Why wasn't it modeled on 4e?
>>46887588
Community backlash against 4e and the success of Pathfinder.
>>46887588
It is modeled on 4e. Just like 4e is modeled on 3.x, and 3.x was modeled on 2e, et cetera.
>>46887588
It is, in part.
It takes a lot of cues from 4e, but it also takes a lot from 3rd and 2e. It really is an amalgam that takes a lot of the structure of 3rd edition, the feel of the relatively lighter mechanics of 2e, a bunch of the more modern gaming ideas of 4e, and adds some new ideas of its own to produce a product that ends up better than all the parts put into it.
The only edition that might still claim to be better is 2e if you wish to evaluate a game by its lore, but 5e has considerably better mechanics and ultimately it's actually really easy to convert 2e material into 5e.
>>46887588
Because 4e failed so hard that the person in charge was fired three years in a row.
because 4e sucked? and it has plenty of inspo from 4e
>>46888024
But it was the most balanced edition after you fixed some of the monster math.
>>46887987
4e was a sales success by most measures. However, it wasn't an /overwhelming/ success, especially with the failure of the online team (the lead ended up committing murder-suicide). Things like the paperdoll and online table never materialised.
>>46888024
4e is - objectively - the best edition.
>>46888095
Tru. No matter your personal opinion, it was the one edition that had a solid design goal and followed through on it with consistency.
>>46888048
I think I'm going to usher in a new argument. A new argument that might revolutionize how we argue about games.
>"games that are too balanced are boring"
It's radical, I know, and it goes completely against the mantra of "Designers should strive to make the game balanced," but there's so many examples of great games (both tabletop and video ones) that defy that mantra so casually that I've started to suspect that there's something deeper behind the question of "How do I allocate the relative strength within the game?"
4e said "the strength should go to everyone equally."
And this resulted in a rather dull game.
Perhaps the answer should be "the strength should go to the most deserving"?
But then, how do we define the "most deserving"?
In 2e and 3e, it was "whoever knows the system the best and is willing to play the more tedious and complex classes." I don't think that's the right answer.
>>46887605
This. Thread should have ended here.
>>46888223
>In 2e and 3e, it was "whoever knows the system the best and is willing to play the more tedious and complex classes."
That is untrue for 2e. Basic Fighters ripped shit up without any special abilities or gimmicks.
But that was because the number bloat hadn't set in and doing damage was actually worth a shit and could end fights. There also wasn't much a mage could do against damage, so having a big meatwall in front of them preventing that damage was important to the party. Nobody could really replace the other classes except for certain elf multiclasses, which leveled up so slowly that it wasn't even really a problem then.
>>46888223
I have played about 4 different Fighters and 3 different Rangers and they never managed to feel samey, even with Twin Strike and 1 Dual Strike Fighter. Let alone what other defenders/strikers were being brought to the table with their own playstyles.
If your problem is giving every class roughly equal screen time in a session or an adventure, perhaps you should enlighten me on what you think about what a cooperative RPG should be.
>>46888223
>And this resulted in a rather dull game.
If you don't use monster capabilities to the absolute fullest and your level design reminds people of Lament of Innocent, yes.
>>46888300
What's wrong with Lament of Innocence?
>>46888275
There was a wide number of spells that basically made meatshields pointless, and at high levels if you weren't playing a mage, you simply were not playing.
The major saving grace is that it was a hard and slow process to level up a wizard. Even so, 2e still had caster-supremacy issues, and greatly rewarded the players who knew the system best.
My guess is that it largely comes from most of the head designers having a hard-on for wizards, with wizards as their primary characters/self inserts.
>>46887588
>Why wasn't it modeled on 4e?
Well they wanted it to succeed.
>>46887588
It's the holding pattern edition. It exists to keep D&D in print to licence out for more profitable ventures.
>>46888289
I played 4e for 2 years, and tried out upwards of ten different characters of various classes.
Whatever it was, it was boring. You had a different experience, but the various groups I played with ultimately came to reach a consensus that it just wasn't a particularly exciting system and not really worth investing all that time and effort into.
Not a bad game for short stints, but it just didn't feel like a game with any real endurance. But, to each their own.
>>46888392
Not really. There was exactly one spell that made a wizard hard to kill, and there was absolutely no guarantee that you would ever get it (Since the DM had complete control on what spells a Wizard got) and it could be sandblasted away by literally any and every attack.
Saving throws were based on the target, not the attacker and there were no concentration checks worth a damn (One of the optional skill systems lets you make a concentration check if you take 1 or 2 damage to save your spell, and that was it. 3 or more damage would always break your concentration no matter what).
It's a team game and the only class that has trouble contributing to the team at all levels is the Thief, since it was shoehorned in.
>>46888531
> There was exactly one spell that made a wizard hard to kill
There's an entire school of magic that made a wizard hard to kill. And a number of spells from other schools of magic, including Fly and Invisibility.
>>46888675
Fly doesn't help against range and Invisibility doesn't make you quiet and wears off immediately upon casting another spell, attacking in any way, or making noise of any sort.
