What went wrong?
They dropped all pretension of not just being a combat game that people used to roleplay in spite of the other rules rather than because of them.
Marketing. The digital tools. Scrapping the whole project half-way through, making the final version to be published too soon which caused some kinks in the math, especially with monsters.
>"Hay guize! Let's take the biggest and best known name in all of TTRPGdom and turn it into a stupid motherfucking boardgame!"
4e had one or two good ideas, but holy dickshitting Christ did they ever fuck up everything else.
If they had called it ANYTHING ELSE, I think it would have been far better received. Call it an offshoot, or a perpendicular game to D&D that was inspired by it, not a replacement for 3e, and people would have been a lot less jarred by the changes. Shit, they could have called it something like Chainmail 2e, and that would have been about infinity percent more accurate.
They made an excellent tactical minis board game and forgot that people who like D&D like to imagine there's more than that to the rules.
Also magic items fucking sucked.
>>47407768
4e was pretty good. The problem was a) poort wotc marketing, and b) paizo stoking flamewars
>>47407887
>>47408156
>>47408173
Yep that pretty much sums it up.
4e wasn't a bad game per se. But it's not a roleplaying game and it's definitely not D&D.
From what I understand, they designed it to be more like (and compete with) MMOs. You can see how that wasn't a good idea.
>>47408173
I've never understood this. 4e said "Roleplaying doesn't need rules beyond the skill check system" and people freaked the fuck out. Do people need their hands held about interacting with NPCs, or something?
>>47408238
>But it's not a roleplaying game and it's definitely not D&D.
Holy opinions Batman!
>>47408238
>not a roleplaying game
>3.PFags will never stop needing rules to tell them how to roleplay
LOVING
EVERY
LAUGH
>>47407768
Fucked around to much with the SRD, and put Paizo in a situation where they had to put out Pathfinder or they'd go out of business.
>>47408245
They wanted spells that did everything automatically.
>>47408245
3.5-fags just got really upset that 4e fixed their broken shit system.
>>47408238
Can you name something about 4E that wasn't present in 3.5?
What makes 3.5 and 5E "roleplaying" games, but not 4E?
>>47408365
Rules and math obfuscated by "natural language".
>>47408261
>>47408264
It's not a roleplaying because there's no room for players to be creative with their character's fighting style. Everything is handed to them on a platter in the form of "powers".
It's a fucking miniature wargame version of WoW.
There's a reason why Wizards wants to bury 4e and pretend it never happend: it was very badly received and for the first time in history, D&D now has an actual competitor in the Fantasy RPG market: Pathfinder.
4e is directly responsible for this. It was a terrible mistake on Wizards' part.
>>47408299
>put Paizo in a situation where they had to put out Pathfinder or they'd go out of business
?
>>47408343
then why the positive reaction to 5th?
>>47408365
The fact that you cannot play 4e without a battlegrid and miniatures should be enough.
>>47408261
>opinions
They're factually wrong, though.
Why, OP? Why would you do this?
>>47408391
>It's not a roleplaying because there's no room for players to be creative with their character's fighting style.
As opposed to... just the Attack action? Really? That's your contention?
>There's a reason why Wizards wants to bury 4e and pretend it never happend:
Because they completely botched handling it and went back on their design halfway through and re-released the game products shortly into it's life-cycle creating two distinct versions of the same edition under one name?
>>47408391
>It's not a roleplaying because there's no room for players to be creative with their character's fighting style.
Ahahaha....AHAHAHAHAHA
This in comparision to fucking 5e with its champion fighters and eldritch blast all day erryday warlocks?
3.5, where literally every single martial strategy was stand still and full attack (or, if you allowed Lion totem barb, charge and full attack)?
>>47408447
>Because they completely botched handling it and went back on their design halfway through and re-released the game products shortly into it's life-cycle creating two distinct versions of the same edition under one name?
No. Because it was shit. Like, objectively shit. Nothing could have salvaged it.
It almost killed the franchise.
>>47408416
Except They were selling official battlegrids and minis, and every adventure was published with grid-included maps in 3.5. Not to mention every spell and ability in 3.5 is still described in terms of 5' increments anyway. Hell, the entire AoO system is entirely predicated on using a grid, as it's impossible to adjudicate without one.
>>47408475
>No. Because it was shit. Like, objectively shit. Nothing could have salvaged it.
See, what I said was an actual description of events that happened.
What you said, however, is an opinion that adds nothing to the discussion. You have to explain WHY you think it's shit for anyone to take you seriously.
>>47408416
Disregarding the fact that few people by 2e used theater of the mind for the game, your statement has very little weight.
TSR heavily pushed minis, dungeon maps and the like, but of course, you were too young to remember this.
>>47408394
It took a long time for them to put out 4e equivalent of the OGL, and it was much more restrictive. They also pulled the plug on Dragon and Dungeon magazine which Paizo had been publishing under license from them. Wizards basically forced them to become their biggest competitor.
>>47408475
>it almost killed the franchise
I have no reaction image for this.
Claiming that 4e is a roleplaying game because you have the option to give the miniature that represents your character a backstory is like claiming that chess is a roleplaying game because you can roleplay a general leading his army into battle.
It's not a roleplaying game. It's a miniature wargame with a bit of storytelling on the side.
>>47408522
So what you're saying is that it took D&D back to its roots?
>>47408475
The only edition of D&D that sold better than 4e is 5e.
>>47408522
This is true for all D&D tho.
>>47408522
>It's a miniature wargame with a bit of storytelling on the side.
Welcome to every edition of D&D, ever.
Can we have a moment to mourn the loss of the Compendium?
>All-digital rules repository
>Fully searchable by keywords and filters
>A built-in API that lets you actually source data right from it to populate statblocks and HTML5 character sheets on the internet
>All the magazine content included
>AND THEY FUCKING PUT IT BEHIND A PAYWALL AND STOPPED SUPPORTING IT
>>47408476
>>47408495
Yeah but you didn't NEED them to play the game. They were always optional.
Also I started playing D&D during 2e.
>>47408492
I believe I already have. If you like it then by all means feel free to keep playing it.
>>47408522
And what about this sentence doesn't refer to every single D&D edition?
>>47408559
>Yeah but you didn't NEED them to play the game. They were always optional.
According to the rules, you do.
Unless you want to tell me how you adjudicate cone spells, radii, and AoOs without a grid.
Thanks for reminding me why I don't play D&D again, guys.I'm dead serious.
>>47407768
Honestly it just wasn't what I wanted or what a lot of other people wanted. People bitch about 3.5e's balance but for people like me who just run beer and pretzels D&D and have players who don't min-max, the balance wasn't a problem.
That's why the playerbase fractured so hard into 4e and PF. Pathfinder was what I really wanted from WotC: an incremental upgrade to 3.5e. 4e didn't feel like the next edition of D&D, it felt like D&D 8e or something. So much changed so fast (too much, too fast in my opinion).
That's part of why I like 5e, it feels like a good next step from D&D 3.5e. Small fixes, simplifications (retaining 4e's trimmed skill list and no ranks / training, (dis)advantage instead of lots of fiddly modifiers), and some cool new ideas like preventing AC and modifiers from scaling into the stratosphere (so a horde of goblins can still stab high level adventurers to death).
>>47408238
>4e doesn't let me roleplay like 3.PF can
>"Ok, what are some ways 3.PF lets you roleplay?"
>insert huge list of mechanics that let you roll dice in place of roleplaying
Every time
>>47408601
The thing was, 3.5e needed a hell of a lot more than a step.
