So /tg/, is D&D Next/5e the Age of Sigmar edition of D&D?
>trimmed down mechanics in the name of easier fluff and create-your-own-content
>ditched existing fluff in the name of giving you a sandbox
>ditching 'gamey' crunch and selling that lack of crunch as better for narrative.
>promised swathes of new content at release (re-done races/modular systems) that hasn't shown up
>nuked all archives of existing content and support to force uptake of new products
>almost opposite approach to power, from high fantasy to low fantasy and low fantasy to space fantasy
>has polarised the community
Nah.
Age of Sigmar is bad.
DnD5e is just aggressively mediocre.
Compared to so many other games out there, it's not even BAD. It's just compared to what came before it, and the contemporaries it has, it's just... why bother?
I don't have the energy to hate DnD5e. It's like hating overcooked white rice. Why bother? If I want a fantasy RPG of some level of quality, then just in the 'DnD or very close to DnD' vein I have 4e, 13th Age and Shadow of the Demon Lord.
I'd even rather play a tier-restricted 3.PF than 5e. At least that way there's some fun and variety. I could have some great times with a party made out of a Warblade, a Totemist, a Warlock and a Dragon Shaman.
And it would probably be more balanced, too.
>>47057537
>ditching 'gamey' crunch and selling that lack of crunch as better for narrative.
WAAAAH!! WWWHHHHAAAAAAHHH!! I NEED MUH RULZ FOR EVWYTHING! WWWAAAAAHHHHH!! I CNAT DO ANYTHING IF I DUNT HAV RULES FOR IT!
You people are the same people who would declare that pulling a massive stone statue on top of someone in 4e would do tink damage.
>>47057537
I dunno, 5e artwork seems pretty good, AoS on the other hand has.... well this shit.
>>47057575
> wanting to play a game with made up bullshit classes like "totemist"
> boo hoo monk and cleric are too boring!
Edge Lord coming through
I just disbelieve in 5e. It doesn't feel real. It's like there was 3e, and there was the 3.5e overhaul, and there was splatbloating, and there was 4e and it was miniatures wargame and it was hated, and there was edition warring, and... that's it.
Maybe it's just me living in a weird media bubble, but 5e feels like this third-party rehash that just happens to be similar to D&D, it's too much of a flop to be the real thing. I've played 3e. I've played 4e. I haven't played 5e. Arcana Evolved feels more substantial than 5e.
>>47057597
>Other people having rules they want but I can ignore if I want is bad
>>47057613
>> wanting to play a game with made up bullshit classes like "totemist"
I am by no means supporting 3.PF, but you do realize that all classes are made up, right?
>>47057622
>5e feels like this third-party rehash that just happens to be similar to D&D
What do you think 3e was?
>>47057613
i'm too dumb not to respond to bait.
Totemist was a class from Magic of Incarnum. It was probably the best balanced class from it - Soulborn was underpowered, and Incarnate had 1/2BAB progression when it really needed 3/4.
Monk and cleric aren't too boring - it's that monk is a tier 5 class, and cleric is tier 1.
Meanwhile, warlock, totemist, warblade and dragon shaman are all tier 3 and 4, and are better balanced.
>>47057662
Is that picture totemist?
Because if it is...
>>47057622
>it's too much of a flop to be the real thing
WotC doesn't release their sales figures, but 4 reprint cycles in just under 2 years (the first and the fourth being the largest) suggests it is going very well for such an expensive game.
>>47057537
No, 5e is actually the best system in its franchise.
>>47057678
Yeah, that's the totemist picture. Yes, Wayne Reynolds is still bad at anatomy and boobs.
The powers are 'true to the book', though. They currently have the 'Antlion Head' and 'Girallon Arms' powers active. Most totemist powers are basically spiritually 'equipping' magical beast parts to their body.
I'm assuming the armor isn't a power and is instead just ugly ass armor.
Here's another picture of one, using Basilisk Mask and Displacer Beast Hide.
The leg spikes are natural, I think - they were a fey player race introduced in the book.
>>47057702
I don't deny that it's going well. It just seems to be going well on some whole other planet. I hear sales figures, but I never see it. Has all the 5e advertising moved to Myspace and Vine or something?
>>47057725
Is there anything significant in the system that wasn't in previous editions?
>>47057725
Tell me more about how CR works.
Teach me how to challenge a party against monsters that use different save types when only two of your saves scale by level, meaning that beyond a certain level failure is almost guaranteed for some party members.
And then there's the fact that power formatting has just plain gone backwards since 4e. Natural language is a plague on the hobby.
>>47057742
People act like Hit Dice are Healing Surges from 4e, but they're not. 4e Healing Surges were a way to LIMIT healing and pace the day, since you could only heal as many times as you had surges. Hit Dice don't limit the heals you can receive.
Technically they're not 100% new - they're Reserve Points from Mike Mearls earlier game Iron Heroes.
Bonds/Traits are new to DnD but are pretty much empty in terms of how they actually affect the system.
There's nothing in particular that DnD5e does that 13th Age doesn't do better.
>>47057537
>has polarised the community
Not really. It's been generally well received, and the only people who really complain about are the very bottom of the barrel, the worst of the lot.
It's actually the most popular roleplaying game at this point, and even people who prefer to play other editions or other games can respect that it is a solid bit of design and several times better than [version of D&D they hate].
Like, I get that you're just here to start shit, but the honest answer is that 5e has been a fair success, and while a few people are still going through the various "new system" complaints, those will disperse with time as more content arrives from both official sources and from homebrew, alongside general familiarity.