Most of those defensive spells are better used on another member of the party than yourself as a wizard, because you will always be squishy and they generally aren't (Except the Thief, useless little shit that he is).
>>46887987
Didn't it outsell Pathfinder for a while?
>>46888222
The goal was "make D&D more like WoW" and it was consistently terrible.
>>46889225
Profit =/= revenue
4e was a massive team and in-house programming. Expensive as hell.
5e is a skeleton crew that farms out a significant portion of the work to model basically every business with narrow revenue margins. It not only sells well, but have been a surprising business success for Hasbro - even if it is a tiny sliver of their business.
>>46889225
Shut up.
>>46889398
>This fucking meme will never die
Please just fucking kill me and everyone on this fucking website.
>>46887588
They wanted it to be good.
>>46887588
>confirmed for not knowing 4e or 5e that well.
>>46888505
Maybe it's only because I did only play it in short bursts, but I remember 4e fondly. Much more fondly than 3.5.
>>46889446
Then stop being an edition warring faggot and ignore the edition war threads.
These things always try to be 4e vs 5e and end 4e versus 3.pf and people talking about how 5e isn't bad - or occasionally 2e vs 5e.
>>46889446
Until you go back in time and fix the tiefling and dwarf designs, that meme will never die.
>>46889422
>4e was a massive team and in-house programming. Expensive as hell.
Is that why only one person was working on the online tools?
>>46889563
>online tools at all
>>46887931
What did it really take from 4e?
>>46889626
The adventuring day, ribbons, three pillars.
4e is primarily presented better and has a better MM for the DM.
>>46889603
When playing 3.5 you don't have an SRD open or good old D&D tools for fast searching?
We do.
>>46889662
None of those are really things they took from 4e.
Heck, they even fucked up the thing they DID try to take from 4e. Short Rests not being 5 mins any more.
>>46889603
>Moving goalposts
>Dishonest arguing
>Shitposting for the sake of it
3 strike, you're out!
>>46889626
Shitty bastardisation of healing surges, people sperging about martials doing things, the three pillars approach to dnd (legitimately good stuff), uhhh... sometimes some monsters can do cool things in their lairs too I guess.
>>46889677
>Short Rests not being 5 mins any more.
yeah but you can make them 5 minutes long if you want
>>46889777
I could rebuild the whole game if I want, or I could just play something that works decently straight out the box.
>>46889777
That option proceeds to make Long Rests an Hour long.
>>46889677
Read the DMG
>>46889740
>Shitty bastardisation of healing surges
That one really pisses me off. They took away the ENTIRE POINT of healing Surges and turned them into what people thought they were initially.
Healing Surges were a limitation on how much healing you could have per-day, even if you had a conga-line of clerics and potions. It's what let them have encounter-scale healing.
The 5e ones are 'Everyone gets free healing'
>>46889716
>4e's staff was expensive, and it didn't make enough regardless of units sold.
>But... There was only one dedicated programmer!
>Having one dedicated programmer is still a business expense it couldn't support.
>But... Memes!
>>46889675
I don't even know where to begin with how stupid this is. 4e being too expensive for the units sold is independent of 3.5, and the 3.5 online tools are fan-made.
>>46889825
I have. Short rests being 5 mins is an optional rule, not the base.
Which kinda fucks them up when Short Rests are supposed to be something you could generally do between every single encounter.
The sort of places you can rest for 1 hour but not 8 are kinda limited compared to the places you can go 5 mins between brawls.
>>46889808
Read the DMG
>>46889894
I don't think you understand what a DMG is.
>>46889881
I'm challenging anon's argument that there's no use for online tools at all.
>>46889919
>I jumped into the middle of a conversation I sorta followed.
>>46889917
A Dungeonmasters Guide. With tips on 'How to GM' and some optional rules?
>>46889847
I can't help but feel they didn't understand WHY 4e had surges, and why it did the way it did, with tightly-controlled 1/4hp guarantee, different classes having different surges/day, 1/encounter second winds to make healer roles a choice not a necessity, and 5min rests that let you dispense them as you cleaned up after each encounter.
5e's hit dice -kinda- works for 5e in that retro 'we set up camp at noon and patch ourselves up' way, but it's not 4e's healing surges and I wish people would stop equating them as some holy grail of 'but it's got 4e in it!' design.
>>46889936
Shooting off a lot of green text doesn't actually make questions disappear, you know.
>>46889943
Do you only play AL games, or just random online games?
>>46889900
You can't just say that to deflect all criticism.
>>46889970
>There was a question asked
>>46889974
NL is so much better than AL. Wish the Astros didn't switch over.
>>46889974
AL games?
>>46889943
All rules are optional if you're the DM.
I really wish they had gone back to 2e's "Here's a bunch of options for this issue, go ahead and pick one or make your own" style, rather than "Here's the default and here's some options" style that it is now.
>>46889900
I've read all 3 of PHB, MM, and DMG. It's a giant inconsistent mess that still can't clarify what a spell target is.
>>46889992
Healing surges, reduced short rests, etc as literally all in the DMG.
>>46890026
I'm sorry you have comprehension issues.