>>47408601
This is the Tumblr fanbase WotC sells things to now.
>>47408590
Same way you did in every other edition.
>>47408590
The DM decides that kind of stuff.
You might draw a diagram on a piece of paper if there are lots of enemies but you don't need to bring a briefcase full of minis and gridmaps to play D&D.
It was a cashgrab pure and simple. Wizards just wanted to sell you some plastic dolls and maps and you fell for the meme.
I've played since 2e and never used minis except for a few rare instances. In 4e they are absolutely mandatory.
>>47407768The fanbase.
>>47408647
>Same way you did in every other edition.
So, a grid?
>>47408559
>They were always optional.
So they were always optional, but always used from 2e onwards.
Like I said, little weight. When the expectation is a grid of some sort, like it has been since 2e onwards, crying that it was optional means nothing at all.
Also, >>47408590.
>>47408601
>So much changed so fast (too much, too fast in my opinion).
Rather than a redone 3,5, they put out a redone 2e, and that is what I wanted. I was 20 when 3e came out, and was disgusted at how much Wizards disregarded everything that preceded them, and then my worst fears came true when their "new, modern" D&D was literally a pile of shit from the ground up, and unlike 3.5, people found that out very quickly and didn't say shit like "BEER AND PRETZELS!" (which 4e does better anyway with faster chargen and less surprises).
>>47408647
By using a grid, since only Basic and 1e w/ variations really supported ToM play.
>>47408670
If thats how you handeled every non-4e edition, sure.
Some of us can, and have, played 4e just fine gridless.
>>47408650
>In 4e they are absolutely mandatory.
They are as mandatory as in 3.5 at least.
5e a bit less so, as it removed any point of positioning.
>>47408650
>You might draw a diagram on a piece of paper if there are lots of enemies but you don't need to bring a briefcase full of minis and gridmaps to play D&D
Wait, wait, wait...
You actually think that in order for 4E to be played AT ALL, you need ACTUAL PHYSICAL MINIS?
Have you never fucking heard of graph paper and a pencil?
>Wizards just wanted to sell you some plastic dolls and maps and you fell for the meme.
Now I know you're trolling. Nigga, people have been using a whiteboard and market or a piece of graph paper for combat SINCE FUCKING OD&D.
>I've played since 2e and never used minis except for a few rare instances. In 4e they are absolutely mandatory.
But you did use them. Which means you fell for the meme, right?
>>47408711
This.
I used a dry erase board, markers, and a variety of coins/dice/tokens/wargame minis I already owned. I never board boards or minis, except a 3e set I found packed at a yard sale for a buck.
I refuse to believe this wasn't the case with most people, and all the posters howling about having to buy minis/maps are trolls of the most banal sort.
>>47408773
I used Roll20.
Surprise, didn't have to buy anything and it ran perfectly well. Exactly the same as every 3.5 or 5E game I run on the site too.
>>47408705
I think it's fair to say having a grid and tokens / minis / whatever-the-fuck is a bit more mandatory in 4e because there are more powers that push, slide, and otherwise re-position characters.
This whole line of discussion is pants-on-head retarded anyway. You can play with 4e without a grid, though I don't know why you would want to, and you can play 3.5e and 5e with grids. Who honestly believes that having a grid makes a game less of an RPG? And we're discussing a series of RPGs descended from a literal wargame anyway.
>>47408650
>>47408705
>>47408711
To be honest, while I use roll20 now, I found 3.x harder to run without minis than 4e.
3.x placement is drastically more punishing than 4e. Forced movement definitely triggers AoOs (some monster descriptions specifically say they will use it just to trigger AoOs), threatening reach is EVERYWHERE, spell ranges and spell areas are wobbly and weird, ranged chars are FUCKED if they're trying to fire at people in melee, etc. And of course, full attack/pounce makes a whole big deal.
I find 4e way easier to abstract than 3e.
>>47407768
>all these "4e didn't have muh roleplaying!" faggots
>implying DnD wasn't always about "how much creativity we can replace with hardcoded mechanics"
>implying it isn't true for EVERY SINGLE EDITION of DnD
Never fails to make me laugh.
Rules-heavy "roleplaying" roll-playing, not even once.
t. rules-light cultist
>>47408906
Did you have your pink-dyed fringe haircut before or after you went rules-lite?
>>47408906
Be upfront, anon, until 3e, the only thing the rules came down on in combat and magic spells, as magic wasn't a open system and rigidly defined.
Social situations, combat options outside the (fairly few) listed, everything else were adjudicated by the gm, as well as much of the setting unless you were working in a prepublished one.
>>47408238
>But it's not a roleplaying game and it's definitely not D&D.
>D&D
>roleplaying
>>47408245
I'm actually going to argue that RPGs do need games for Roleplaying, otherwise they are just Tactical Combat System. At least, something that rewards you roleplaying rather than just choosing the best available option at all times.
Now, 3.5 and 4e don't do this, nor does any edition except maybe 5th but even then barely. I actually like 4e but still feel like rules for roleplay actually are kind of important to a Role Playing Game.
>3 Players Handbooks
>2 Dungeon Master Guides
>3 Monster Manuals
People also didn't like that it looked like a skirmish tactics board game despite combat being the biggest part of D&D 3.5.
>>47409086
>At least, something that rewards you roleplaying rather than just choosing the best available option at all times.
Picking the thing which rewards you isn't just choosing the best available option at all times? Are you dumb?
>>47408944
Meme all you want, but people need to learn - the more you restrict yourself with rules, the less place you have for DM adjudication.
Stricter rules - more videogame-y and more rollplaying.
Laxer rules - less videogame-y and more roleplaying.
Not exactly rocket surgery.
You want an example? Look at Fiasco, or Paranoia, or literally anything that isn't Shadowrun/DnD/GURPS etc. level of rule-autism.
Those games are made to have pure unadulterated and unrestricted fun.
A lot of RULEbooks are almost always best used as SOURCEbooks instead, adapting the content to another, lighter system that captures the essence of the game, without overly hindering it with superficial bullshit.
Any system that tries to be both "generic and all-encompassing" AND "authentic and original" fails at both.
That doesn't mean that rule-autistic games can't be fun.
But you have to go into them expecting to play a game first and roleplay second, not vice versa.
Look at the amount of autism that goes into Shadowrun builds - and it's fun, but only because people expect to go into it to play a rules-heavy game first and roleplay second.
DnD, on the other hand, misleads people, by promising them a "you can do anything you want" experience, and then dropping a shitload of poorly-balanced rules on top of said promise.
At least 4e was upfront about itself. I can't say the same about other editions of DnD.
>>47408997
I somewhat agree, but it fucking irks me to no end that some people are unable to have fun unless someone holds their hand the entire way through. Like, holy shit.
>>47409122
>3.5
>2 PHBs
>2 DMGs
>9 MMs
>4+ books in the Complete series, considered the most necessary books to round out pc options
Lolwut?
>>47409122
>>3 Players Handbooks
>>2 Dungeon Master Guides
>>3 Monster Manuals
Are you talking about 3.5?
>>47408906
Remember:
D&D STARTED as a miniatures game. It's in its fucking DNA.
Anyone who tries to seriously roleplay in D&D is a delusional neckbeard.
All of these squabbling infantile idiots in this threads are like ants arguing about which individual in the colony is the most powerful.
How about you shitgiggles let suitable systems handle this stuff instead of playing pretend that your system of play pretend murderhobo is allowing you to play pretend anything but murderhobo and autism competently?
>>47409195
>I somewhat agree
You agree you are a autismal, hyperbole using faggot.
