because feinting is to him like breathing.
>>
>>82317942
Feats are atleast limited most of the time to a specific class, race, level requirement, or ability score requirement so when you have to look at your overall feats it's not that scary

>>82318177
Thank you
>>
>>82310808
from what I can recall caster players were very butt hurt by the martial classes being as viable as their wizard
>>
>>82310993
When you're so brainwashed by 5e marketing, you decide a bug is a feature you cannot live without.
>>
>>82317942
There are less trap option at least.
>>
>wayne reynolds makes cover art for 4e
LITERAL WOW TIER TRASH

>wayne reynolds makes cover art for pathfinder
SOVL! 4RRIES OWNED LMAO AMIRITE MY FELLOW MENS OF CULTURE?

I will never understand this
>captcha: ayyht
>>
>>82317106
Yup, absolutely. If you haven't tried it, I really recommend Descent: Journeys in the Dark 2nd Edition. Going for something like that but with the openness of progression that 4e D&D would offer could be incredibly kino.
>>
>>82316462
There's a difference between abstracting something that exists and complete arbitrariness. If the setting is real life modern day but everyone can jump to the moon once per day for "gameplay purposes" it's still fucking retarded no matter how well it plays.
An elegant design is one that feels like it makes sense and also plays well. On each side of that platonic ideal are autistic tables and complete bullshit, and in my opinion 1/day basic martial stuff like that that leans way too far into the bullshit lane, and crucially I think it's less fun to do it that way anyway. Fundamentally the game should still function if someone who doesn't understand it comes at it from a pure roleplaying perspective and just describes actions while the DM adjudicates through the rules, this isn't a video game, I should be able to try to do things that make sense for me to do. The USP of tabletop is tactical infinity, the game side of things is always poorer when that is neglected.
>>
>>82316462
You can try to spam disarm in 4e as any class dumbo
>>
>>82319534
Why can't mages spam their best spells then without limit? It's just balance so people aren't in an autistic hell of "I can do everything and you can do nothing" in combat
>>
>>82319534
No edition of D&D functions the way you want it to.
>>
>>82319952
I was just using any combat technique as an example of a per day ability dumb dumb
>>
>>82313937
You basically reset your level after 16, where you also stop getting new spells and gain powers such immunity to age and poison, the ability to shapeshift at will, and the ability to teleport into the elemental planes at will.
>>
>>82312271
Genuine question: what did 1e, 2e or 3e do to encourage roleplaying that was left out of 4e? From where I'm sitting, until 5e D^D basically made little to no attempt to fill out backgrounds other than through implied background via feat, class, or skills.
>>
>>82315281
What the fuck are you talking about? A fighter can't heal as well as a cleric, a cleric can't do crowd control as well as a wizard can, and a wizard can't block people like a fighter. How many extra chromosomes do you got, man?
>>
>>82320322
Nothing much, really. To this day I still have never seen any coherent critique of 4e, it's mostly just rambling about "feels" because autists can't actually describe what makes them feel certain ways.
>>
>>82320322
Its more nuanced than that. If you ask the OSR thread, everything after 1e is a plug & play video game monstrosity. In reality, each edition after OD&D and BX (meaning the numbered editions) has added crunch.

2e, particularly later 2e, had a lot more crunch than BX & 1e, particularly when the Player's Option books came out. 2e was still the same basic game though. Most stuff from BX, 1e, & 2e is interchangeable with minimal effort to convert.

3.x continued on this path. They made a class/prestige class for EVERYTHING. If 3.x isn't still the edition with the most class options, I would be genuinely surprised. While it certainly added a lot of crunch, it did a couple of things that still maintained a healthy balance between mechanics and roleplay. First, the revision of the basic game rules made play a lot more intuitive. Everything boiled down to 'roll a d20, add a modifier, roll high.' Also, the sheer volume of different classes/prestige classes, skills, feats, spells, etc made character creation wide open. You had to work hard to come up with a character concept that you couldn't build in 3.x. Thus, between being able to play any character you could imagine & having a system that for the most part stayed out of your way, 3.x felt like a good system.