>>47057730
Online multi-media marketing paradigms have changed a lot in the last 5 years. The biggest form of advertisement of D&D 5E are actual plays, podcasts, and streams. Acquisitions, Inc. and other sponsored internet celebrity streams have made more money for WotC than a banner ad ever could.
>>47057822
While technically true that core 5e is better than core 3.PF, 3.PF has the advantage that it's been out long enough, with enough supplementary material can be beaten/tier-restricted in a shape that approaches being interesting.
It's better than a turd, but worse than a polished, bejeweled, flavoured turd.
5e remains a low-effort blob that doesn't do anything especially well. It has absolutely nothing in it to recommend it over another game.
>>47057765
Nobody asked about your hipster game, fuckboy.
>>47057730
The same place everyone advertises these days: internet celebrities and content creation workshops.
DnD5e is kind of like the Transformers 4 of RPGs.
It sold well and is one of the highest grossing movies of all time.
It's also completely not worth buying, because it appeals to the lowest common denominator in the worst way. To mix movie metaphors - It's not The Incredibles or The Iron Giant, it's Angry Birds The Movie.
You know what else is a successful game? Monopoly.
>>47057881
The Justin Beiber of RPGs?
>>47057730
It's strange how little advertising 5e got even here on /tg/ around it's release. I wasn't aware it existed until the middle of last year despite it being around for almost a year prior to that point.
>>47057537
>trimmed down mechanics in the name of easier fluff and create-your-own-content
While true, D&D has always at its core been designed to be user-friendly in this regard. So if it's easier to create your own content, that's a mark in its favor.
>ditched existing fluff in the name of giving you a sandbox
Actually it ties in far more closely to existing fluff. Forgotten Realms fluff, anyway, but that's not a bad thing; in any even this edition is if anything tied more closely to its "default (the Realms) then 3rd Edition ever was to Greyhawk or 4th was to their Points of Light thing. And again, D&D has at its core always sought to be fairly modular.
>ditching 'gamey' crunch and selling that lack of crunch as better for narrative.
Given how much that was called out as leading to broken rules, I cannot see how that is a bad thing.
>promised swathes of new content at release (re-done races/modular systems) that hasn't shown up
I was unaware of any such promises.
>nuked all archives of existing content and support to force uptake of new products
Nope. I can still find all the old 3rd Edition stuff on WotC's website, in any event. Dunno about 4E, because I don't care about 4E.
>almost opposite approach to power, from high fantasy to low fantasy and low fantasy to space fantasy
In a world with monks and rangers that can cast spells, I hesitate to call D&D "low" fantasy.
>has polarised the community
Oh, every Edition release since AD&D has done that.
>>47057849
>>47057873
That would explain it. I don't watch TV, I don't watch streams, I don't give a damn about celebrities, and now thanks to you guys I have this terrifying vision in my head of the internet turning into everything that was bad about TV and made me like the move to the internet in the first place.
I liked the text I could read at my own pace, the easy copy-paste, the Ctrl-F. And now the internet is going to turn into streams of talking heads like the talking heads on TV? Noooooo!
>>47057852
>While technically true that core 5e is better than core 3.PF, 3.PF has the advantage that it's been out long enough, with enough supplementary material can be beaten/tier-restricted in a shape that approaches being interesting.
>massive, all-consuming bloat is good
Almost anything worthwhile you find in a 3.5 or PF splatbook can be converted to 5e with ease anyways.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: 5e is without a doubt the best edition of D&D to date. Borrowing heavily from AD&D2e and 3-3.5 it actually managed to polish the both of them without ending up an unrecognizable mess like 4e.
>>47057894
I'd like to think that Justin Bieber has a hit of a human being behind his marketing and music. You can see the person there.
DnD5e is the worst parts of 'design-by-committee/focus groups'. It's more like a KPOP band. But without the cute girls.
>>47057765
>There's nothing in particular that DnD5e does that 13th Age doesn't do better.
Sell.
>>47057929
>a KPOP band. But without the cute girls
Is... is there even such a thing?
I don't think I want to see that.
>>47057928
But 4e is the most consistently designed edition of DnD, created as a response to the weaknesses in 3e?
4e is literally 3e without caster supremacy. That's it. All the rules are 90% the same. The only thing different is that class powers are now uniformly formatted, while still being overall distinct in theme thanks to the class features at the start of the class writeups (e.g. Fighter being a deathcube, Rogue having Sneak attack).
It's the same damn game as 3e.
>>47057852
>5e remains a low-effort blob
Given the massive playtesting that went on during its development from both WotC and the community they invited into it, I'm not sure it's intellectually honest to call it "low-effort".
Oh boy, another edition war thread! Yay!
5e was a step in the right direction. They got rid of splatbook bloat (thank the gods), the power gap between casters/martials is now lessened, the rules are now more RAI than RAW which is a good thing, and so on.
This will be my only sensible comment. After this, I am going to post nothing but bait for the obvious bullshit that this thread is going to devolve to. I fully expect that when I go on break today, there will be 200+ replies, 50 retarded images, and a bunch of autistic virgin neckbeards howling and shitting at one another how their playpen is better than the others.
>>47057952
>But 4e is the most consistently designed edition of DnD, created as a response to the weaknesses in 3e?
D&D 4E was created in response to two things:
1) World of WarCraft and MMOs in general;
2) The power-level issues of 3.5
However the result was:
1) Like an MMO, 4E just can't do noncombat. At all. It also just plain *feels* like a video game.
2) The result of this was making every class "feel" the same. The Fighter and the Wizard are structured along the exact same lines and play in fundamentally the exact same way. When playing as a Fighter you'll just feel like a Muscle Wizard, and when playing as a Wizard you'll just feel like a Magic Fighter.