There is more than one way to have fun in pnp games, and fuck you and your heavy handed assumption your way is the best. I don't even count D&D as my favorite game, but faggots like you make an entire segment of pnp gamers look like cunts.
>>47409086
So what games actually do this? Because the mechanical part of roleplaying in most games boil down to having some social skills and rolling against a target number.
>>47409195
>You want an example? Look at Fiasco, or Paranoia, or literally anything that isn't Shadowrun/DnD/GURPS etc. level of rule-autism.
You just suck at reading comprehension.
Make a grade-school reading course before bitching about systems with moderate amount of rules.
WoD is the perfect example of a rules-heavy system where the rules actually work in favor of the experience.
>>47409210
>>47409241
Didn't know 3.5 had that many books. Glossed over that edition entirely, started with 4e, moved to retroclones after a while.
>>47409077
Nigger literally what?
Its THE roleplaying game
The game all other roleplaying games copied
How the fuck is it not a roleplaying game in your mind?
>>47409322
>Didn't know 3.5 had that many books
Dude, 3.5 had, with the setting books, at least 60 books in it's entire line, not including Dungeon/Dragon Mag material.
>>47409338
White Wolf fans have been saying it for decades, and recently the rules-lite people have started joining in.
>>47409338
Being the first doesn't make you good at it anon.
>>47409423
That's because for 12 years, WW and D&D were each others biggest competitors, with the most devout fanbases.
That died out when NWoD became a strong property.
>>47409469
And coming after the first and not living up to expectations or learning from the first's mistakes makes you even shittier.
>>47409338
>Its THE roleplaying game
Only in America, fuckhead. The land where D&D correlates with autism and plays into the retarded nerd/jock divide.
>>47409536
That is pretty much DnD anon.
>>47407768
Nothing. They just didn't appeal to the audience that they had.
4e works fine, does exactly what it set out to do, and does it very well, but it was such a huge departure from 3.5 that it was doomed to be a financial failure from the start, and that right there is the real tragedy here.
>>47409602
>financial failure
>best selling D&D just behind 5e
>lasted 7-8 years, just like 3.5, longer than 3e
>every book topped the charts
>PF only beat it in sales at the literal end of it's lifespan when they released 1 book in a year
>People have no idea how well 4e selled
>They don't know it only really tanked come essentials
>They don't know Essentials was an inside job by mearls to force an edition change
>Also people think that 4e isn't a roleplaying game because it has rules oh my god
>>47408391
>I want to do ___ in combat!
>Okay, roll ____ and see how you do
There, problem solved.
>>47408906
>>implying DnD wasn't always about "how much creativity we can replace with hardcoded mechanics"
wait, what? did you ever play pre WotC D&D faggort?
>>47409703
Good thing 4e also has rewards for creativity in combat.
>>47407768
Grognardism and bad community management
>>47409640
>>47409662
It lasted 6 years which is the shortest lifespan of any D&D edition.
Seriously guys, if 4e was good why is
Wizards desperately tyring to revert all the changes it made in an effort to win back the fanbase?
I don't know why /tg/ defends this poor excuse for an RPG so hard. I don't even see anyone play it outside of /tg/.
>>47408601
>People bitch about 3.5e's balance but for people like me who just run beer and pretzels D&D and have players who don't min-max, the balance wasn't a problem.
Bad balance is MORE of a problem for casual players, not less. It's really, really easy in 3.5 to create a character who's completely broken - be it in the "can't carry out their intended role" definition of the term, or the "obsoletes the rest of the party" one.
Source: I was an accidental CoDzilla in my first 3E campaign.
>>47409086
>At least, something that rewards you roleplaying rather than just choosing the best available option at all times.
You're not only wrong, but you're also hypocritical.
1. Let me get the obvious out of the way: Then you're still choosing the best available option at all times, you insufferable cunt.
2. Repeat after me: roleplaying a character is its own reward. "Good roleplaying rewards" are the biggest crock of shit. Roleplaying isn't "better" if it pleaseth the GM. All that sort of rule accomplishes is encourages everyone to wangst, drama whore, overdescribe, and overact EVERYTHING.
>I actually like 4e but still feel like rules for roleplay actually are kind of important to a Role Playing Game.
This attitude kills the "role playing" element in an RPG.
>>47409761
It's not like 3.5E fags would recognize quality if they saw it, and that's not meant to be a defense of 4E.
>>47409788
>Repeat after me: roleplaying a character is its own reward. "Good roleplaying rewards" are the biggest crock of shit
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
>>47409826
Why do you hate 3.5?
the big three failings of 4e
>The online component getting fucked over hard by the crazy murder/suicide
>Essentials tanking
>Killing off PDF's due to piracy
The second might be the weakest link, but to me, the first and last points are basically what really killed any major chance of it taking off successfully. The murder/suicide was a tragedy, the second was just WOTC being terrible in management.
>>47409261
>D&D STARTED as a miniatures game.
It did not. Are you lying, or ignorant?
D&D's COMBAT system started as one used in a miniatures game. The entire, ENTIRE point of D&D was a role playing system. The original 3LBB didn't even HAVE a working combat system.
Let that sink in for a moment. D&D was originally released without a combat system. To use it, you either have to look at what later editions did or what Chainmail did.
>Anyone who tries to seriously roleplay in D&D is a delusional neckbeard.
Nice ad hominem kiddo.
>let suitable systems handle this stuff
What is more "suitable" is wholly subjective, and generally involves cluttering up the roleplaying experience with mandatory metagame currency like fate points, honor points, humanity points, etc., making for a game that is less about roleplaying and more about "storytelling."
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how mechanics that force you to metagame (anything narrativium, including extra live, I mean fate points), or railroad you and punish you with points falling off (honor, humanity, etc).
And before you ask, no I'm not saying the paladin is exactly a great class, but it is an option within the rules.
>>47409543
You're right, other countries sometimes have shitty knockoffs.
>tfw people who need a labyrinthine set of rules and tables and dice to roleplay act like it makes them better than you.
As for the special, unique mind that complained 4e doesn't let you have your own special fighting style, ignoring the fact that 3.5, 3.PF, and 5 are all "I hit the guy with my axe" then wait fifteen minutes for your turn again...
The entire point of divorcing lore and mechanics is that things can be customized to your liking. Multiclass rogue/wizard? Take magic missile and make it magically-impelled shurikens.
You could technically do that in 3.5e too, in fact I distinctly remember a section of the original 3e DMG that talked about customizing the effects of spells to fit your unique style.
It also means the DM can easily mix and match monsters to create his own shit.
The amount of creativity and modification possible within the 4e rules is huge compared to 3.5e. Customizing monsters in 3.5 took a PHD and the rarest forms of autism.
>>47409940
god, I miss how fun it was to design 4e monsters. And how it had actual encounter building rules.
>>47409261
Dude why are you here?
Do you even like roleplaying games?
>>47408201
Please, add botched testplay to the list.
>>47409932
Your Babby's First PnP symptom is showing.
>>47409940
you rang, my liege?
Murder suicide halfway through development
>>47409999
>diet
I will never get tired of that
>>47408416
I never get this. My group religiously played without battlegrids and it wasn't any more cumbersome than doing so in 3.5
>>47409761
Hold on brother, your post is a mess.
You responded to a post saying it was the most commercially successful D&D edition. Which is true.
Your first sentence refers to how brief it was around for -- which is actually a point in its favor as to part of why it was so commercially successful. Profit does not even remotely make for a good game, in case you were wondering.
>if 4e was so good
Obviously, they're trying to market to the people that *didn't* like 4e.