The change from 3.x to 4e was more drastic than the one from late 2e to 3.x. 4e's character creation and gameplay (in terms of using your character, not the d20 mechanic) was not a continuation of what had come before. As was said above, 4e was influenced by the MMO craze of the time. As such, character creation/leveling feels very much like skill trees from a video game. Since classes were structured the same way (at will/encounter/daily powers), the classes didn't feel as distinctive. The adventures were more combat focused than before also, to the detriment of exploration & social encounters. It felt like the contents of your sheet mattered more than the contents of your brain.
>>
File: 1637416334155m.jpg (136 KB, 888x1024)
136 KB
136 KB JPG
>>82320644
>Combat before exploration and role play
Depends on the DM and there are skills/powers in 4e that support both of these activities. I wouldn't say 1e actually supports exploration or social encounters outside of "ha I have a spell for this one" or "I am ranger man", there weren't even skills

Overall 4e's focus on combat is just better because a good dm can put in some the fun exploration or social stuff that can be supported with a rock solid combat system
>>
>>82320441
D&D players tried 4e, and they didn't have as much fun playing 4e as they had playing previous editions. If you want to quantify that rather than talking about feelings in an inherently subjective medium, you can look at the way people voted with their wallets. 4e was a lousy seller. Pathfinder, a continuation of third edition, exploded on to the market and sold amazingly. When 5e came out, people tried it, had fun with it, and gave up on pathfinder. Now 5e is a great seller and paizo is in a death spiral.
People don't have to have coherent, logical critiques in order to justify liking or not liking something related to a hobby/downtime/fun. They merely have to enjoy it or not. Vast swathes of the D&D community did not enjoy 4e, so they didn't play it and didn't buy it. Therefore, 4e was a failure and it went away. Ultimately that is all that matters.
>>
>>82320005
I'm not opposed to the concept of limited abilities, I'm just not sold that you have to limit abilities illogically to achieve balance.
Do you sincerely think that without arbitrary daily limited use abilities martials are going to be able to "do everything" while casters can "do nothing"?
Anything without a real world analogue like magic makes it easy because of course you can always say that whatever you think is the most fun and balanced is just how magic works in this game, it provides its own logic. Mages can't spam the spells because of >>82312809 because that's how that works. Even then a very common complaint against vancian casting is that it doesn't feel like how magic should work, or doesn't feel sufficiently mystical. That is a complaint that is way more pronounced when you're talking about something that you could go out and do right now if you wanted.

>>82320057
I described it as a balance between realism concerns on one side and game balance concerns on the other, around a center of a platonic ideal that fulfills both perfectly. Every game that has ever been made exists somewhere on it, I'm not saying any actual game perfectly achieves it, I'm saying the closer you get the better the game feels to play.
>>
>>82320441
I think there was some internal drama at WotC as well about 4e
Some of the older designers weren’t happy that the “dumb” classes were able to shine as bright as the spellcasters which is another reason all of it was reverted in 5e
>>
>>82320644
>3.x felt like a good system
The system that the genius designers intentionally put useless trap feats into felt like a good system, truly?
>>
>>82320716
there weren't skills for every class in 1e because the expectation was that players could try anything, and if a check needed to be made it could simply be based off of the ability scores. A few classes had specifically defined skills back then, like thieves, for instance. Skills as we came to know them were something that evolved over time. Some people think that it was better before skills became specific things.
>>
>>82320810
at the time, sure. Even then we knew that there were options that weren't as good as others. We knew it wasn't perfect. We avoided the stuff that wasn't good. If 3.x had been the perfect system, 4e and 5e wouldn't have existed at all, we'd all be playing 3.8 or something. "intentionally [putting] useless trap feats" in was a lot less sadistic than some of the stuff D&D designers had done over the years.
>>
>>82320778
You've got to provide proof if you think there's a secret conspiracy of caster supremacists ruining game design.
I'm not saying the world isn't dumb enough that that could have happened, but I would like to see the proof so that I can laugh at it.
>>
>>82311107
Kys, your post is pure AIDS
>>
>>82320778
The internal drama wasn't that so much as it was "oh fuck oh fuck, murder-suicide!" and then seeing people willingly playing other games. Honestly, I love 4e and it's my favorite edition of the game (only BARELY edging out BECMI/RC D&D) but I have to admit it's existence did wonder for the RPG community in kind of spurring people to try new games like FFG Star Wars, Eclipse Phase, Call of Cthulhu, The One Ring RPG, and all of the retroclones and older editions of D&D. It's really sad imho to see 5e come back as a goddamn juggernaut where all other RPGs must kowtow to or just try and carve out an incredibly small niche against. It's why I hope this upcoming update to 5e (whether it's just a 5.5e or 6e) makes people curious about other systems again.
>>
>>82320864
It's not a secret
>>
>>82320775
>Do you sincerely think that without arbitrary daily limited use abilities martials are going to be able to "do everything" while casters can "do nothing"?
Yes, if martials and casters are on equal footing in terms of power and are in equal footing in terms of having to limit how they use the powers, it's balanced.