>>46890020
>I liked 2e where it gave options for a rule/scenario
>I don't like 5e where it gives you the rule and then optional rules
Aren't those two functionally the same?
>>46890020
>All rules are optional if you're the DM.
By that logic there is no problems ever with any game as you can fix them all.
It's very possible to have complaints about the base game and have them not fixed by 'But you can change the rules'.
>>46890020
Check out BRP. Hopefully you at least like how they present the rule even if not the rules themselves.
>>46890094
>By that logic there is no problems ever with any game as you can fix them all.
Congrats. You've now graduated from being a time-wastiing grognard who complains online about what other people play.
>>46890063
No, the difference is that 2e didn't give you a default for most parts of the rules. Even certain class features (Wizard spells at level 1, for instance) had options, but no default.
>>46890032
The way characters spend and regain their abilities (like hit dice) sets the tone and the way the game plays as players interact with the game world through its rules. It's implied that the way they were written in core was deliberate, in that they thought about how the lengths of rests etc impacts upon how the game's narrative develops, how and when players rest, and how characters spend their resources.
Throwing out 'fuck it just make it 5mins/1hr/1wk/whatever, do what you feel like' to me just shows they really didn't think about it too hard, like such a shift wouldn't drastically affect not just the tone of the game but the way adventures run, or how classes are balanced against each other.
>>46890131
Not at all. I'm complaining about the base game.
Yes, a GM can fix any issues a game has. That doesn't mean that they were not issues in the first place.
>>46887588
Because everyone hated 4e until 5e came out and it's now the Contrarian Cool™ thing to like 4e.
>>46890154
Oh, whoops. I guess you're going to be a grognard for some time longer.
>>46890154
The base game hands you the options to make it how you want. You don't even have to think about it, other than "Do I want this option? Yes, I do."
>>46890168
No, people still generally dislike 4e. It's just that it's gotten to the point where its pitiable and it's actually sad to bully it now.
>>46890176
You can't just toss out the term 'Grognard' because someone has complaints about a system.
>>46888056
> murder suicide
Wut
>>46890180
Technically it doesn't offer 5 mins short, 8 hours long. It's high adventure option is 5 mins short, 1 hour long.
>>46890218
Yes.
And because they only had one programmer on it, it was all lost.
Very stupid.
>>46890212
Grognard is just French for "grumbler."
You grumble.
So did they actually manage to get anything from 4e without fucking up the base idea?
>>46888223
>In 2e..., it was "whoever knows the system the best and is willing to play the more tedious and complex classes."
That really depends on how many splats you're allowing. With just the PHB shit was pretty clean. Fighters carried the party early and by the time they needed to worry about becoming eclipsed they were guaranteed to be minor nobles with retinues and armies. It's only when you start throwing in every single option that you get serious issues. If you get a player asking if he can play a dwarf using the Champion warrior/priest multiclass kit from the Complete Book of Dwarves of the Metalwork priesthood from the Complete Priest's Handbook plus (yada yada...) then just walk away.
>>46888505
I'm with you there.
I enjoyed 4e as a beer-and-pretzels kind of game.
Maybe have a couple of runs every month or so on a weekend with friends: great
Tried playing in 3 different campaigns by 3 different people: it falls flat after the first few sessions
There was just something with the game that made it fun as a scenario driven tactics game but absolutely boring and numb as a campaign/story driven RPG.
I'm not sure what it is about it that causes that for me and about 17 other people in my group.
>>46889970
The implication was not that there is no need for online tools. He was implying that said tools never really came about despite spending money on someone to do it.
Please reread the conversation.
>>46890408
>I'm not sure what it is about it that causes that for me and about 17 other people in my group.
Maybe the fact that 'Jesus Christ you were trying to play a complex game with 17 other people'. It's hard to get that many to manage cards against humanity, let alone an RPG.
>>46890063
Having a default with options allows for a lazy DM to do the whole "just core no splat" approach and not adjust anything for the game.
By making it only a list of options with no "standard" mode the DM MUST make decisions on the game mechanics.
>>46890547
It wasn't playing with all of them at once numbnuts. My gaming group is around 25 people that cycle in and out of running and playing games.
About 17 of us did quite a bit of 4e (4-6 player groups, usually 3 groups/campaigns going) and all had pretty much the same opinion after 4 years.
>>46890193
I have way more pity for 3.5/Pathfinder spergs. Those people are truly lost.
>>46891098
>Playing the two best games of all time with the perfect balance of crunch and simplicity
>Lost
Do people actually believe this?
>>46891098
No we're not! Broken powergame wank fantasies 4 lyfe!
>>46887588
Because there is a God, and he wants us to be happy.
>>46889225
It outsold Pathfinder for it's entire lifetime, plus about a year after they stopped making new content.
Pathfinder basically didn't get ahead in the race until 4e stopped, and it still took a while to catch up.
>>46891501
Did we ever actually get real figures for both games?
>>46891394
>perfect balance of crunch and simplicity
7/10, you almost got me.
>>46887588
What do you mean but modeled on?