Christ, get it together. Pick a point and stick to it.
>>47409915
>Let that sink in for a moment. D&D was originally released without a combat system. To use it, you either have to look at what later editions did or what Chainmail did.
This is dumb. It was utterly completely intended for use with Chainmail. The rules specify combat ability of characters in terms of Chainmail units. It doesn't have its own combat system because it's essentially a Chainmail supplement/mod.
>>47409859
It conditioned an entire generation of players to accept poor mechanics so long as it allowed them to stroke their e-peen.
It became the benchmark system other games are compared to despite it's poor design, and brought down dozens of other games due to OGL.
It has made D&D from a choice to play to something either loved or reviled in the community.
>>47409940
>magic shuriken
Interestingly, its been argued that "Magic Missile" was based off how magic arrows worked in Chainmail (ie they automatically hit vs mundanes, but won't always kill a supernatural foe). SO there's reason to think Magic Missile was "supposed" to, in fact, be magic shurikens or darts or whatever.
>>47409978
Not at all. Every month, I try to find something better than D&D.
Know what I always find? The people who make shittastic fantasy heartbreakers completely fail or don't even try at the GM's side of the equation, presumably because they think only a shitlord would purposefully think about balanced encounters.
>>47407768
It gave up halfway through and decided to pander to a vocal minority of neckbeards with d20 brain damage. Once the internet smelled the developer's fear that their own product wasn't whatever it should be there was no turning back.
>>47410137
> It was utterly completely intended for use with Chainmail.
I'm glad we literally 100% agree.
>The rules specify combat ability of characters in terms of Chainmail units.
I'm glad we literally 100% agree.
>It doesn't have its own combat system because it's essentially a Chainmail supplement/mod.
Here's where we depart. Chainmail is a supplement for OD&D. Not the other way around. You can use it for it, or you can (try to) use the alternate combat system, most obviously by using the expansion books, though at that point you're basically playing a bizarre version of 1e AD&D.
So yeah, it was a roleplaying system first that requires you to turn completely to other books to use its combat system.
>>47410220
Mixing Essentials and pre Essentials for characters is da bomb, actually.
>>47410194
>presumably because they think only a shitlord would purposefully think about balanced encounters.
I'll miss that from 4e, so hard.
>>47410281
Same. I don't remotely understand why this is something that progressive game developers think is something only for reactionary bourgeoisie RPGs. Its like they make it a point of pride not to think about balancing combat too much... even though imbalanced combat fucks over casuals worse than it does optimizers.
Combat is the only time that you have to wait 15 minutes until the super leet matrix guy is done backflipping and killing everything. Trivializing it just means the casuals have to be even more second fiddle to combat monsters.
>>47410248
>Here's where we depart. Chainmail is a supplement for OD&D. Not the other way around.
Chainmail - 1971
OD&D - 1974
>>47410338
Correct, Chainmail is used to supplement OD&D, never the reverse.
>>47409899
Bingo. 100 posts in and someone finally nails it.
Essentials was crap, the online component was a shaky monetization model and the tragedy hurt it badly, and wizards decided piracy was the root of all evil rather than the lifeblood keeping people interested in their game....so they shut down fan sites.
DnD 4e itself was fine, easily the most balanced and active combat with easy to follow skills. It had its problems (like power card bloat) but the real issues with it are with essentials and wizard.
>>47410372
....chainmail existed BEFORE OD&D. Your head is so far up your own ass you could lick your tonsils from behind.
>>47409899
>The online component getting fucked over hard by the crazy murder/suicide
Did someone who worked on the online portion of 4e die/get killed?
>>47410487
The developer committed murder-suicide.
>>47410519
Yikes.
>>47410487
The lead developer of the online portion stalked and killed his ex, then himself.
With D&D 2e/3e/5e design, the designers writing the rogue class started with a pool of roguish concepts/ideas, and then translated those ideas into mechanics. In 4e, the designers wrote "striker" mechanics, then slapped vaguely roguish names on all the powers.
Obviously there's strengths to the 4e prescriptive design style. Problem is, 4e is so bloody transparent about it that everything feels very disingenuous and MMO-like.
>>47410446
>....chainmail existed BEFORE OD&D.
Good for you. You can tell past from future.
>Your head is so far up your own ass you could lick your tonsils from behind.
Great ad hominem.
I'll try to help you through this moment of crisis for you. Clear your head, wipe away the tears, and read very, very carefully.
1. Chainmail is used to supplement OD&D. If someone says they're running OD&D, the questions asked are "Are you using Chainmail or Alternate Combat System, and are you using Greyhawk?"
2. OD&D is never used to supplement Chainmail. If you say you're playing Chainmail, no one will ever say "Oh! Can we use OD&D for our mans?"
Chainmail is used to supplement OD&D, never the reverse.
If you still have trouble wrapping your head around stuff being used as a supplement for stuff that postdates it, I ask you which came first, vitamins such as calcium we used to supplement our diet, or the human race?
>>47410552
Which is funny sincethe rogue is complete shit in every edition but 4e
>>47410552
You keep fishin' but nobody's bitin'.
>>47407895
>the digital tools
You mean the vaporware? I remember the 4e books being polluted with ads for features that never got released.
>>47409210
I own literally all the 3.5 books. Nearly 100 plus third party and pathfinder.
Might take pics when j get home if there is interest.
>>47410593
Yes, the stuff that turned into a vaporware because the developer got literally murdered.
>>47407768
OP here. I made a thread about a game I was actually interested in, then made this thread to shitpost, to see which would fill up quicker. The other thread got two replies before falling off the board, this one got 120. Congratulations.
>>47410593
That's exactly what he means.
This thread is about what went wrong after all.
>>47410583
5e rogue is merely incredibly fucking boring, and very reliant on getting hasted. And also not a caster.
But at least it's not 3.5 rogue... then again, a 3.5 rogue with UMD and guaranteed WBL could do shit.
>>47409761
B/X is the shortest-lived edition. It was only supported for 2 years before being replaced with BECMI.
>>47410565
So tell me. In say... 1972... how would you use Chainmail to supplement OD&D when the latter did not exist yet? Why (how?) would someone invent a supplement to a thing that does not exist?
>>47410624
There was just one developer? That just sounds like poor project management.
>>47410548
That's fucking hilarious. Was she hot?
>>47410632
People on 4chan are belligerent shitheels! News at 11!
>>47410593
They had a character builder, monster/adventure builder, virtual tabletop and online compendium.
The character builder had an offline iteration which was canned in favor of an inferior online one, the monster builder development just kinda stopped, the virtual tabletop was shut down in beta (which was a pity, I though it was pretty good) and the compendium survived mostly unharmed, but it's behind a paywall.
>>47410657
The same way I would use Vitamin C to supplement my diet before I was born, presumably.
>>47410665
Nah, but he was the head-dev, and apparently the team was really shit without him. I'm guessing he did all the actual work, and as with all overworked, slightly insane coders, got real fucking sloppy on documentation and just clean code in general.
>>47410657
He appears to be operating off of his own personal definition of the word 'supplement'.
>>47410657
This. I reiterate my comment about your ass/tonsils ratio.
>>47410583
Hence there being "obvious advantages" to 4e.
>>47410585
Saying "4e is a board game/MMO/etc" is like saying "Monopoly makes you hate your friends". It isn't a meme complaint or off the mark. It takes a lot of specialized knowledge to dig into the game design behind the issue (which I will freely admit I don't have), but everyone can still feel the effects.
>>47410165
>poor mechanics
>poor design
Care to elaborate?