>All the rules are 90% the same.
Well here's someone who's never even touched 5E.
>It's the same damn game as 3e.
Even if this were true - though it is not - but even if it were true, how would that necessarily be bad? Consider the success of 3.X and Pathfinder.
>>47057952
d20 aside, 5e is more mechanically similar to 2e than 3e
>>47057939
>13th Age
>Sell
Seriously?
Well, it has a free SRD at http://www.13thagesrd.com/
It's written by Jonathan Tween (lead on 3e) and Rob Heinsoo (lead on 4e).
Instead of a skill system you have backgrounds, e.g. instead of 'Sail +4' and 'Navigate +2' you just have 'Salty Sea Dog +4'.
This also means that you could have a Barbarian with the background 'Spirit Shaman +3' to represent being able to cast rituals out of combat.
Classes are obviously DnDlike - you could have called this game DnD5e when it came out and nobody would have noticed. There's a sliding scale of difficulty in the classes with paladin at the bottom and wizard at the top - which I personally dislike, but whatever, and endorsed complex fan-classes like the Vanguard (4e-style fighter) and the Stalwart (Hercules strongman) help make up for that.
Combat is ACTUALLY gridless/TOTM. As in, there's not a single reference to 5foot squares in the entire book. Instead ranges are abstract, and you're either engaged, close, or far from an enemy. If an enemy tries to engage one of your buddies, you can freely engage them if you're not already engaged - this is how blocker-types can 'protect the squishes', and vice versa for enemies.
Otherwise combat mostly works like you expect it to in DnD.
All the classes are relatively balanced except at the top end where a bit of caster supremacy starts to creep back in because of versatility.
There's a little more to it than that, but that's what *I* like about it anyway. Just take a look at the SRD if you're interested.
>>47058003
>blah blah blah
That's wonderful, but it still doesn't fucking sell.
>>47057997
>4e is an MMO
I seriously wish I could fucking murder you through the internet.
>>47058003
And none of this is changing that 5E in its first few months outsold 13th Age's entire run to date. It's a fantasy heartbreaker. Deal with it.
>Well, it has a free SRD at http://www.13thagesrd.com/
So? 5E does as well:
http://www.5esrd.com/
So what's your point?
>>47057597
>WAAAAH!! WWWHHHHAAAAAAHHH!! I NEED MUH RULZ FOR EVWYTHING! WWWAAAAAHHHHH!! I CNAT DO ANYTHING IF I DUNT HAV RULES FOR IT!
4e mostly DIDN'T have exact rules for skills.
>You people are the same people who would declare that pulling a massive stone statue on top of someone in 4e would do tink damage.
Nah, that would be about the same realm as a daily if it took more than a single turn. An encounter power if it was able to be done in one.
>>47057852
I will pretend this isn't bait.
What 5e does well? It's a careful harmony of the best of older systems.
It has a degree of depth to its combat that is expanded by the ease of which improvisation comes to play ( all without requiring an extreme degree of system mastery, making new players able to rapidly learn and rapidly enjoy themselves), its classes are diverse but relatively balanced and easy to mix and match to create an impressive range of viable builds, the system is fully updated and modernized for streamlined efficiency without sacrificing any significant aspect of the game and actually enhancing most, it is by far the easiest of the D&D's to homebrew for since its stat blocks are simple and the mathematics are clear, obvious, and rather difficult to mess up if you remain within the guidelines, and its overhauled magic system has everything you could ask for (Cantrips at will, low-level spells remain relevant at high levels, classes that can convert spell slots into other powers, a revised vancian style for most clases that retains the ease of book-keeping but allows a degree of flexibility, a power point system (though, admittedly, it needs a little tweaking), extreme ease for any character to get magic if they want it, and spell effects that are versatile and easy to improvise with).
What 5e does well is that it looked at D&D, stripped it down to what it considered essential, and then built it back up will keeping the frills to a minimum. It is a clean, efficient system, and if your issue is that you want more frills, you'll be amazed by how easy it is to add them on your own.
>>47057537
>trimmed down mechanics in the name of easier fluff and create-your-own-content
Which is a good thing for a lot of people.
>ditched existing fluff in the name of giving you a sandbox
Except for almost all the supplementary material being Forgotten Realms, and all of the lore in the MM being Forgotten Realms, and all of the examples in the DMG and flavor text in the PH being Forgotten Realms. It's almost like they're defaulting to something, but what could it possibly be...
>ditching 'gamey' crunch and selling that lack of crunch as better for narrative.
Well yeah, that goes without saying.
>promised swathes of new content at release
They promised the opposite actually.
>(re-done races/modular systems) that hasn't shown up
Unearthed Arcana my dude. Though it has been a little lack luster.
>nuked all archives of existing content and support to force uptake of new products
That and all that largely obsolete content (the internet exists) actually cost them to maintain licensing, digital distribution and publishing rights for, even when they had outsourced most of it to Paizo, who apparently also couldn't afford to look after Dragon anymore. I don't know how it works in your country, but in the US all that shit actually costs time and money.
>almost opposite approach to power, from high fantasy to low fantasy and low fantasy to space fantasy
English please.
>has polarised the community
Yeah, no. 5E is probably the most inoffensive edition of D&D to ever exist.
>>47058022
I said it was developed in response to MMOs. It's obviously not an MMO. The question, then, is why the designers tried to design it like an MMO when it so obviously isn't and couldn't be.
>>47057995
>the rules are now more RAI than RAW which is a good thing
RAI is NEVER a good thing. By definition it is unclear rules. By definition rules are supposed to be clear so that there is no confusion.