If the players can't handle they can do the massive damage attack every round because "it's unrealistic" then I don't understand how they can handle the wizard not being to at-will fireball every encounter
>>
>>82320864
I'm not digging for it but one of the 4E designers said they had to rein in another one trying to make Wizards overpowered.
>>
>>82321121
then it should be trivially easy to provide evidence.
>>
>>82320810
I had so much fun making intricate builds in 3.pf.
Is a space in which I can fuck around engineering builds good game design for a tabletop RPG? Probably not overall, but fuck it was so much fun.
Martials were fundamentally worse in that edition, but I enjoyed playing them more than I do in 5e, because at least I feel like I invented my own cool martial art or something by combining things. I miss being so specifically overtrained in tripping people over it was like a superpower and everyone would pop off and react when I had to find a way to deal with a giant centipede.
Sure casters just bulldozed everything, but the game the martials were playing was actually pretty fun if you managed to drill all the fiddly modifiers into your brain until they were second nature.
I know it's bad design really, but it was a good time. Trap feats were only trap feats until you found the niche bullshit that suddenly made them valuable. I once made a monk specced into jumping high solely to get that +1 high ground bonus because it was funny. Turned out it made sense for him to use Turtle style so he went by the sobriquet "The Flying Turtle", there was something about the way unusual things could work that felt a bit like exploring or discovering a game world.
>>
>>82321234
It is
>>
>>82321260
>Trap feats were only trap feats until you found the niche bullshit that suddenly made them valuable
Or they just stayed trap feats the entire time.
>>
>>82321260
>there was something about the way unusual things could work that felt a bit like exploring or discovering a game world.
See this is what really helped me get into 4e. When I was just getting into it we had 1 and a half player's handbooks to pour over. It wasn't much but when I discovered the absolute trove of books that existed I dived head first and learned all sorts of weird shit about 4e. It was a great time telling my friends about the unusual classes and feats that existed, along with the dumb things you could do, like becoming a vampire (class)- vryloka (race that's a vampire but not hurt by the sun)- damphyr (racial feat that gives vampire like powers).
>>
>>82320768
5e is successful is spite of itself. Wizards are lucky that crit role and d&d podcasts became absolutely massive.
>>
>>82321386
that isn't really a 4e specific experience, though. I had the same experience with 2e back in high school.
>>
>>82321158
Because there's no frame of reference for a spell because it isn't real.
People do chafe at fire spells not actually setting things on fire sometimes because of balance reasons though. You can say well that's just how magical fire works, but it doesn't feel good, once you label something as fire it starts being something people understand and want to operate like fire does.
If things need to feel differently to fit genre conventions or basic logic, you have to find different mechanics to balance usage and power limitations, you can't just slap a one size fits all identical solution, even if it works better. It's making the wrong game well, instead of the right game imperfectly. If you want to do this you need a setting that sits me down and explains what a limit break is in universe and why I can only use it once a day, you can't just tell me this way of swinging a sword is a daily because otherwise you'll dunk on the wizards too hard. If you don't want to make a game about non-magical mundane martials because you can't balance them, then don't do that in the first place, don't mislabel shit to a more popular genre.
>>
>>82310808
I never played 4th edition but I’m mildly nostalgic for it because my library had it and I would bike there and look at the monster manual
>>
>>82321556
Neither are D&D martials.
>>
>>82321556
So is all this autism over "it's not realistic" because man should be able to swing sword really hard all the time?
Just play the non martial classes because there's a shitton of them, do some mental exercise and just think "oh they use martial juice like how casters use arcane/divine/primal juice", or lose your autism over it and just accept "whatever it's a limitation because otherwise we get 5e style martials where they have the variety of fucking nothing when they attack".
And no 5e players come at me with the fucking "b-but battle master", you know that's a fucking cope when they get like 4 encounter resources that only apply to one and the 4e fighter gets 4 different encounter powers, 2 at-will variants (on top of the basic attack and other generic things everyone else gets), daily powers, and utilities

It's a better system for martials and if your realism autism gets in the way then talk to a DM about it and he'll talk about some dumb reason why it's like that
>>
>>82321623
Wizards fear the 4e fighting chad
>>
>>82321623
Want an all caster party in 4e?
>Defender
Swordmage
>Striker
Sorcerer
>Leader
Bard
>Controller
Wizard
Boom, there.
>>
>>82321302
Yeah but that's why you got hyped for new books that made fringe builds viable. Maybe they never found a way to make Toughness worth taking, but they did find a way to make being an Aldori Duellist work out if you dug into enough books and started using crane style.
I admit this is straying from why we play ttrpgs in the first place, but in a video game, card game kind of way, it was fun and had some interesting ways it fed back into the things tabletop should be good at. I'm just nostalgic for the era and wondering out loud if there's a way to keep the good without the bad.
>>
>>82321653
Don't forgot about the divine, primal, and psychic classes
>>
>>82315047