>>47410665
The lead developer was the only one who understood the coding. It does sound like they managed it poorly, yeah.
Whiny 3aboos controlled the dialogue.
>>47410716
>It isn't a meme complaint or off the mark
Yeah... it is. You can point to mechanics from WoW (like taunts, hold/sleep/charm not working on type: undead but working on type: humanoid, etc) that were from 3e and before.
>It takes a lot of specialized knowledge to dig into the game design behind the issue (which I will freely admit I don't have), but everyone can still feel the effects
So you actually admit that you are too ignorant to know,
>which I freely admit I do not have
and are just basing this off your feelz
>everyone can still feel the effects
Remember, just because it hurts your adorable feelings doesn't change the facts.
>>47410727
Ivory tower design and monster/PC creation symmetry were my personal peeves. Bad choices should not exist to make you feel better about choosing the good ones and it shouldn't take as long to build a monster as it is to build a PC when one is going to last all of two encounters.
>>47410773
Taunts were brought in very late in 3.5's life cycle, along with a lot of other things they were thinking about that would later be included in 4e
The heavy dependence on taunts and aggro was one part of what made 4e feel like an MMO, but it wasn't as much of a factor as the autistic templating and the identical hotbars with identical cooldowns for all classes.
>>47410690
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_hiLXLbTc
God dammit Mitchell and Webb, stop being relevant to D&D edition war arguments!
>>47410612
Goddamn, do so.
>>47410773
Except lots of people have reported playing it without any kind of board. Which makes this idea not just hard to belive but rediculous. Add onto that the fact that every other edition of DND is based around the same base mechanics when it comes to combat, and as such its basically the same as other version of DND where people DIDNT complain about this "problem", and the argument looks very much like a weak meme complaint used by people who never played 4e enough to actually understand the rules.
>>47410773
Now THIS is a completely unsubstantiated meme response. No RPG is "factually" good. I'm just saying that I can't perform the complete autopsy, though I do have a good idea of what killed it.
>>47410945
An rpg can be factually well designed though
>>47410711
>>47410710
He isn't using it wrong.
To supplement something is to add to it with an outside product.
You played D&D, added Chainmail or some other system to it, making them supplements to D&D.
Y'all are being outrageously dense.
>>47410727
You really need this explained to you?
>>47410910
Kender have had a taunt ability since 1e, haven't they?
>>47410945
>though I do have a good idea of what killed it.
Just like ancient Greeks were pretty which god Pompeii pissed off I'm sure. You lack any and all objective fact-based reasoning but you still feel quite certain of the answer.
>4e is the best selling edition of D&D
Well first of all 5e has sold better and its only been out for a couple of years.
Secondly, if you look at the combined sales of 3/3.5 and Pathfinder you'll also see that it sold better than 4e.
So basically 4e sold better that 2e back when D&D was an obscure nerdy hobby.
>>47411041
>3.5e which was out for over two decades sold better than 4e
Really raising the bar there, ain'tcha.
>>47410910
>Taunts were brought in very late in 3.5's life cycle
Are you a r-retard, senpai? I'm worried about you.
D&D 3.5: 2003
D&D Miniature's Handbook, where the Taunt feat is located: 2003
Very late indeed.
>The heavy dependence on taunts and aggro was one part of what made 4e feel like an MMO
You mean the complete absence of taunts and aggro. I'm sort of curious, do you even know what words mean? Or at least what these words? Defenders work the opposite of what you describe -- a tank has oodles more defense and hit points than everyone else, and if he's not being attacked, he's not doing his job, while a defender has similar defenses as certain strikers, and if he's being attacked, his defender mechanics don't work.
>identical cooldowns
Cooldowns exist in 3e. They don't in 4e. Unless you consider 1/encounter abilities (which originate in 3e, or probably sooner) to be "cooldowns."
The problem with your argument is that WoW by far resembles 3e more than 4e.
>>47410910
>Taunts were brought in very late in 3.5's life cycle, along with a lot of other things they were thinking about that would later be included in 4e
You do know these things were brought in to bring balance to the system when they realized how badly they had fucked up, right?
One day, look up why the Duskblade is better designed than the Hexblade.
>>47411041
>4e is the best selling edition of D&D just behind 5e
Quote the whole post, retard.
Also, why are you putting 3.5 and PF together, when they are literally different companies?
I'm sure if you add together all the OGL products, they make more than any rpg ever.
You are a retard.
>>47410910
2003 is not late in 3.5's life cycle.
4e does not actually have taunts or aggro.
Caveat: Sure, there are some "you have to fight me now" abilities of various flavors out there, but they're very unusual, which would hold true for 3.5 too if it hadn't made an entire class around it. No one played Knight, though.
>>47410727
>>47411041
>back when D&D was an obscure nerdy hobby
So, not the 80s and 90s, when you could buy the Basic Set in half the toy shops in America?
>>47411079
Its true. All of it.
>>47411071
Defenders Marks were a better way of establishing that gameplay anyway, where the Defenders are mega-autists who scream "REEEEEE" and bash you in the face if you aren't giving them attention
>>47410733
Why don't you just play WoW if you lack the imagination to play a real ttrpg, you fucking 4rry
>>47410945
>No RPG is "factually" good.
Nobody said it was. Reread my post. If you can't read a simple post, then no wonder you can't even begin to analyze RPGs and instead rely on "my feelz tell me its MMO like, so it must be!"
>just saying that I can't perform the complete autopsy,
Quit using your own stupidity and incompetence as an excuse to use "feelz" as the alpha and omega of an argument. Virtually anyone can, with patience, sit down and analyze an RPG using logic and facts instead of, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, feelingz, so why can't you?
>>47411083
I kind of miss the days when I could go to any chain bookstore and it would have a sizable section devoted to AD&D.
>>47411130
And lets be honest, flying into an autistic rage (literally, in the case of the battlerager) because senpai didn't notice you is vastly more entertaining than being a guy whose claim to fame is A) irritating monsters into attacking them and B) having a lot of hit points.
>>47411070
>why are you putting 3.5 and PF together, when they are literally different companies?
Because a large portion of the 3.5 playerbase went to Pathfinder rather than "upgrading" to 4e. Those were Wizards' customers.
That's how much of a fuckup 4e was. Wizards had an unchallenged dominance of the fantasy tabletop RPG market and now they actually have serious competition. Competition that is using their own system against them no less.
4e is universally regarded as a horrible mistake and I honestly don't know why /tg/ defends it so much.
>>47411196
>4e is universally regarded as a horrible mistake
It's sales speak differently, considering that PF was a distant second for the entire life of 4e until the last 3 Essentials books.
But no, continue baiting, you will be watched, along with >>47410945.
>>47411138
>Virtually anyone can, with patience, sit down and analyze an RPG using logic and facts instead of, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, feelingz, so why can't you?
I did. My claim was that 4e is based around mechanics dressed up as concepts instead of concepts boiled down into mechanics -- and it shows.
>>47411196
Because it's a really good game. WotC's business incompetence is unrelated to the quality of the game.
>>47411196
>thing had a universal reaction
>except for the huge amount of people with the opposite reaction
ok.exe
I vastly prefer 3.x, but it is effortless to get a 4e group together, and I don't play with people who go to 4chan... while I find it impossible to get 3.x groups together.
And your argument seems to mostly apply to marketing, to which I would say, yes, the 4e/pf fiasco was the worst decision imaginable.
>>47408622
Why do you need rules at all then?Why don't you just roll random dice and let GM decide what it means?
>>47411240
That does not make it an rpg that fails at what it was supposed to do, however.