>>47057997
>1) Like an MMO, 4E just can't do noncombat. At all. It also just plain *feels* like a video game.
4e actually has more wordcount spent on noncombat in its first three corebooks than 3e. Please elaborate on why you feel it can't do noncombat any more than any prior edition.
>2) The result of this was making every class "feel" the same.
Please explain how a fighter using interception mechanics to make enemies stick to him, and hitting things with a big polearm. feels the same as a wizard shooting fireballs and making ice walls.
Does every character in a game of GURPS feel the same because they're all the 'human' class?
What about Vampire? Is everyone the same because everyone's power is called a 'Discipline'?
>Well here's someone who's never even touched 5E.
I mean to indicate that 4e has 90% of the same rules as 3e, not that 5e matches 3e.
I've been playing 5e since the playtests. Not the early ones, but I remember when martial dice were a thing, and Second Wind healed half your HP.
>>47058049Because they didn't
They just pulled back the curtain on mechanics.
>>47057822
>It's actually the most popular roleplaying game at this point, and even people who prefer to play other editions or other games can respect that it is a solid bit of design and several times better than [version of D&D they hate].
I'd call it less 'Solid' and more 'Uninspired'. It's like an end table you bought for cheap. It might hold up fine but you don't think about it much and it doesn't really do much beyond sit there.
It's not a terrible edition but it isn't anything I'd call 'Good'.
>>47057537
I just don't get the hate on 5e.
It simplified checks, balanced classes and with their whole 'three pillars" of gaming, they did a fantastic job.
A tip I learned from some wizard on the internet.
If you don't like something, change the rule.
Still feel like a class is imbalanced? Balance it yourself!
Feel like something is too dumbed down? Make it more convoluted!
It isn't rocket science.
>>47058033
5e's SRD is noncomplete and is missing class options and spells.
As far as sales values - yes, the world's most well known RPG outsells an indie product. I'm not sure what this is meant to prove. Monopoly outsells Carcassonne.
>>47058055
>and Second Wind healed half your HP.
Ugh. That sounds atrocious. I'll take my short rest mechanic instead, thanks.
retard troll thread
you're a moron
>>47058065
>If you don't like something, do the game designer's job for them!
Balance is the game designer's job, not the end users.
There are a hundred fantasy RPGs out there right now being played, and ten of them are even good. 5e doesn't do anything to stand out.
>>47058063
>It might hold up fine but you don't think about it much and it doesn't really do much beyond sit there.
It's the first edition of D&D where I rolled up a thief and I actually *feel* like I'm playing a thief, and not simply a dungeon delver who moonlights in burglary.
>>47058063
I'm sorry, are you telling me that most people give their furniture any significant amount of thought? And that most furniture does anything other than just sit there?
>>47058050
If you're an autist, yes, I can see why you would think that.
>>47057662
>>47057662
That only really matters if the GM can't do his job though. There's no fundamental reason why a cleric and monk can't contribute equally in properly designed encounter.
>>47058090
And what makes them feel like that?
>>47058080
>Because balancing whatever facet you draw issue with is so difficult.
It's a great system, it fills no specific niche and it wasn't meant to.
You can make it as war gamey or as role playing as you want.
>>47058003
This proves Tweet and Heinsoo can't design for shit
>>47058066
>I'm not sure what this is meant to prove.
You said there's nothing in particular that 13th Age doesn't do better, so I helpfully filled in the gap in your knowledge. 13th Age is just another fantasy heartbreaker, the result of someone making THEIR perfect version of D&D without regard for what the market wanted.
The market is never wrong.
>>47058095
...making things clear and understandable is somehow a bad thing?
>>47057622
>I haven't played 5e
>>47058055
>4e actually has more wordcount spent on noncombat in its first three corebooks than 3e. Please elaborate on why you feel it can't do noncombat any more than any prior edition.
It's largely the disconnect between 4e combat and any semblance of reality. The character is built around combat, the majority of their abilities are designed to make sense in combat, but when taken outside of it, they become nonsensical, or even detrimental to the game.
You effectively run two games, with two sets of characters, existing in separate and incompatible realities that are often at odds with each other. You have your "I need to find a battle" mode, and your "I'm in a battle" mode, like some kind of video game rpg.
>>47058097
Cool, what does the monk do here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw
I think it's really important to note here - BMX Bandit is REALLY GOOD at being a BMX bandit! He's coming up with all kinds of amazing plans! He can probably do all kinds of sick wheelies! I beat he could probably beat up ten guys at once!
But he's still not as good as the guy than can summon a horde of angels.
>>47058134
Are you sixteen? Is this your first time on the internet?
>>47058103
Essentially? It seems like they stepped back and asked themselves, "okay, so what do thieves do?", made up a list, and then came up with rules and mechanics to enable that list.
So as a result I've got a thief that can run like a motherfucker, climb like a mountain goat and jump from rooftop to rooftop with ease, pick pockets and open locks faster than you can say "Bob's your uncle", has that whole Thieves' Cant language back again from 2E which is just plain fun to have, and so on.
This isn't to say that 3E and 4E didn't try to make the thief a thief and nor that I couldn't do the above in them, but rather that 3E and 4E instead made up some powers and abilities, put them together, and called the end result the Rogue; whereas 5E feels more like they started with the concept of the Rogue and then developed everything from there.
>>47058123
>You effectively run two games, with two sets of characters, existing in separate and incompatible realities that are often at odds with each other. You have your "I need to find a battle" mode, and your "I'm in a battle" mode, like some kind of video game rpg.
Every edition has that. That's what 'Rolling init' swaps.
>>47058123
This is just as true of 5e and 3e, though? The vast majority of abilities are based around combat. 'Roll for initiative' transforms the game.