4e's design and math were fairly bad on release. The Adventurer's Vault alone had to give item bonuses to damage rolls, just to prevent combat from dragging out. The 2009 era improved the design and math with the Player's Handbook 2 and the Monster Manual 2. It was only by the 2010 era that the design and math was fully patched up with the Player's Handbook 3, the Monster Manual 3/Dark Sun Creature Catalog, and the Rules Compendium (for skill DCs).

I can absolutely understand why someone would be apprehensive towards 4e and its high barrier of entry. A game that runs only the Player's Handbook 1, the Dungeon Master's Guide 1, the Monster Manual 1, and no other books will likely generate an awful experience, particularly due to bad monster design and monster math.

I am a 4e fan, and I will freely concede that on-release 4e was *bad*. It really does take additional books to patch it up. If you had to ask me to choose between running on-release, no-errata 4e and on-release 5e, I would choose the latter every time; out-of-the-box 4e was just that bad, in my opinion. Only by late 2010 did 4e really mature into a polished game, in my assessment.
>>
>>82321671
Agreed, I still think that 4e is a good grounds for some homebrew even after 2010 but it's personal preference at this point
>>
File: stempy.png (812 KB, 784x604)
812 KB
812 KB PNG
>it's a video game!!
>it's a board game!!
>it's an mmo!!
you assclowns sound exactly the same as you did 12 years ago. it's incredible how little anyone has learned, especially wizards of the coast.
>>
>>82321671
Or you could use the various websites with all the errata updates to make sure you're not screwed like my group does.
>>
>>82317907
Who the fuck do you think plays tabletop games and is interested enough to post about it anon? This is not a hobby for normal people.
>>
>>82321658
I'm the opposite. Looking back on 3e I think about how much of a pain having to sift through all the books was, having to plan which feats to take so you could get the prestige class you needed, the broken munchkin builds that would outdo the more normal player's characters at the table, trying to make encounters that would challenge the broken player builds and how WOTC would release a new book with even more overpowered feats and prestiges that would make everything worse.
>>
>>82321623
PF had plenty of variety in the way martials attacked without making them all be magical. You didn't have to have special cooldowns to have a lot of unique builds.
What the fuck is martial juice? Michaels secret stuff? I don't mind playing a game where fighters have a resource they use, but that isn't a mundane fighter.
Balance autism and realism autism are two important pillars of game design, stop being such a dumb fuck and trying to boil everything down to one single aspect.
>>
>>82321671
Too bad launch month is the single most important part of any game’s release. If your launch is garbage then don’t expect most people to stick around in the hopes that you’ll fix the game. By the time they fixed it, it seems like a lot of those players had already either gone back to 3.5 or started playing pathfinder.
>>
>>82321770
FFXIV showed that the game could be fixed and then people come in massively post launch
>>
>>82321751
So what the fuck's the problem then with martials getting daily/encounter restrictions on some powers huh? If you're okay with them having resources then those powers are their resources.
Bam! Problem solved with your the autistic realistic satisfied
>>
>>82315113
And Pathfinder's was slightly nicer since they handled skills more simply and combined a few of them.
>>
>>82321679
You'd think you would have learned from how 4e sold like a stillbirth. True then, true now, no one wants to play your board game.
>>
>>82321751
There is nothing realistic about D&D
>>
>>82321820
>sales = how good something is
Amazing critical thinking on display here
>>
>>82321782
We have a few examples of that, like Battlefront 2. But a bad launch can absolutely destroy a product, especially if it’s a highly anticipated product. Cyberpunk is quite playable now after all the patches but nobody is rushing to buy it. It’s also a little different when you’re talking about Final Fantasy because there’s not exactly a perfect alternative to that series. There are however, dozens of D&D like games. And because it’s a table top game you could literally just pull your favorite D&D setting and use it in a different system.
>>
>>82321820
It sold well you disingenuous pos
>>
>>82320644
>As such, character creation/leveling feels very much like skill trees from a video game.
There was nothing that had any tree like structure in the entire edition. No power or skill needed any other, and the feat chains was 2 deep, so much less than 3.5's chain they could be compared to.

>The adventures were more combat focused than before also, to the detriment of exploration & social encounters.
This has been a criticism levied against D&D adventures literally since the first modules that were released.