What it did was make it so everyone knew exactly what they were in for, from the ground up, rather than trying to obfuscate it from the players.
>>47411079
I don't get why people complain that warriors can only swing swords while casters can cast spells.
That's what it says on the box you retards. Do you expect a warrior to be able to teleport or shoot fireballs? No he swings a big fucking axe. That's what he's good at.
If you want to shoot fireballs and lightning roll a wizard.
>>47411196
>That's how much of a fuckup 4e was.
Sounds more like a slur on 3.5 fans, honestly. There are a few criticisms of 4e as a system which are more than "it's not 3.5e roooooo normies gamessssss," some of which I will detail below:
>If you have new players with no prior tabletop experience, or a large group (>5 players) combat can be agonizingly slow
>Skill Feats suck a dick
>Lack of DM guides hurt: DMs usually need their hands held on their end because most DMs aren't veterans of 500+ sessions who know how things need to work
>There are a lot of "required" or "optimal" feat selections which are super boring and do nothing but provide a bonus to hit
They really should have pulled a D&D/AD&D thing with 3e vs 4e, and have had 4e be an attempt to convert D&D Miniatures into an RPG. They should have still supported 3e, because... why not? PF shows that you can make a more broken and imbalanced product and still get sales.
>>47411284
Because "I full attack" is really fucking boring.
>>47410982
....I see that you are retarded. I will explain this slowly so you can understand.
Chainmail existed BEFORE OD&D. That means that BEFORE OD&D existed, chainmail was there, a whole system unto itself. It was not supplementing anything, because the thing which you seem to think it was made to supplement DIDNT EXIST.
You see, BEFORE something can be supplemented, it has to exist. Therefore, Chainmail is not and never has been an exclusive supplement to OD&D.
Chainmail BEFORE OD&D, therefore, it CANNOT supplement OD&D because OD&D didn't EXIST.
ERGO, the claim that Chainmail was never played without OD&D is bullshit.
>>47411284
except the caster can do more damage, can end fights far more easily, and can summon 1d6 axemen that can do as much damage as the axeman.
And the axeman just swings his axe.
>>47410982
>If I use "he" they'll never know it's really me, even though I'm using the same pants-as-a-shirt logic he is
>>47411240
I really don't think that's true. Of course, there's going to be a bunch of cases where someone thought of a cool mechanism and found an explanation for it, but I think what actually gives you that impression is that they (at first, anyway) didn't add classes until they'd figured out a mechanical niche for them, so as to avoid pointless doubling up. It worked really well sometimes, and not very some times (hello, Assassin).
Though I have no idea what's strange about Rogue. It gets extra damage when it has an opening, and it has a bunch of tumbling around the battlefield. That's more or less how it always worked, just with varying degrees of competence.
>>47411237
Sure loads of people bought 4e. I'm not disputing that. I'm one of them. But how many people enjoyed it. How many people kept playing it? That's what really matters.
>>47411252
It really isn't. The playerbase has spoken and Wizards has listened this time. They took 4e out back, put a few bullets in it and buried it like it never existed in the first place.
>>47411267
I don't play 3.5 or PF either. I play 5e now which I'm liking a lot so far.
>>47411267
>I vastly prefer 3.x, but it is effortless to get a 4e group together, and I don't play with people who go to 4chan... while I find it impossible to get 3.x groups together.
That's a very bizarre situation you got there, considering just searching on roll20 for 3.5 games gets you twice the results than for 4e games
>>47411338
5e uses a shit ton of concepts pulled from 4e. It's not like WOTC is pretending all of 4e was bad, fampai.
>>47411312
>the thing which you seem to think it was made to supplement
Uh oh! You committed a strawman fallacy! This is when, to bolster a losing argument, you instead attack an imaginary line of argument nobody had proposed in the first place. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of adult conversation soon!
>You see, BEFORE something can be supplemented, it has to exist.
Correct. You can supplement an RPG with stuff that predates it. People do it with OSR all the time, something that tasteless newfriends to the hobby such as yourself seem to have a hard time understanding.
>Chainmail is not and never has been an exclusive supplement to OD&D.
WHOOPS! Uh oh! You committed a strawman fallacy again! As a reminder, this is when, to bolster a losing argument, you instead attack an imaginary line of argument nobody had proposed in the first place. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of adult conversation soon! Just keep at it, little bro!
>therefore, it CANNOT supplement OD&D because OD&D didn't EXIST.
Unfortunately you're incorrect, and are basing this solely off your own feelings. A supplement is only something that can be added to... supplement a thing. I can use an earlier product (such as Savage Species to supplement a 3.5 game, or Monster Manual 2 to supplement Dungeon Crawl Classics) to supplement a later product.
>ERGO, the claim that Chainmail was never played without OD&D is bullshit.
OOPS, you committed a strawman fallacy again! WHOOPS! Uh oh! As a further reminder, this is when, to bolster a losing argument, you instead attack an imaginary line of argument nobody had proposed in the first place. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of adult conversation soon! Just keep at it, little bro!
>>47411304
What were you expecting to do in combat when you rolled a warrior if not hit things with your axe?
>>47411322
Casters have always been weak at low levels and gods at high levels.
I agree that could use some balancing though. Some spells are a bit OP.
>>47411338
What I especially like about 5e is how it's hit die healing mechanic is exactly what people thought (and complained) 4e's healing surges were.
>>47411322
3.x martial types, assuming this is what we're talking about, have a lot of problems. Damage isn't one of them.
>>47411312
You are operating under the mistaken idea that a "supplement" can't exist before the thing that is being supplemented.
I'll try once more: For OD&D, Chainmail is a supplemental system. You can add Chainmail to OD&D to provide different mechanics, juist like for 4e Essentials, core 4e was a supplemental system.
>>47411326
>hurrhurr samefag oops >>47411415 exists
>>47411271
Now we're getting somewhere. Followup claim: A certain level of obfuscation is instrumental in maintaining immersion/kayfabe/the illusion of elves and wizards running through dangerous ruins, instead of just seeing numbers.
4e fails because that useful kind of obfuscation isn't present enough.
3e/3.5/PF fails because the obfuscation is too dense, and bamboozled the designers into writing a game that's a broken shitpile from level 7 on.
5e just boils down to the core mechanic of "hope you roll well, 'cause there's not enough variance in bonuses to be really good at anything".
>>47411431
Damage is one of them because it's the least efficient form of removing enemies.
>>47411419
>Casters have always been weak at low levels and gods at high levels.
That's really not the case. It is in OD&D (where magic users become unambiguously broken with time, due to horrendous damage outputs and low HP scaling) but Sleep and Color Spray are very powerful for when you get them.
>>47411372
It's a strange relationship. On one hand they do everything to avoid calling things by names that would be directly recognized as 4e by people only casually familiar with it, yet they integrate mechanics that would be recognized by those who actually did play the game.
They're trying to appeal to everyone without offending anyone.
>>47411415
Chainmail isn't an OD&D supplement.It's part of the core rules.
>>47411440
Essentails was a suppliment for DND 4e. Not the other way around. Its one way.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supplement
>something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.
READ NIGGA, READ.
>>47407768
In trying to make the classes balanced they made them all so similar that you can make a grid of role (Defender, Striker, Leader, etc.) and source (martial, arcane, divine, etc.) and just plug in what you want to do without anything really different.
They seemingly simplified the stats but then made everything complex by adding half level to an almost (ALMOST) needless degree, so all the numbers inflate.
The inflating of the numbers means that at slightly higher levels (paragon tier and above) every single fight takes forever, so that while my first session of a campaign had 3 combats that took up maybe half the time, after level 11 one combat took up about 80% of the session.