What abilities do you feel don't make sense out of combat?
Note, of course, that 'per encounter' is a game conceit, not a world simulation one. You can 100% play a wizard whose 'only spell is fireball'. Rename 'burning hands' to 'prematurely exploded fireball', Scorching Ray is Miniature Fireball, Fire Orb is Rolling Fireball, Meteor Swarm is Too Many Fireballs. He could be casting fireballs all the damn day - it's just that the 'per encounter Fireball' is the only one that ended up being /effective/.
I'm not accusing you of it personally, but this fact seems to boggle the minds of people who believe that game rules are the physics of the game world.
>>47058148
But a 4e Rogue can literally do all the exact same things...
>>47058123
Almost every fucking RPG works like that.
What the fuck are you smoking?
>>47058115
>The market is never wrong.
We could troll back and forth all day of this, so lemme try an example I got from Naggum:
The American market for binders is overwhelmingly three-ring.
The European market for binders is overwhelmingly two- or four-ring.
Is the market telling us about some ineffable preference of Americans for odd numbers in their ring binders? I doubt it. The market is probably right more often than it's wrong - but sometimes it's neither, it's just doing funny things with path dependencies on what things happened in the recent past.
>>47058166
I think you underestimate the extent to which people look to the books for flavour cues. 4e's abilities are all about combat, and working in combat.
>>47058166
It's almost likea lot of people shit on 4e through hearsay and not reading the rules or playing the game themselves.
>>47058175
3 ring increases security and retention to a preferable and optimal point while reducing the clutter associated with 4.
>>47058160
My issue with Per Encounter abilities is that there's no verisimilitude to it, no way to justify it.
Like, say you've got something that can be used 1/encounter.
If you have one 30 round encounter in two hours of in-game time, you can use it once. If you have 10 3 round encounters in two hours of in-came time, you can use it 10 times.
This is particularly bad when confronted with Fighter and other non-magical abilities. Why can my fighter only swing his sword a certain way once in combat, no matter how long that combat goes on for?
I much prefer things be "between rests" or "per day". I have an easier time justifying them.
>>47058175
So what you're telling me is that 13th age doesn't sell "because reasons" rather than 13th age doesn't sell because it's just another D&D clone with all the mechanics stripped out in favour of fluffy acting bullshit?
>>47058204
>favour of fluffy acting bullshit?
Roleplaying? IN ROLE PLAYING GAMES?!?!?!?!
>>47058134
the monk could scout ahead while the cleric is summoning his horde?
I mean who's to say the bad guy's are just gonna sit there and let you summon those angels, or not just stall until they're banished/dismissed or they got magic circles of evil up or something?
>>47058115
Transformers 4 is clearly one of the greatest movies ever made.
Monopoly is the greatest board game of all time.
The Da Vinci Code? A masterpiece of literature.
Minecraft? The game to end all games.
>>47058166
Yes, I noted as much myself; it's called "reading comprehension", dear, you should try it.
As I said, it feels more like they came up with the abilities and put them into a Rogue class, rather than starting with a Rogue class and then developing abilities from there. Also, what >>47058190 said.
>>47058204
There's better clones, FantasyCraft for one
>>47058204
I said
> The market is probably right more often than it's wrong
and you shouldn't read anything into that about 13th age in specific.
>>47058215
Are you going to do anything other than be butthurt about how nobody likes your favorite indie game?
>>47058200
>This is particularly bad when confronted with Fighter and other non-magical abilities. Why can my fighter only swing his sword a certain way once in combat, no matter how long that combat goes on for?
You can swing your sword all combat long. You, as a player, are making the narrative decision that this time it's EFFECTIVE. You can shield bash all you want - but this time, you're declaring the perfect opening so that your shield bash hits home.
Per-encounter is still per-rest - in 4e, rests are just 5 minutes long.
>>47058204
13th Age is listed as a 'platinum seller' on DriveThruRPGs, putting it in the top sellers of games that aren't named DnD or Pathfinder.
>>47058194
4e was not good for anything other than designing encounters as a DM
the most ugly thing about it was the MMO way it approached classes and the huge cascade of moronic bloat it produced
>>47058224
>Yes, I noted as much myself; it's called "reading comprehension", dear, you should try it.
Yes, I'm damn confused though.
The 4e does literally all the same things as the 5e rogue + more...but the 5e Rogue is somehow more rogue-y?
The 5e rogue never gave me the sort of feeling of a dashing thief acrobat or a taunting fencer master like the 4e rogue did. It wasn't as agile or mobile, nor was it as good at punishing people who fucked up against them.
>>47058175
Anon you forget RPGs are a niche dominated by DnD and 3 or so minor competitors.
>>47058215
Quality equals popularity plus time. If 20 years from now people are still remarking on ho much they love Transformers 4, then yeah, it really is one of the greatest movies ever made, no matter how much you or I beg to differ (and believe me, I do, I hate that movie).
>Monopoly is the greatest board game of all time.
Well, I mean...it *is*, at least insofar as multiplayer games are concerned.
>The Da Vinci Code? A masterpiece of literature.
Nah, Angels & Demons is better.
>Minecraft? The game to end all games.
MineCraft is just LEGO on the computer, it's not hard to understand why people like it. LEGO is awesome.
>>47058097
When the monk class is inherently neutered by design and Clerics have the ability to perform any class role without sacrificing their niche, the whole "GM should be able to make everyone relevant" argument falls flat on its face.
I mean, you're basically comparing a guy who needs a magic item 2.5x the price of an equivalent magic weapon to a guy who can strike in melee, strike at range, (de)buff, summon extraplanar beings, control/destroy undead, control the battlefield, and heal without having to shoehorn themselves into a particular niche.