>It felt like the contents of your sheet mattered more than the contents of your brain.
Also been a constant criticism of any more complex RPG system, or particulr kinds of players. Seen it for 3.X, 5E, White Wolf and plenty other systems.

All that list amounts to is: The bad thing about 4E was that bad things have always been said about D&D.

>>82320864
The old D&D site (sadly nuked, but you might find somethign on the wayback machine) had a bunch of interviews where the lead dev or designer stated it was a hard battle, because people kept weaking magical classes and creating stronger stuff for the wizard. Even if it was more couched into "as they were used to" than an actual conflict.

There was a much later interview a out reigning in some "craziness" of the lead (I think it was Heinsoo, but am not sure), after they had left the company. Stuff like 12[W] powers (where the 1W was not just the weapon dice like int he final version but also included all modifiers) for martials and such.
And given the numbers issues early 4E had, I have a strong personal suspicion that was the cause. A game was designed with tight numbers and then other people "fixed" the numbers that looked to big (usually player damage, especially non-magic damage, ignoring that high-levels fighters did not get multiple attacks), leading to a strong disparity of mosnter thoughness vs. player damage output.
>>
I'm planning on running the dungeon from this as a one shot for some friends but don't like the idea of having the dragon immediately fighting like level 1 or 2 characters. Is there an enemy that's a similar challenge they can fight that's a bit less grandiose feeling?
>>
>>82321785
>I don't mind playing a game where fighters have a resource they use, but that isn't a mundane fighter.
>that isn't a mundane fighter.
And should not be advertised as such.
In which case I don't mind it, it doesn't break my immersion if they aren't sold as something they aren't. Just personally I prefer playing in games where mundanes do exist, that's the style of D&D I enjoy, and when they do exist, they should make sense. No need for really detailed tables or excessive detail, just nothing egregious that takes me out of being who I'm being.
>>
>>82321902
Krayd the Butcher is a level 1 solo Orc found in HS1 "The Slaying Stone"
>>
>>82321849
Sales. Critical reception. Cultural impact.
>>
>>82321928
Aka bullshit but ok, we get it. You're a no-games faggot
>>
>>82321912
>it's a mundane activity to get burnt by something that turns normal people into dust
There you go, no fighter in dnd is mundane. Are you happy now or did you think powerful people in real life could take gunshot wounds but be okay because they're "high level"?
>>
>>82321928
>cultural impact
If we’re going by this then Among Us is without a doubt better than your favorite video game. And Avengers is better than your favorite movie.
>>
>>82321260
Honestly you should just play Grim Dawn and not TTRPGs
>>
>>82321452
if people didn't have fun playing 5e, they wouldn't buy it. people keep buying 5e books like they are made out of heroin, so people must be having fun. no amount of celebrity bullshit changes that bottom line, and i say all of this as someone who can't fucking stand celebrity roleplaying.
>>
>>82321928
>avengers is the best movie ever made ever because it sold the best out of any movie in existence
woah film buff bros we lost
>>
>>82321704
It's an inherently social activity. Don't bring your awfulness into it.
>>
>>82310808
People don't like good things, just trendy things.
>>
>>82321975
People act like you’re a weirdo if you actually roleplay in any video game. You’ll just be that weird dude who gets to into it in everyone else’s eyes. It’s unfortunate but if you want your fantasy escape then TTRPGs are the only way to do it.
>>
>>82321912
>can fight indefinitely without getting tired
No edition had mundane PCs.
>>
>>82321874
feels like doesn't equal is. 'felt inspired by' would have been more precise language, but i was up against the word count limit and had to make a lot of edits to try to get my points across.