Half way through they introduced completely new rules that reworked the way the classes worked so that you had to switch to the new style or become obsolete.
The Points Of Light setting is boring.
There's no real customization with monsters built in, only different levels of monsters in the MM to choose from.
>>47411419
It's a problem in nearly every edition of D&D, wizard represents such a broad a set of concepts that they end up being omni-competent as a result of trying to fit everything a magic using character can do in one class
>>47411476
>Sleep and Color Spray are very powerful for when you get them.
Yeah except you can only cast them once per day.
>>47411322
In a game with a shit ton of magic items, potions, mounts, and shit nigga the only thing you thought to buy for your axeman is a +2 axe. Good job.
>>47411441
Except that obfuscating mechanics is exactly how you get GMs who can't run games.
For DMs, 4e was godly, and it was so easy to on the spot create shit, it was almost unfair.
>>47411483
You are so sure of yourself that multiple people telling you that you are wrong isn't working. No hope, I wager.
>>47411444
>Damage is one of them
No, its not. The argument was "casters can do damage better, and other things besides." But martials have zero problem with damage, and direct damage spells are utterly stanky besides, as they're generally fucking weaker than they were in OD&D, while oodles of hundreds of damage is perfectly normal, even for PCs viewed as weak.
The rest of your statement, that its one of the least efficient ways of removing enemies (I would say fort based save or be debuffed are the worst, like poison and contagion, except when used to target intelligence on low int monsters).
>>47411489
>Paladins and Fighters play similarly
>Rogues and Barbarians play similarly
>Wizards and Invokers play similarly
You make me sad. If there's any gameplay similarity it's in the Feats, not in the actual Powers.
>>47411288
What are you talking about? 4e had the best DMG ever written. Bar none. It's so light on rules I recommend it to new players playing OTHER editions of D&D.
>>47411511
And? The fact that a level 1 guy can eliminate 2.5x of his own level or more of foes with no save, when a level 1 fighter cannot reliably take out 2 level 1 fighters and a goblin (or whatever), still means they're powerful at any level.
>>47407768
They tried to make a tabletop skirmish game instead of an RPG. As a skirmish game, it actually had some fun elements.
It is the one edition of D&D that really would do well in a computer game due to its reliance on grid-based combat and positioning.
>>47411540
I found it so vague as to be useless, as did everyone I know who read it. Maybe I'll give it a looksie again, but I remember being very unimpressed w/ it.
>>47408416
>The fact that you cannot play 4e without a battlegrid and miniatures should be enough.
My group started on 4e and half of them can't into combat without one now. Even when they're in a fightan tournament and the battle area is literally a featureless square, and it's only one of them and one other guy, we need to get out the whiteboard and draw it out. I don't know if it's because we started on 4e or because they're a bunch of unimaginative morons, but it's very frustrating.
>>47411444
>>47408505
That's hilarious.
>>47411079
I agree with some parts, some feats are handled pretty poorly, particularly combat maneuvers.
But for the most part this whiny cunt sounds like the typical martial who sunk all his gold into enchanting his weapon and complains when he can't do jack shit in any situation that doesn't play into the one strength he invested in.
This mindset that "all martial can do is damage" is so fucking cancerous. On top of that the designers simply can't appeal to every single group out there, take a look at PFS for fucks sake. It's your GM's fault if you find yourself in an encounter where your useless, but it's your fault if you've sunk all your wealth and experience into being a one-trick pony.
>>47411601
Color Spray is vastly more effective at providing damage than any full attack, because coup de grace adds absurd bonuses.
>>47411489
>The Points Of Light setting is boring.
Fuck you dude. Arkhosia/Bael Turath ancient war was the shit
>>47411579
If you already played rpgs, no, it wasn't going to tell you anything you didn't allready know.
The point is that it was an excellent book for new GMs, stressing personal accountability, flexibility, creativity, and player management techniques that didn't show up until DMG2 in 3.5.
>>47411601
I'll try to help you with this.
Damage is the easiest to mitigate form of dealing with enemies, and the one MOST LIKELY to have the DM drop the hammer on you.
Your ubercharger is more likely to be considered disruptive to the game than a nightstick combat cleric or a basic druid because BIG NUMBERS stand out.
>>47411518
Its in the goddamn dictionary man. You are the only one trying to say otherwise.
READ NIGGA. READ THE GODDAMN BOOK.
>>47411628
However, 3.pf would actively shit on a martial character if they WEREN'T a one trick pony, and that is the problem being brought up. It ties into your damage complaint, because the moment you try to do something besides damage, the game penalizes you for it.
>>47411634
Coup De Grace is a full round action that provokes an AoO and only last on average for maybe 4 rounds an only against opponents with less than 2 HD.
A blasting spell probably would've handled that faster.
>>47411677
>supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.
>Chainmail supplemented OD&D's combat system
Thank you for proving my point.
Thanks for playing, good night, everybody!
>>47411489
>Half way through they introduced completely new rules that reworked the way the classes worked so that you had to switch to the new style or become obsolete.
But the new material was inferior
>There's no real customization with monsters built in, only different levels of monsters in the MM to choose from.
What? In 4e it was dumb easy to just make your own monsters as you saw fit.
>>47411710
Good of you to admit you are an idiot.
>>47411704
CDG also allowed the rest of the party to join in, unless you think the wizard was doing it alone.
>>47411589
I have that problem with a group that mostly started on 5e, though they were introduced by a 3.5 DM. They panicked one day when the DM forgot the battlgrid and had to improv a piece of cardboard into a grid.
In 5e.
Some people are just brain damaged.
>>47411704
>Coup De Grace is a full round action that provokes an AoO and only last on average for maybe 4 rounds an only against opponents with less than 2 HD.
Color Spray lasts for up to 8 rounds on 2 HD targets. And how many encounters are you dealing w/ at level 1-2 where you're fighting monsters with more than 2 Hit Dice?
Unconscious people can't make AoOs, or any action whatsoever for that matter. And every player can walk up to an unconscious person, CDG them, and be done w/ it. Then on their turn again, walk up to an unconscious person, CDG, and be done w/ it.
Sure, the DM can come up with some bullshit to stop it, but if he's throwing more monsters at them, then the party in question got some number of monster kills for free. RAW, Color Spray is fucking ridiculous at getting mooks killed.
>>47410583
My 5e thief is tons of fun!
>>47408416
If you can play 3e without a battlegrid and miniatures, you can do the same in 4e.
>http://drchris.me/d20/?p=1812
Also, D&D assumed the use of miniatures since the beginning.
>>47411539
>Paladins and Fighters play similarly
Yes, they do.
>>47411589
>>47411760
This so much.
I stated in AD&D, as did one of my players
We're used to handling stuff without a map, and even with a map without squares.
But the other two players in my group who started with 3.5e can't keep track of shit or imagine a scene without having a grid and miniatures.
>>47411704
>Coup De Grace is a full round action that provokes an AoO and only last on average for maybe 4 rounds
>only last on average for maybe 4 rounds
>Coup De Grace
Getting your throat cut usually lasts longer than that.
>>47411196
D&D is not fantasy. D&D is D&D. Three decades of fucking your own grandfather design-wise does that to a game. By the time 4e was published the majority of D&D fans were there because they wanted to play D&D, not because they wanted to play a fantasy roleplaying game. Then comes out the 4e, crisp and new and scary and not 'proper' D&D at all. Feeling betrayed, the D&D fans flock to Paizo who is selling them safe and familiar rehashed 3e. Wizards, feeling that thousands of monthly tugboats are slipping from their clammy grasp, wring the 4e's neck and quickly shit out 5e to win their fandom back. The rest of us were kind of miffed that they were rolling back the only functional D&D product that ever came out of WotC in order to appeal to greasy mouthbreathers.