>>46891735
I was paraphrasing a video that was supposed to be reviewing BRP but the guy went on and on about how 3.5 was the perfect balance between too simple and too complex and that BRP was too complex (no idea how BRP can be thought of as being too complex).
He was also rather upset that there was no skill called "survival" because it's a really important thing to cover, but not important enough that it should be resolved by just one skill roll.
>>46891098
Weird.
I mean, considering that it's still the 2nd most popular RPG, they really don't need your pity.
>>46891786
>He was also rather upset that there was no skill called "survival" because it's a really important thing to cover, but not important enough that it should be resolved by just one skill roll.
As an eagle scoutthat makes me upset, but D&D is so friggin full of abstractions that I can almost see where he's coming from.
>>46891868
And Avatar, one of the highest grossing movies of all time, doesn't need our derision.
Who gives a shit that it's popular. It's still shit.
>>46892117
Avatar had top tier visuals, though. I don't think anyone thinks "unobtanium" was a good name.
>>46892117
This is what butthurt haters actually believe.
>>46891960
I was more just rolling my eyes about the fact that he thought that needing to think instead of roll was just too crunchy and complicated.
>>46892117
The thing is, Avatar is just one of the highest grossing movies of all time.
It isn't a game that people have played for the better part of two decades and has gone from being the unbeatable #1 for the entirety of its print run to settling to the #2 spot after that, with the majority of the gaming community recognizing it as an irreplaceable classic that will continue to be played and be a source for inspiration for years to come.
In the tabletop roleplaying world, it's the equivalent of 10 years of the highest grossing films followed by a few extra years of a couple oscar winners.
>>46887588
That cover is blatantly lying. The world's greatest Roleplaying game is Pathfinder, not DnD.
>>46892671
>The world's greatest Roleplaying game is 3.5 with the serial numbers filed off
Either way, you're still wrong.
>>46892671
>3.5 electric boogaloo with more broken splats and retarded errata
Please be joking.
>>46890134
Method 1's are always the default, unless you really don't get what default means.
>>46889777
Get animate dead onto a warlock with that rule, FUN happens then.
Because people have no taste.
>>46892732
No. Fucktards like that never joke. They just have brain-damage from that shitpile of a game.
>>46890651
That's more akin to "guild" than to "group", but that's fine. There's nothing rule saying you can't use the most generic term to describe people of your same nationality/race/continent/state/province/city/town/friends/allies/interest/school/color as "your group".
>>46892341
>>better part of 2 decades
>only 13 years old
So the better half of 20 is a little over half, nice math there.
>>46891786
He said BRP is *crinchier*?
Is he just allergic to functional games?
>>46893006
>So the better half of 20 is a little over half, nice math there
That is exactly what "the better half" means. The remaining seven years is less than half by notable margin. 13 is almost double 7, in fact.
>>46890147
I think you missed the point that the DMG is core. It's not absurd for a group to say they want to shorten short rests and a non-sperg DM to be like "cool".
From a "interaction with the world", the long rest recovery is more important and the short rest time is arbitrary for a period of rest to recover. Customizability is so ingrained into 5e that they give several optional rules including an optional chapter in the PHB.
The only people that care about "core" are those in organized play (adventure's league) and those that are accepting applications to their game and need an easy reference point for all the randos.
>>46893006
>So the better half of 20 is a little over half, nice math there.
Yes? That's how it works. If it's over half it's 'The better part'. 51 is the better part of 100.
>>46890408
>but absolutely boring and numb as a campaign/story driven RPG
the campaign/story, obviously
>>46892893
If you are going to be so pedantic about a the generic term for a multiple of things you should probably not suggest "guild" as that implies an organization that maintains and trains people in a specific set of skills associated with a trade or practice.
Or you could have just have inquired about the number of people playing instead of assuming the most retarded possible scenario from common language usage.
>>46893006
It came out in 2000.
It's currently 2016.
>>46893202
It's fair to say it's a phrase commonly used by bullshitters to make their bullshit sound more palatable.
>>46893266
>3e
>>46893266
D&D has never not been #1 while in print, so if you are just going to lump multiple editions together you might as well say D&D is a game that has dominated the better half of 100 years. Including clones and you can say the better half of 150 years or "for all time" since they always dominated for the whole existence of the hobby.
>>46893357
>D&D has never not been #1 while in print
What? The 3rd edition of D&D achieved almost overnight success, dominating not only the sales charts but also having the largest amount of players as soon as it came out thanks to all the 2e converts and the aggressive marketing that brought in an enormous amount of young blood. It won every award it could win the year it came out, and even the 3.5 reprint wound up at the top of the charts.
>>46893212
No, the plot and story itself was engaging. The feel of combat encounters was, I don't really know how to explain it well, disruptive to the flow of the campaign.
Not like "oh noes something dangerous and challenging happens!" but more like suddenly going into a minigame in some JRPG interactive story. The mechanics between combat/not combat felt almost jarring in a way and character progression felt odd too. Like skills retroactively increasing like stealth despite never doing anything between levels remotely associated with it or increasing a relevant ability.
It's hard to place exactly what it was that hampered actual campaigns as all of our GMs run great games.