i take no issue with your second and third points. you are right about those. what my point all really amounts to is the things that were seen as bad about previous editions of d&d were made worse in 4e and the things that were good diminished.
>>
>>82322002
Can attest to this
>>
>>82322047
Hard disagree but I actually play games so feel free to disregard
>>
>>82320644
>4e's character creation and gameplay (in terms of using your character, not the d20 mechanic) was not a continuation of what had come before.
That is complete bullshit, 4E was built around design that was being tested in late 3.5 and has clear continuity with the ideas and class design around that time.
>>
>>82322069
aww, how cute. the kid resorts to insults when his arguments run out of road. it's like his first day on the internet.
>>
>>82322077
This. 3e became 3.5 became d20 modern became d20 Star Wars became Star Wars Saga edition (I think that's the order they came out, modern might have come out before 3.5 but otherwise this is right).
>>
>>82322077
like truenamer, a class generally considered to be the worst in the history of d&d?
>>
>>82321952
>>82321967
>>82321986
D&D is a tool for storytelling not the story itself, it is therefore not comparable in that way.
You need to have a reason why 4th edition is a century lightbulb that got blocked by a cartel. Or a reason why pathfinder was pushed better. I would argue that 4e had a better push than pathfinder, from a bigger company, and still lost.
>>
>>82322094
I'm 50, I started playing in 1985. I could tear your arguments apart and shit on them if i so wanted
>>
>>82322002
What roleplay? Anon was talking about making "intricate builds".
>>
>>82322116
Paizo was able to seize on the nerd rage that always follows an edition change by using the OGL against WotC and releasing a competitor who marketed itself to the angry grogs causing a never before seen schism
>>
File: 111115.gif (467 KB, 785x1000)
467 KB
467 KB GIF
>>82322136
>I'm 50, I started playing in 1985. I could tear your arguments apart and shit on them if i so wanted
>>
>>82322136
if only saying it made it so.
>>
File: 1632253067339.png (915 KB, 772x956)
915 KB
915 KB PNG
>>82320768
I don't care what normies think, as they are oafs, and I also don't engage with the D&D fandom at all as its full of autists.
>>
>>82322175
Stay mad
>>82322179
I can't be bothered. It's not like you faggots ever listen anyway
>>
>>82322160
This might be hard for you to comprehend, but some of us enjoy the role playing as well as the tactical combat and rules. If you’re just going to roleplay, go write a book. If you just want tactical combat and rules, go play a video game. If you want both, AND you have an imagination. TTRPGs are perfect for you.
>hurr durr he didn’t mention roleplay so he doesn’t like it
Stop being stupid anon, you’re better than that
>>
>>82322250
I ain't even mad, you're just being a faggot
>I could destroy you, but I wont
is something a 3rd grader would say
>>
>>82322166
If it was a matter of sheer inertia why did 5e manage to shift these grogs where 4e couldn't? Everyone I know who played PF back in the day now plays 5e.
>>
>>82322250
sounds like you are too busy growing your first pube.
>>
>>82322270
You'd know, huh. I bet you're the faggot expert
>>
>>82322290
None of the people I played 3.5 or PF with play 5E. Shit, only one of the people I played 4E players 5E.
>>
>>82322290
Pf sucks. 5e sucks. I'm a grog
>>
>>82322313
>50 year old hands typed this
>>
>>82322300
(You)
>>
>>82322325
I play 5e because I’m 22 and it’s what my friends introduced me to. If I made friends with some new people who played 3.5, and they handed me PHB and told me to read it and make a character I’d be absolutely thrilled and I’d be reading every page of it.
>>
>>82322333
No shit Sherlock, any other stunning revelations, Einstein?
>>
At the end of the day, the thing that 4e fans have never been able to explain away is that 3.5 was popular and sold well, 4e was unpopular and didn't sell well, pathfinder was popular and sold well while 4e was the edition of d&d that was out, and then when 5e came out it sold well and pathfinder ended up in the shitter.
>>
>>82322335
>50 year old hands typed this
>>
>>82322368
3.5 almost got D&D shitcanned permanently because it wasn't performing like 3.0 and 3E as a whole got outsold by 4E.
>>
>>82322136
I am 46 and started playing about the same tome you did. I liked 4th. Nobody remembers the system they played. They remember the stories and experiences they had. As far as I am concerned, yoy can role play and tell a good story with any system.
>>
>>82322455
I absolutely remember systems I've played and how they impacted the stories that were being told.
>>
>>82322455
4e is my favorite edition and I've played them all extensively
>>
>>82310808
Because it was not necessary and it was not D&D.

It was a boardgame with a D&D mask tossed on it. 3.5 did the job and was still growing and being refined. 4th was nothing but a mistake, as seen by how fast they turned around and made 5th.
>>
>>82322504
Wrong
>>
>>82322484
YMMV.
>>82322494
Me too. I only lament that 4th lacked good art that inspired creativity. You never reaf a 4th book on the shitter like you did with ptevious editions. 3rd was very good in this regard. See also Tome of Magic for a good example.
>>
>>82322542
so it isn't true that 4e was the shortest lived edition in the history of d&d? it was so good that it got shitcanned halfway through it's normal lifespan?
>>
>>82322602
Didn’t it last about as long as 3rd edition?
>>
>>82322325
That's wild man, I know one guy who didn't convert to 5e and he was playing pbp forum games on the Paizo forums. Everyone else converted almost immediately then argued about the relative merits of advantage for the next seven years.