>>47411760
>>47411988
Meanwhile I managed to reliably DM for people in a chatroom with nothing in the way of a grid, just imagination and description and a vague sense of distance. It worked fine, primarily due to them being more roleplayers than rollplayers.
>>47411479
This guy got it right.
D&D started as a Chainmail supplement, but quickly became a game by itself, using Chanmail as groundwork.
>>47412042
Iget paid toDM for kids, and depending on the group, maps are either a help or a hindrance. I haven't run a campaign for someone older than thirteen in like two years but I can't imagine it's changed at all. Some people need visual aids to describe space, others just kinda "get it."
>>47411771
yeah but you roll a 2d4 to determine that, so on average you're looking at about 4 rounds. you could get 8 you could get 2, etc. The more you use it on the more chance they have of saving and negating the effect entirely.
You don't need more than 2 hit dice to be immune to mind-affecting spells or to have a decent Will Save either.
In my play experience typically, you would have to up against something mindless or stupid to line up in that 15ft cone for you anyway. Something like Undead or an Oooze that's immune anyway.
The only way I could see that happening to creatures like say Goblins or Kobolds are in situations the GM was clearly not trying to challenge or failing severely at doing so.
>>47411540
Really? I thought the 5ed DMG was far better at everything regarding the game.
>>47412164
Okay so for at minimum 2 rounds, you and your party get to either instantly kill or seriously injure a monster. That's six to ten free kills in perfect conditions, but more likely three or four. For any skill that's a great encounter stopper, let alone one you get at level 1.
>>47411540
Why would you recommend a Dungeon Master Guide to players?
>>47411954
One is a highly aggressive class with high damage potential that can utilize a variety of different powers based on what weapons they use. They must attack to mark their enemies, so they usually try to move quickly to engage. Which is good because they have solid attack powers that also have some control or self-boosting capabilities.
The other is a very defensive class that focuses on being unkillable and forcing opponents to engage them. While lacking somewhat in raw damage potential they excel at putting opponents in loose-loose situations where opponents are forced to choose between attacking the paladin (and thus wasting the attack, usually also provoking some debuff or counterattack) or attacking the paladin's allies and triggering his mark and defender effects. The paladin can mark at a distance, forcing enemies to come to him.
Yeah, so similar. You can hardly tell them apart.
>>47412233
Don't bother senpai, he's drunk the Kool-Aid.
>>47412226
Why should such information be kept from players?
A good DMG should ideally make for better players on the whole.
>>47411989
Seems you've misunderstood me.
CDG is a fullround action that provokes an AoO.
Color Spray on average will last about 4 rounds, more or less.
If you are able to one shot the mooks you would be better off using those two or three attacks killing them instead of spending an entire round to kill one mook.
Even at levels below 6, an archer with rapid shot could do more by just shooting them. A melee fighter with Cleave, a Monk with Flurry of Blows, the TWF rogue, etc.
For example you have a level 1 party with a CR 2 challenge worth of Kobolds. (6 of them). They got like 5 HP each and are all within the 15ft cone range. If the other three party members have at least 2 attacks they could one-shot them and save the wizard that precious spell slot. Color Spray makes it safer I guess but prolongs the process, which hardly makes it more efficient than raw damage when dealing with mooks. You would need to tailor the scenario to it by having them all in that cone, or perhaps their in a stealth mission and can't risk the noise, etc.
>>47412315
I'm trying to understand your post, but failing.
The wizard can wipe out all the kobolds with one action.
The other party members have about a 50/50 chance to hit, and lets say a 3/4ths chance to kill, a kobold with a given action. Additionally, the chance that the whole party will go before all the kobolds is slim.
>>47407768
The actual rules? They were mostly fine.
The monster math was pretty bad at launch, though it did eventually get a fix.That's not really an excuse, since 3.5 also got "fixed" with psionics and ToB
Beyond that, I didn't really like the fluff or art direction changes.
The reason it failed, though, it that it failed to be "3.5.5".
>>47412214
Okay in a situation where all those monsters fail their saves, are lined up in that cone for you, and aren't immune to mind-affecting spells.
And everyone wants to spend an entire round one shotting the mooks, not to mention you can't move and CDG in the same turn.
>>47410665
It's a convenient feelings protecting excuse for 4e zealots. Notice how much it's been posted in this very thread as the be all problem? No one can fault a black swan event like that so really there was no problems with 4e but extremely bad luck.
Except as you note yourself a fundamentally healthy product would not be stopped by such an event. They'd just hire new developers and eat the cost.
>>47412375
You are trying real hard to prove something wrong that has been shown works, anon. This may be your cross to bear, but you ought to find one made of cedar instead of pine.
>>47412375
>And everyone wants to spend an entire round one shotting the mooks
As opposed to...?
>>47412375
>Okay in a situation where all those monsters fail their saves,
Monsters don't get good Will saves until level five
>are lined up in that cone for you,
It's a fifteen foot cone. That's the size of most medium-sized rooms.
>and aren't immune to mind-affecting spells.
How many CR1/3 monsters do you know that are outright immune to those? Oozes and Zombies?
>>47412396
>Bait: the Post
Thread is basically dead, anon. Save it for the next one.
>>47412350
You're being biased, really.
You've already presented a scenario heavily favoring the spell. You assume they a wizard can wipe them out with one action but you're not taking into account basic stuff like positioning, the possibility of them saving, or even you being interrupted by a readied shot or something.
But you factored in the possibility the others missing, not dealing more than 5 damage, etc.
And again if you don't go before the Kobolds they're gonna fan out of your 15 ft cone. And probably ready an action or two to interrupt your spell with a readied ranged attack or even counter-spell.
Also once again, CDG is a full round action so you're taking 2 turns to move to the creature, then CDG it. As opposed to just attacking them and moving to the next or full-attacking with TWF, Rapid Shot, Flurry, etc. and just killing them. Burning hands deal with them faster than Color Spray even.
>>47412439
I'm slowly reading through it so I didn't even check if it was over.
Also not everything that is emotionally challenging is "bait".
>>47412529
A charged opinion post designed to elicit replies, ie, bait.
The difference is that in edition war threads, people aren't used to trying to hide it, because they think they are surrounded by people who agree with them.
There is no one here except you, me, and the 2 guys arguing about Color Spray.
>>47412505
Check the Monster Manual, fampai. None of these mobs which aren't baseline immune to mind-affecting spells have good Will saves.
In 3.5e the DC is 10 + INT/CHA/WIS + Spell Level, which on average works out to 12 or 13.
>Kobolds have a +1 to Will Saves
>Goblins have a -1 to Will Saves
>Bandits have a +1 to Will Saves
>No animal has more than a +2
At best, these mobs have a 50% to save vs Color Spray and will probably have around a 30%.
>>47412226
They are probably a forever DM and are making a desperate gambit that one of the players will DM occasionally.
>>47412588
Well, I'm here too.
I actually still use 4e as a "supers in fantasy" kinda way. Works better than exalted. And I was part of the minority that enjoyed essentials. 5e is my go too for most fantasy stuff, though.
>>47412696
>supers in fantasy
But that's all that is to D&D since the beginning.
>mythology
Yeah, still Super Heroes
>but literature
Super. Fucking. Heroes
>Larger than life and-
Super Heroes. Everytime.