I'm not knocking 4e altogether. I had fun with it as a narrative driven tactics game like playing a 40k/BFG campaign arc. It's great for an afternoon or two but the substance of the game just never meshed well with my friends for anything more.
Sorry if my English is difficult to understand.
>>46893450
>The mechanics between combat/not combat felt almost jarring in a way
D&D has never not had very different rules for combat/non-combat.
I mean, that's kinda what rolling init is all about.
>>46893437
That's what he's saying, anon:
>never not been
On a related note, though, I've heard the brand was rather diminished by the mid-90s. Did, say, World of Darkness manage to surpass it at any point? Or am I just completely wrong.
>>46893357
>Including clones and you can say the better half of 150 years or "for all time" since they always dominated for the whole existence of the hobby.
Yes.
Does that upset you?
It sounds like you're upset about D&D being the world's most popular roleplaying game for the entire history of the modern hobby.
Hell, it basically started the modern hobby. All games owe D&D a debt.
>>46893530
Nothing ever beat out D&D (except for a brief moment relatively recently when Pathfinder did, but that's still basically a D&D), it's just that the entire hobby diminished during that time. Basically, you can say that 3e revitalized the entire industry.
>>46893563
That's one way of putting it.
>>46888266
Yeah, but then I can't watch edition wars.
>>46887588
>Why wasn't it modeled on 4e?
>>46889626
>>What did it really take from 4e?
Adding Dragonborn, Tieflings in the PHb was from 4E. Tieflings resemble their 4e incarnations.
All races get bonuses to stats. No negative modifiers.
The bump in HD for Rogues, Wizards, and Sorcerers is partially an attempt to buff lower levels, as was done in 4E.
4E also had subclasses. They'd give you a fixed handful of class features. Usually, the same book would introduce powers that synergized with that subclass's unique features and playstyle.
Pretty much making alignment superfluous, especially the removal of alignment restrictions on classes.
The Fighter's Second Wind and maneuvers are from 4E.
Warlock is in the PHB, and is based on the 4E Warlock, with its Fey, Fiendish, and Star pacts.
Rogue's sneak attack works on everything, even undead, constructs, oozes, etc.
Spending HD during a short rest is an obvious attempt at adding viable non-magical healing like healing surges.
Option to KO an opponent at 0 HP rather than taking a penalty to try and deal subdual damage was introduced in 4E.
Abilities that recharge on short rests are a reworking of 4e's "encounter" abilities, that returned after a 5+ minute rest.
At-will cantrips, especially combat cantrips.
Ritual magic that can be cast simply by taking a feat, even if they don't have levels in a spellcasting class just like 4E rituals.
Leadership mechanics and Marking feats are taken from the 4e Warlord and Fighter.
Criticals dealing max damage instead of multiplying damage was introduced in 4e.
Finesse weapons and adding dexterity to attacks with those weapons and attacks. No feat required.
Vastly shortened skill list where you're either proficient and add a bonus based on level, or you aren't. No more skill points.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
>>46890265
... just calling people Gumblers doesn't actually address anything
>>46888056
> murder-suicide
Is this real?
>>46894942
>The bump in HD for Rogues, Wizards, and Sorcerers is partially an attempt to buff lower levels, as was done in 4E.
Except it completely ignored the way 4e did it by actually giving you good HP from level 1 rather than going 'You are one good stab away from being out at level 1'
>Warlock is in the PHB, and is based on the 4E Warlock, with its Fey, Fiendish, and Star pacts.
Honestly closer to the 3.5 warlock due to it's focus on At-Will blasting and quickly returning spells rather than the 'Heavy Control' feel of the 4e Warlock.
>Spending HD during a short rest is an obvious attempt at adding viable non-magical healing like healing surges.
As has been said, that's not remotely how Healing Surges worked. Healing surges were ALL healing. Magical and non-magical.
>Finesse weapons and adding dexterity to attacks with those weapons and attacks. No feat required.
4e didn't do that. All Melee Basic Attacks use Str in 4e. Your main attack stat was per-class.
Like in 4e Bards attacked with Charisma, even with a sword.
>>46895002
It is! It's why the 4e Online Tools were never as good as they could have been because the guy working on it was involved in a murder suicide.
It's honestly kinda hilarious just how much crap got thrown at 4e on it's way to development.
>>46890289
No, they most certainly did not.
>>46895266
>Except it completely ignored the way 4e did it by actually giving you good HP from level 1 rather than going 'You are one good stab away from being out at level 1'
Still a departure from the most sacred "Wizards get d4 HP" tradition.
>>Honestly closer to the 3.5 warlock due to it's focus on At-Will blasting and quickly returning spells rather than the 'Heavy Control' feel of the 4e Warlock.
4E Warlock (along with all classes) had at-will blasting, and the Warlock's few spell slots that refresh after a short rest and higher level daily slots are closer to 4e's at-will/encounter/daily lay out than 3E's pure reliance on eldritch blast and at-will invocations.
And the fluff is pulled pretty much from 4E.
>>As has been said, that's not remotely how Healing Surges worked. Healing surges were ALL healing. Magical and non-magical.