>>82322166
I think the reason I don't buy this explanation is, I wanted to play tabletop for years prior because I loved the idea, started playing in 2010, was new to the game, looked at 4e because it was the one with D&D written on the cover, and immediately thought "what is all this MMO shit, isn't the point of this not to be limited like video game", and then found Pathfinder and immediately clicked with it. Obviously I was completely overwhelmed by the actual rules and what the fuck I was supposed to be doing with them, I was just grabbing fragments and working out very basics, but I remember just staring at the equipment tables in rapt fascination and trying to work out what I could do with all these different things.
>>
>>82322602
>retards from earlier editions see 4e and get mad at it
>the game does well but it has the most money pumping into making books so while it's making a profit, tthe profit is smaller
>make new edition that has a skeleton crew making very few books
>the profit, even if it's the same, is now much more valuable because less money to pay for book makers
the more you know
>>
>>82322635
3.x lasted 8 years, 4e lasted 6, and the last year and a half of that everyone was doing the d&d next playtest.
>>
>>82322651
>started playing in 2010, was new to the game
You literally weren't there when it happened.
>>
>>82322602
The amount of money d&d makes Hasbro is a tiny blip in their margins. I don’t think they even care about how successful 4e or 5e is because it means nothing next to their bigger properties.
>>
>>82322635
>>82322662
I slightly misspoke there. 4e came out in 2008. The D&D Next 5e public playtest started in 2012, not 2013 like I was thinking.
>>
>>82322662
It's not that far off, 3E's releases thinned out pretty hard in 2007 and there was never anything as line-killing as Essentials to split the playerbase.
>>
>>82322704
if they didn't care, they'd sell the IP.
>>
>>82322717
>they'd sell the IP
Thinking a big company would sell any of its IP no matter how forgotten or small it is, is very naive anon
There is always the potential from tv, movies and video games
>>
>>82322254
>anon enjoys heavily-frowned upon gameplay in the environment
>make a genuine suggestion for an environment with better design where it's encouraged
>anon is instantly defensive and makes dumb delineations
Fuck off faggot. Your ebin trip build isn't fun for an actual table. Try making an actually interesting character if you're gonna plague the hobby with your autism.
>>
>>82322710
at the same time, 3.5 wasn't quickly abandoned, either. PF didn't come out until 09. I have not only not run in to any groups playing 4e since 5e came out, I haven't run in to any groups playing 4e since the D&D next playtest started. At least in my half of the state I live in, the few people that hung on to 4e instead of PF all jumped ship as soon as there was a sign of 5e on the horizon. To be fair, most of the PF players did, too.
>>
>>82322742
if they didn't care about the money they were making from it, or it wasnt making much money, but the ip itself was quite valuable, they'd sell it in a heartbeat. Big companies buy and sell IP all the time, just look at how much shit Disney has bought up in the last 20 years.
>>
>>82322780
Disney buys the companies which own the IP, when was the last time they just bought one IP from another company that they didn’t also just buy up.
>>
I didn't hate it, in fact, putting emotional attachments aside; it was my favorite D&D edition. But min-maxing autists screeched their lungs out and ran in droves to Pathfinder; I also tried it (because it was almost impossible to find players for 4e) and didn't like it. Then I went to explore other options and thats how I found Fantasycraft (which is still my favorite d20 to this day) and eventually I settled down on GURPS.
>>
>>82322717
It still makes them money dummy it’s just small time next to Transformers and Peppa Pig
>>
>>82322047
I would still disagree with 'inspiried by'. The same allegation of video game skill trees has been made against 3.0 when it was compared to Diablo 2 at the time. Skill trees, or dependent character options are a natural consequence of character opitons. I don't think there'S any clear inspiration beyonf "The developers and designers are usually nerds and are influence by the mdeia they consume" aand "As designers they look around and sometimes might steal things they think work from other sources".

>>82322116
>>82322290

Let me tell you my personal view of why the editions did as well as they did:
When 3rd was released 2nd had been practically dead for years, so it was something new in a market that was starved.

4th launch suffered multiple issues on the other hand:
- Gleemax failed and the whole suite of digital tools and social networks that 4th was supposed to be suitable for imploded (Gleemax's end was announced in July 28th, in the midst of the first 3 bok launches of June - August). Also the single dev that understood what was going on at the software side had killed himself (and his wife), basically erasing that entire section of features.
- The 2008 economical crisis happened, and a lot off people lost their jobs and had little money to spend on hoby stuff.
- Most importantly 3rd wasn't dead. The last big official 3.5. book by WotC was released December 2007. the fanbase had a living game they knew with plenty third party content.
Then 4th came out and not only wanted money from them (scarce) but also time and effort to learn the game, when they still had a functional game right there.
- The fact WotC then basically got rid of 3rd party products did additionally displease a significant partof the playerbase, while also causing less content for 4th that players adn DMs could use in lieu of preparation or to enhance their game. While those same 3rd party devs for the time kept producing 3.X stuff because development lead times.