>>47058243
>narrative decision
How very un-D&D of the system.
>>47058244
Fuck off you retard
>>47058117
Funnily enough, the same arguments seem to be thrown around about AoS....
>>47058252
>Nah, Angels & Demons is better.
I hated Angels and Demons so very, very much.
PAPAL SUCCESSION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
>bashing 3.x splat bloat
Sure it was taken to an extreme especially in the first 2 years of 3.0's release, but at least it was content. With the release schedule for supplements for 5e that we have now, we're gonna be lucky to have 5 supplements in a decade. I already feel tapped out of content in 5e and willing to shelf the system until some more splats trickle down.
>>47058158
Not really. In 2e and 5e, you often find a use for your "noncombat" abilities within combat, and your "combat" abilities outside of it. It's second nature to think with the entirety of your character in every situation. Even in 3rd it's not as sharp a divide, with opportunities at low levels for everyone and spellcasters at higher levels.
4e combat is built around rotating through your powers, and its rules on improvisation make it more often than not just not worth the effort. With the majority of those powers being "fancy attack X" and "fancy attack Y", their out-of-combat use tends to be rather limited. Even the forced slot of "utility" powers ends up with the player choosing the more combat relevant option when available, and in general these powers are the worst designed and most onerous to use in the game.
4e is a good skirmish battle game, but it falls short at being the complete package.
>>47057728
Pathfinder should just be thrown into a pit like the E.T. 2600 catridges were.
I don't think any game has damaged the hobby more and probably will never since.
>>47058261
lol butthurt
>>47058264
Not really. The complaints about AoS are mostly 'It simplified it to a stupid level'
4e didn't simplify stuff, it just worked out more consistent language.
>>47058269
Cool, what out of combat powers does my 5e fighter and barbarian have?
>>47058272
C'mon, PF isn't that bad. It's the best RAW simulationist fantasy game of all time.
>>47058288
Barbarians can fucking fly if they want to.
>>47058269
>In 2e and 5e, you often find a use for your "noncombat" abilities within combat, and your "combat" abilities outside of it.
How does a Fighter use his non-combat stuff outside combat?
>>47058288
Depends. What skills and background did you choose?
>>47058257
>How very un-D&D of the system.
Works the same as hit points. Every hit that beats your AC is a hit that could mortally wound you, and then you spend hit points to narrate how you survive. Literally how it's been since the AD&D1e DMG.
>>47058299
>Depends. What skills and background did you choose?
4e has both of those. It also has themes. Or can a 4e noble do nothing with his nobleness?
>>47058050
That's generally why the GM is the one who has final say on that shit, rather than crawling through a shitload of errata and forum shitposting just to find out something that could've been solved in a fraction of the time.
>>47058296
They can jump 60 feet up, but have to land at the end of their turn, rather than it being true flight. They also have to rage to do it, expending a valuable resource.
They also gain the ability to fly several levels later than the casters getting it as a 3rd-level spell.
>>47058301
>Works the same as hit points. Every hit that beats your AC is a hit that could mortally wound you, and then you spend hit points to narrate how you survive.
Narrate my epic level barbarian not only surviving an uninterrupted 20,000 foot drop onto a floor made of pure adamantine but being able to walk away from it.
>>47058092
Some furniture is designed to be decorative, and is attractive to look at. Some furniture is designed to be multi-functional, and can fulfill multiple roles well. Some furniture is designed to be comfortable, and is enjoyable to relax on.
So yes, some people actually put some thought into their furniture besides "will support the weight of what I'm going to put on it.
>>47058299
Irrelevant - I asked what the class can do, not the background/skill.
>>47058313
It'd take a lot less time to solve though if the rules writers were clear on what they meant.
>>47058166
I dont think thats true, and I played a lot of 4e.
I know that eventually skill powers released, but before those came out rogue utility powers were not the greatest. Also, thieves cant and the expertise are definitely not in 4e. Not to mention that you chose your rogue archetype at level 1, and 'thief' was an essentials class focused on tumbling.
>>47058288
Depends on your subclass.
Champion? Remarkable Athlete, you run and jump better, and get a boost to any untrained Strength, Dex or Con checks you make.
Battlemaster? You get an artisan tool proficiency, and the ability to analyze people's capabilities.
Eldritch Knight? You have spells, fuck you.
Berserker Barbarian? You get to frighten people, as in force them to run away and be unable to approach you because they're shitting themselves.
Totem? You get rituals that let you find, and speak with, animal friends and commune with nature to get information.
>>47058293
The only way that PF is a good simulation is if you play every martial class as a fat fuck who has never trained a day in their life.
I mean, it doesn't take a fucking feat to take a weapon and spin it around, much less a feat with like four prerequisites.
>>47058329
Given that you're epic level and falling 20,000 feet?
You land on your feet. It jars your knees a bit and makes you feel kind of sore.
That's it. Narrated. What more do you need?
It's epic level, at a certain point you're pretty much a superhero.
>>47058288
>Fighter
Picking a class called "fighter" implicitly means that you only want to fight (and you want to be the best at it), but having said that...
>Remarkable Athlete
>Student of War
>Know Your Enemy
>Any number of the Abjuration or Evocation spells granted by Eldritch Knight
>Barbarian
This is better for noncombat.
>Rage is good for any time you need Strength
>Danger sense (traps are not combat)
>Intimidating Presence
>Spirit Seeker
>3rd Level Bear Totem
>All 6th level Totems
>Spirit Walker
>14th Level Eagle Totem
>>47058298
Are you talking about the castle and followers of 2e, or the improved ability scores and even optional magic of the 5e fighter?