It is remotely how they worked.
You could expend unspent healing surges during a short rest to regain HP in 4e, just like you can in 5e. This allowed you to regain HP between fights, even without a healer or healing potions.
The main difference is that HD can't be "triggered" in combat by healing the same way surges could.
Of course they aren't the same: HD are ajust a more limited version of surges.
>>4e didn't do that. All Melee Basic Attacks use Str in 4e. Your main attack stat was per-class.
I misremembered that one Still, 4E pretty much made weapon finesse as a feat worthless.
And you didn't add your dex mod to damage with ranged weapons before 4e either.
>>46895266
>Except it completely ignored the way 4e did it by actually giving you good HP from level 1 rather than going 'You are one good stab away from being out at level 1'
Still a departure from the most sacred "Wizards get d4 HP" tradition.
>>Honestly closer to the 3.5 warlock due to it's focus on At-Will blasting and quickly returning spells rather than the 'Heavy Control' feel of the 4e Warlock.
4E Warlock (along with all classes) had at-will blasting, and the Warlock's few spell slots that refresh after a short rest and higher level daily slots are closer to 4e's at-will/encounter/daily lay out than 3E's pure reliance on eldritch blast and at-will invocations.
And the fluff is pulled pretty much from 4E.
>>As has been said, that's not remotely how Healing Surges worked. Healing surges were ALL healing. Magical and non-magical.
It is remotely how they worked.
You could expend unspent healing surges during a short rest to regain HP in 4e, just like you can in 5e. This allowed you to regain HP between fights, even without a healer or healing potions.
The main difference is that HD can't be "triggered" in combat by healing the same way surges could.
Of course they aren't the same: HD are ajust a more limited version of surges.
>>All Melee Basic Attacks use Str in 4e. Your main attack stat was per-class.
I misremembered that one. Still, 4E pretty much made weapon finesse as a feat worthless.
And you didn't add your dex mod to damage with ranged weapons before 4e either.
>>46894942
>Leadership mechanics and Marking feats are taken from the 4e Warlord and Fighter.
Uh, no, they're completely dissimilar.
>>46895617
>>46895652
>HD are ajust a more limited version of surges.
Other way about. Surges are much more limited than HD.
Surges are the totality of how much you can heal per day. It doesn't matter how many clerics or doctors you find, there is a limit. Surges are 'I get some free healing between fights' rather than a real limiting factor in the endurance of the team both in and out of fight.
>>46895755
>Uh, no, they're completely dissimilar.
The leadership feat lets you give a pep talk to give party members temp HP equal to your level + cha mod. That kind of inspirational HP modification mechanic didn't exist in D&D until the Warlord showed up in 4e and is clearly modeled after it.
And the Sentinel ability that allows you to spend a reaction (or immediate interrupt) to make an attack against a creature that attacks someone other than you and reduces their speed to 0 if they try to move away. Again- modeled after the Fighter's marking ability, which allowed you to attack targets that didn't attack you and stopped movement if they tried to move away from you.
It removes the -2 penalty to attack rolls, but adds the ability to ignore the disengage action.
Again, clearly modeled after 4e.
>>46895969
>That kind of inspirational HP modification mechanic didn't exist in D&D until the Warlord showed up in 4e and is clearly modeled after it.
Actually, the 3e Warlord or War...something. Miniature's Handbook. Same shit book with the Healer.
It had that well before 4e.
>>46895999
>Actually, the 3e Warlord or War...something. Miniature's Handbook. Same shit book with the Healer.
Marshal from Minature's Handbook never gave temporary HP. Gave lots of bonuses to saves and actions, granted actions, etc. But never messed with HP.
The real test run for the 4e Warlord was the Noble class from Star Wars Saga. Incidentally, this is also where healing surges, the pared down skill list with binary proficiency bonuses, fort/ref/will defenses, and other mechanics were tested before actually making their way into D&D in 4th edition.
>>46894942
>Criticals dealing max damage instead of multiplying damage was introduced in 4e.
that's not how crits work in 5e
>>46887588
Why would it be?
No new edition of D&D has ever been based entirely on it's prior edition beyond sharing dice and class names, especially since 3e created radical departures and changes from how 2e/AD&D worked.
>>46895969
>And the Sentinel ability that allows you to spend a reaction (or immediate interrupt) to make an attack against a creature that attacks someone other than you and reduces their speed to 0 if they try to move away. Again- modeled after the Fighter's marking ability, which allowed you to attack targets that didn't attack you and stopped movement if they tried to move away from you.
That's the knight's Defender Aura, NOT the fighter's Combat Challenge.
>>46896120
>> this is also where healing surges
Or rather, second winds.
>>46896148
Yep, you're right. Strike that one. That's still a good dozen or so other examples, though. And while I'm looking back through my 4e and 5e PHBs...
Radiant/Necrotic damage replaced Positive/Negative energy in 4e. Thunder replaced Sonic and Lightning replaced Electricity as well. All carried over to 5e.
The short rest itself was introduced in 4e and carried over to 5e.
No more firing into melee penalty.
4e also got rid of the Paladin's mount as an assumed class feature. 5e continues the trend.