1/2
>>
>>82322872
don't you have homework to do, kid?
>>
>>82322885

4th died the first time with essentials in 2010, and its last official releases came out in early 2012. 3rd party releases dried up as well as the customer base shrunk and split and also ran out of material.

Around 2012 streaming services and content creation took off creating a fertile new field of viral marketing.

So when 5th came around in alte 2014 it found a lot of players that were waiting for something new, that had a hobby budget.
And that were part of a internet that made it easy to watch other people play (compared to the good, but much less sophisticated 4th edition gameplay streams).
And also 5E is a rather simple sistem that can easily be understood well enough to follow, something both 3rd and 4th aren't.
>>
>>82322916
Can’t cope that D&D is worth less to Hasbro than GI Joe so has to resort to playground insults
>>
>>82322939
>resort to playground insults
>calls people dummy
>>
>>82322951
I’m not that anon but it’s well known how little DnD is worth compared to the rest of the parent companies divisions
If 4th edition had been a monumental disaster they would hardly notice
>>
>>82322687
Yeah but my point is I definitely wasn't a grog and I as a new customer was immediately repulsed by 4e game design. So either I'm a complete anomaly or that answer doesn't totally account for 4e's lack of success.
>>
>>82323095
There are always people that reject part of a game system for whatever reason. Why do you think people argue over games systems and how much yours sucks?

Your experience is an anectdotte., nice, defintiely your experience, but unsuited to create a general conclusion.
>>
>>82322744
Not the anon you were arguing with, but I am the anon that had that trip build. It was a real character too, plenty of fun moments among friends were had. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I will admit to occasionally just theorycrafting builds for my own entertainment that never saw play, but I was if anything an irritatingly stage hogging roleplayer back then.

>>82321716
Yeah, like I said I know it's bad design really. Just had a lot of fun with it.
I like to think I mostly used my autistic system mastery for good and not evil, trying to avoid some of the pitfalls by helping out the group on builds etc. There were certain things like caster/martial balance that there just was no fixing though.
I'm a lot happier to be in 5e where I don't have to explain charge bonuses multiple times a session, combat is less of a marathon, homebrewing doesn't feel like trying to build on a house of cards so you can fix at least some of the things that are wrong.
>>
>>82323452
How convenient that the everyone adored the munchkin
>>
>>82323829
We were friends yeah? This a novel idea to you?
>>
>>82323829
>Friend does dick things
>still my friend so it's okay
>still annoys me
It happens, my friends let me get away with power gaming in most campaigns I was in with only complaints but never demanded I disarm myself
>>
>>82322116
The premise at the end of your post is accurate, but the first part of your post is not. Roleplaying games are not story telling exercises, they are analogue virtual reality machines. 4e lost almost entirely due to its choice in linguistics as being plain and game first and not immersion building.

That being said I'm happy playing 4e 2 and other 4e 2
>>
>>82325529
>4e lost almost entirely due to its choice in linguistics as being plain and game first and not immersion building.
I guess I'm not smart enough to have noticed it, but is there any system that does build immersion?
>>
>>82326067
Traveler
>>
>>82315088
>and halve NPC HP
Even that's excessive. The fixed mm3 math only nerfed their defenses by a few points and hp usually by less than a dozen, the important thing is buffing damage.
>>
>>82317942
Not really. 3e had feats that were explicitly bad options intentionally as a test of player knowledge. 4e has a bunch of feats intended to incentivize different playstyles within classes and there are a bunch of classes, races, paragon paths, and epic destinies. You generally have a few dozen generics available to you and then about half a dozen class/race specific ones. There is obviously some power gap but nothing quite like 3.5 with completely useless options being next to one point wonders.
>>
>>82310808
I really liked it. I actually translated a lot of stuff into my native language so my friends (who don't speak English) could play it. But they didn't like it. They were not a fan of the miniatures and the "videogameish" language used in the book. So we went back to 3.5 and I kept daydreaming of playing a Warlord, which never happened. Now, with the same group, we're playing 3.5, 5e and PF 2e (I DM PF) and there are miniatures in each one of them. Maybe 4e was released at the wrong time.
>>
>>82323829
nothing wrong with letting a friend shine
>>
>>82327751
Warlord is still good in 13th age at least.
>>
>>82327413
MM3 didn't change HP.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.