And, that's largely just the most combat-oriented class in the game. A bit of a cherry-picked example, even if it didn't really pan out for you.
>>47058356
That's not narration anon, that's fucking meatpoints.
>>47058351
I appreciate you making an effort, but come on, Remarkable Athlete? You actually brought up that ability rather than ignoring it?
The last clause of that ability literally reads 'you can jump an extra five feet'.
Thanks for taking the time to list the rest though. I believe you're a cool good person.
>>47058268
Why wouldn't you just write your own content?
>>47058314
Yes, I'm aware. What part of that doesn't look like something that is useful outside of combat?
And that's just one of the many options available to the barbarian and fighter.
>>47058350
>Not to mention that you chose your rogue archetype at level 1, and 'thief' was an essentials class focused on tumbling.
You are looking for the Cha/Dex Rogue there.
>>47058329
>Narrate my epic level barbarian not only surviving an uninterrupted 20,000 foot drop onto a floor made of pure adamantine but being able to walk away from it.
You rage so hard that muscles tighten and absorb the impact of the fall.
What more do you want?
I mean, the average martial can survive a fall from terminal velocity so an epic level barbarian should be capable of performing the same feat.
>>47058367
No, meatpoints would be (assuming he took a billion fall damage or whatever and has ten left) "You're shredded to a bloody pulp as you impact the ground from your bones piercing through your skin. Somehow, you get up."
>>47058364
The optional magic that needs to be almost entirely drawn from Evocation and Abjuration?
>>47058363
>Picking a class called "fighter" implicitly means that you only want to fight
Wouldn't that same logic imply that a cleric would never go out and fight, and instead just stay in the church as purely a spiritual leader?
>>47058342
Granted, but that's also why for situations where it's not clear, the GM is supposed to say whether or not the rule is applicable to the situation.
I mean, I'd rather a GM make a wrong call once in a while and I brooch the subject out-of-game later than to sit around for five minutes while the GM shifts through 400 pages of rules, rules, rules just to find the answer to a question that might not ever come back up again.
>>47058367
Here's an important fact for you: the vast majority of feats performed by heroes of myth and legend can all be accomplished by D&D characters of 10th level or lower, in 3.PF terms
Aragorn/Strider can be faithfully recreated as a multiclass Ranger 2/Paladin 3, for example.
Further with how the skill system works it's entirely possible to stat out any human who has historically lived as being 5th level or lower.
What does this mean? It means that once you get to 16th level or higher, you are basically a demigod. You are operating on the same scale as Hercules.
And once you reach 20th level you are *actually* a god. Maybe not as D&D defines the term, but if a 20th level character showed up on Earth they would, in fact, be essentially a physical god.
Would a god die from a 20,000 foot fall? Hephaestus was thrown off of Olympus by Hera and he survived, so I'm gonna say "no".
>>47057537
Basically none of that is true. Please stop posting.
>>47058394
Someone here is not well read on the Middle Ages.
>>47058389
>>47058383
Narration is "a sudden updraft seriously slows my fall".
Meatpoints is "the laws of physics dictate that I should be a crimson splatter on the floor right now, but I'm so damned tough that I'm not".
>>47058332
This. I have players assign two secondary adjectives or one primary adjective to fashion choices. Sounds picky but when a player says "I dress powerfully" and another says "I dress formally" it affects their interactions with NPCs.
>>47058394
Not really. The were clergy that were part of military orders that fought.
Now, if the class was called "Church Leader" or "Prayer Specialist" or "Kneeler", you might have a point, but the class is literally called "Fighter."
>>47058350
>I dont think thats true, and I played a lot of 4e.
Alright, let's see what I can do:
>So as a result I've got a thief that can run like a motherfucker
Fleeting Ghost lets you move at your max speed and still be hidden.
>climb like a mountain goat
Nimble Climb
>jump from rooftop to rooftop with ease
Great Leap
>pick pockets and open locks faster than you can say "Bob's your uncle"
Quick Fingers lets you make any Thievery check as a minor action, regardless of it's normal speed. You can attempt to pick a lock or pocket so quickly it doesn't even slow you down.
All of those come right from the 4e Players Handbook.
Why does everyone give 4e flak for "having no noncombat rules" when 5e has WAY LESS wordcount spent on the rules for using skills?
>>47058431
This is not the definition of meatpoints I am familiar with, which is "your HP are literally how alive you are, and every loss of hit points is literally a stab or cut or other wound".
>>47058418
>Hephaestus was thrown off of Olympus by Hera and he survived, so I'm gonna say "no".
He was crippled for life.
>>47058460
Because wordcount only matters in gradeschool?
>>47058394
Do you even think before you talk?
>>47058063
The best pieces of design are invisible. They're meant to be used rather than gawked at. 5e is a well-designed endtable because it meets the needs of a lot of people. Age of Sigmar is the Fragile lamp - a simple concept, but hard to use and embarrassing to look at.
>>47058460
Most people bashing 4e have not read 4e.
They *especially* haven't read the Dungeon Master's Guide, which outside of the encounter building rules, is basically just all around good RPG advice.
>>47058418
This. I don't like playing 3.5 unless I'm going for some epic scale shenanigans. Like players shitting enough damage to kill a god by level 5.
>>47058431
>Narration is "a sudden updraft seriously slows my fall".
Narration can also be "I am an epic level Barbarian; I am a god. Gods do not die from falls."
Although why you're saying "epic level" is beyond me. Fall damage caps out at 20d6 (a nod to terminal velocity), so at most the damage is going to be 120.