Some 4e spells also made it into 5e: Vicious Mockery, Healing Word, and Thunderwave.
>>46896362
http://cadwe.free.fr/cadr/DD4/Player's%20Handbook.pdf
Pg. 77 under Combat Challenge
"In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is
adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt."
And right below it, under Combat Superiority (that term sounds familiar), we have...
"An enemy struck by your opportunity
attack stops moving, if a move provoked the
attack."
>>46893266
That's 3e not 3.5e i.e. the shit we were talking about
I'm playing ACKS and it is everything I've ever loved about OD&D. You should try it.
>>46896456
Combat Challenge's main benefit is punishing shifting in addition to attacks not against you. It also requires a mark.
5e's Sentinel feat is more like the 4e knight's Defender Aura, not Combat Challenge.
>>46892155
"unobtanium" was the single best thing in that movie
It was the one time when the movie actually seemed to be self-aware, instead of being played painfully straight
>>46887605
>and the success of Pathfinder.
This still puzzles me, srly, how can people love an even worse 3.5?
>>46895652
What? The one thing I dislike more than anything about 5e, and the one thing I wish more than anything it had kept from 4e, was how limiting surges were.
Surges are way more limited than HD, you need them for nearly anything that actually recovers hit points, once you're out for the day, you better hope you don't fall below 0 hit points because you are not getting up again if you do
>>46896880
It's honestly not worse, it's just as bad or maybe a little bit better
It just seems worse because it left so much shit unfixed tha they really should have fixed and had to have known about thanks to the entire lifespan of 3.5
>>46896880
It appears to fix some of 3.5's problems to people who don't understand what is wrong with 3.5 (Paizo included) and made its move when WotC decided to drop support for 3.5 and ridicule its players.
>>46896880
Because an incredible amount of people, like for real so many it might scare you, totally belives magic should be better than anything else, that's why is so popular.
An example, I was GMing a little ago Anima BF, and one of my players wanted to invite a guy he met in college, well, the guy only played 3.PF and didn't know shit about Anima, it took like 2 sessions till the guy started to complain about his Wizard not being blatantly better than anyone else, specially the Tao (unarmed martial artist) and the Weaponmaster (pure awesome martial) and that he couldn't bully them into obey him becasue they could totally break his face whenever they wanted. He also was mad that his character couldn't warp reality on daily basis (because in Anima your magical resource doesn't recover on daily basis), etc. When confronted with him he just told me that magic should be better because magic, and that this system was shit because magic wasn't better, so we "let" him go.
This is not the first time I encounter a player or a GM who thinks like that.
>>46897020
I've never met anyone like that
I know a lot of people who only play 3.PF, but most of them only stick to them due to system familiarity and an exaggerated idea of how difficult it is to learn a different system, with a couple just really liking 3.PF mechanics, like multiclassing.
Hell most of them choose to avoid casters altogether because being that OP is boring, and those that do play casters tend to stick to spontaneous casters, because despite being less powerful, they're "more fun"
Which I can not agree or disagree with, because the only caster class I've ever played in 3.PF was a paladin
>>46896991
Admittedly, it does actually fix some 3.5 problems
Just not the important ones
>>46897349
Which ones? sincerelly asking.
>>46897434
Paladins suck less, fighters suck less, barbarians can do things beyond MBA all day every day, monks suck slightly less, unless you're using unchained monks, in which case they suck a lot less. None of this puts them remotely near the power level of casters, who have also been buffed, obviously, but it makes them more fun to play.
The skill system, while still stupid as all hell, is slightly better, with many skills removed or combined into single skills, although climb and swim are still unique skills for some reason and fly really, really shouldn't be a skill.
The thing about PF, is that if you're willing to accept 3.5s flaws, PF is the superior game, but if you aren't willing to accept them, it fixes nothing at all. Casters are still bullshit OP, casting itself is still terribly designed, you get skill points based off of intelligence and an incredibly arbitrary score from your class, druids still shit on everyone, yada yada yada, but hey, at least monks are worth something in a tier 4 game
Most of the people that praise 4e have not played it for a significant length of time. Once you reach higher levels good luck having an encounter not last 2 hours. People often say that 4e has the most balanced classes and for that most part that is true, there are still a few trap options though.
For it's relatively short lifespan the game has an enormous selection of feats and options, most of which you will not use in favor of a few staple feats that are good no matter what class you are playing.
>>46897486
>fighters suck less
Not as far as I know.
Although fighters get even more feats, the feats themselves were made worse, so there is no real improvement.
>>46893051
Probably. I kind of avoid his videos because I've watched a handful and disagree with all of them. But because I watched a handful Youtube keeps telling me that this guy has more videos. Stupid Youtube.
>>46893290
>>46896468
Were you unaware that 3e and 3.5 are essentially the same game?
>>46897698
They have good archetypes, like mutagen warrior or eldritch guardian, which give you minor aspects of caster classes to give you a big buff, or lore warden, which reduces your MAD.
The class raw is probably equal to the 3.5 fighter on account of their extra feats and class features just about equaling the loss of each feat being worse and part of a longer chain
>>46897664
I have had many late game fights go by in a flash. In one memorable occasion, we killed Tiamat in a single round of combat with less than five minutes of time spent
Then again, I am an optimiser and i play with optimisers, and optimization in 4e tends to make fights go by much quicker
>>46897928
It's not so much optimization that speeds up combat in 4e, but players knowing what they're doing, which optimizers generally do.
>>46897963
true, true, but that's true for all RPGs
>>46893531
Literally no anger, you just miss the point.
>>46897486
>monks suck slightly less
Actually, if you aren't using unchained, monks suck more. My 3.5 monks were able to do way more and perform better than any monk build I've ever seen in PF without counting unchained
>>46898043
That's not class' fault but feat's and multiclass' fault, now in PF most combat feats were divided, others disappeared (karmic strike etc) and there aren't many decent multiclass feats. The monk class by itself improved, but the rest go worse so that's why old 3.5 monks are better than 99% PF monks
>>46898043
Maybe, the only time I played an O-monk in pathfinder was in a game with 3.5 feats and features available, so my opinion might by shifted by that
>>46888222
I have a similar goal. I want to make a piece of shit, too. However, I'm going to the bathroom to do it while they sold theirs to you.
I need better marketing.
>>46898109
>tfw no superior unarmed strike
>tfw no improved natural strike
>tfw no snap kick
>tfw no karmic strike or robillar's game
>tfw no double hit
>tfw no decisive strike monk
>tfw no tashalatorra
>long etc
>>46898158
3.5 feats with unchained monk is really fun
you can get so many attacks on a full attack
>>46898512
Might be, but I've never found a GM who allowed 3.5 and PF mix
>>46897020
Sounds like this translates to a lot of peoples impression of Jedi. The fact FFG's jedi are on part with other characters brought a whole of of whining out of the closeted Jediboos ad forced them into the open...
>>46898583
>Playing SW Saga
>Be soldier focused on vibroaxes and shit
>Jedi in the group is boiling mad because my PC is better than him at combat
>"b-but I'm a Jedi!"
>GM "You're barely a padawan"
>"b-but the force!"
>GMs when
>>46898677
I have never actually heard of Star Wars Saga and I'm looking it up right now
>>46898724
>>46898677
Can't you just call it Star Wars d20?
>>46898773
No, because there's three different versions of SWd20: Original, Revised, and Saga.
>>46896880
People bought the lie that PF would be backwards-compatible with the 3.5 books they'd already bought.
>>46898131
>I need better marketing.
>IT'S A MOVIE ABOUT A MAN EATING A BOWL OF SHIT
You could probably do it if you marketed it as "postbiotic vegan nutrient matter". Feed it to the hipsters and then on the day before your patents end hop on a plane to barbados.
>>46898823
I don't even know if the same company published them and I know that's retarded.
>hey guys we made a completely different game but we promise it works with the old one too!
Wait a second. That sounds like the exact shit /v/ has been falling for over and over again for the past dozen or so years.
>>46898823
It is backwards compatible though.
I actually recommend running the two systems together, taking pathfinder races, classes and skills with 3.5 feats and classes. Rather than running "3.5" or "PF", run a collection of books from both
>>46897888
What shit backpeddling. Disgraceful, trying to squeeze into any "technicalities" because you can't admit you made a mistake.
>>46897664
>Once you reach higher levels good luck having an encounter not last 2 hours
>2 hour encounters
>High level 4e
...How?
I've been running it for four years and have trouble making encounters that my players don't blitz through at epic tier. My latest BBEG is a solo brute with controller-tier status-effecting attacks and spells that's three levels above max just to challenge them and comes with his own minion spawning aura. I still don't expect it to last three rounds.
>>46899671
What can make 4e combat long isn't the amount of rounds, but how long each round takes, thanks to the amount of decisions that can be made by everyone during combat.
Especially difficult with players who don't pay attention to the field of combat outside of their turn
>>46899908
>thanks to the amount of decisions that can be made by everyone during combat.
>Especially difficult with players who don't pay attention to the field of combat outside of their turn
That honestly sounds like a problem with players and not the system. If your players have trouble with options and don't pay attention...why are you playing 4e? Or any RPG, for that matter.
>>46899975
Different anon than the one who replied to you, but not every RPG stresses mechanical options the same way, and few do it as much as 4e does at higher levels. Power Cards are practically essential IMO.
Still, I mostly agree it's an issue with the players... to an extent. It's widely accepted that monster math in the first two books was broken.
>>46900242
Yeah I don't disagree that the monster math in the first two books is borked. Having to rework from the ground up Monster Manual 1 monsters that I'd like to use is one of the things I like least.
>>46900317
Just use the Monster Vault and the MM1 Update.
>>46888266
Too bad. I started an edition war anyway.
>>46899908
That's only true if your guys don't know the options or didn't bother to read the handbook.
>>46896902
You are literally fucking retard. Surges being that limited were one of the most braindead things fucking ever.
I'm glad it took two in the back of the head. HURRR healing just FAILS for NO GODDAMN REASON.