A barbarian should have at least a +4 modifier to his Constitution score as early as possible due to it affecting his Rage lengths. Add that to the average result of a d12 roll (6), maximum dice at 1st level for hit points (12), and the fact that a Constitution increase retroactively increases your hit points, and even a 15th level Barbarian, not raging, should be able to survive the fall damage, given that he's got an average of 136 hit points.
>>47058065
How do people still not understand the point of these discussions?
Do you honestly think that anyone thinks that the mechanics as written are immutable?
Let's play pretend for a second: you buy some couches from 2 different manufacturers. One is soft, and not the best couch ever, but its nails are all in the right places and the legs are where you need them. The other is acceptable, but not what you'd personally look for in a couch: The shape is right, but it's unpolished, the legs are a bit wobbly and off-center, etc.
You later talk to other people who, in their free time, enjoy sitting in and building couches, discussing the merits of different couch companies. A ton of you notice a few tendencies in the makers of that second couch to release couches with poor legs. Some people enjoy these couches for other reasons, or even like the legs, but long story short, you all discuss the merits of the couches as a group.
Then some fucker, for some reason, came to a couch enthusiast group (/5tg/), entered into a discussion obviously about the comparative merits of couches (edition war thread), and said "Guys, you can just fix what you don't like yourselves!"
Then he sits there and grins, like he said something clever, while everyone takes a second to try to process why he's even here.
To be clear, the problem isn't the effort it would take to fix our criticisms, nor the opportunity cost, or even that we couldn't whine anymore. Even after fixes have been made, and they have, because this is fucking /tg/, the complaints remain valid, and can be discussed to highlight the comparative strengths and weaknesses of given rules.
10/10, I bit with vigor, but god damn it's just such an outstandingly stupid thing to say.
>>47058464
And that, sir, is good narration.
>>47058461
And you think just because it didn't kill him and he can walk away from it, that fall didn't inflict some sort of injuries upon him?
>>47058464
Well, he also bounced on his way down, if I recall correctly. Perhaps the DM of that campaign was running with the optional Injury rules that mean that if you take a massive amount of damage you pick up a permanent injury.
>>47058490
I would like to think that if we classed your couch group members, we can aptly name that class "Couch Potato".
>>47058470
4e was great and the DMG was one of the best.
I used to used 4e for God of War shit and 3.5 for low fantasy older style but now that I can do that with 5e I'm never gonna look back at that shit.
>>47058454
Would you pick any of those in lieu of the more combat oriented utility powers? That's almost like a list of the most underchosen powers.
>>47057901
What you call "bloat" is literally never a problem. Splatbook support cannot ever be a negative thing for a game, because if something is added and it is good then the game is improved while if something is added and it is not good then you do not have to use it. You don't even lose any money, because these days buying games is entirely optional thanks to piracy.
Also, anything worthwhile in 5e can just as easily be converted to 3.5, the better game.
>>47058488
>being insanely tough=narration
I've seen people say some dumb shit in threads like this one before, but oh boy, you take the cake.
>>47058499
If you want to narrate it that way, sure.
You're just as effective at 1HP as you are at 256HP. At only 10HP remaining? Are you injured? Maybe. Maybe your knees feel a bit funny and you're not sure you're as fast on your feet as you were.
Or maybe you just get up and brush your self off and go "phew, that was lucky", unaware that your luck is soon to run out.
Both are viable descriptions of having low HP.
>>47058549
>If you want to narrate it that way, sure.
I'm starting to think you don't know what that word means.
>>47058535
>Would you pick any of those in lieu of the more combat oriented utility powers? That's almost like a list of the most underchosen powers.
While I'd admit that WAS a problem, it is wrong to say 4e didn't do those things.
I'm sad we'll never see a 4.5e to clear up that and some of the other quite fixable issues.
>>47058549
They really aren't, though. Otherwise the spell wouldn't be "cure wounds", it would be "restore luck". That isn't the only example, either. The game clearly assumes that damage=wounds, and the lack of penalties is for game convenience.
>>47058539
> Splatbook support cannot ever be a negative thing for a game,
While true, the issue is speed. The faster you try and churn out splatbooks, the necessarily less playtesting and editing can go into them. Hence 3.5 had an amazing update speed but released splats that had incredibly unbalanced features in them, like the Incanitrix or Manipulate Form.
>>47058540
"I am a god, you small thing."
The Hulk and Thor both survived immense falls too. Because they're basically gods. Well, one actually IS a god, while the Hulk taps into the primal rage of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang.
Which I think makes the Hulk technically a living Infinity Stone, if we go by the theory that the Infinity Stones are basically unexploded Big Bangs; potential universes that never came to be because ours exploded first.
The fact that I'm referencing superheroes isn't a coincidence, by the way. Since 5th level represents maximum real-world human potential, 6th level thereby must represent the superhuman.
>>47057881
Yeah, 3.PF is such a "passionate" and "inspired" system
>>47058592
>The Hulk and Thor both survived immense falls too. Because they're basically gods.
That's not narration though. That's the fucking physics of the Marvel universe.
>>47058585
>They really aren't, though. Otherwise the spell wouldn't be "cure wounds", it would be "restore luck". That isn't the only example, either. The game clearly assumes that damage=wounds, and the lack of penalties is for game convenience.
THE GAME CLEARLY ASSUMES OH BOY
AD&D1e DMG:
>It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).
PHB4e:
>Over the course of a battle, you take damage from attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.
PHB5e:
>Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.
Cure Wounds spells cure minor cuts and scrapes, and reinvigorate the body and soul. Despair fades away, hope springs anew.
>>47058539
>What you call "bloat" is literally never a problem.
Except for the fact that most splat books were imbalanced, poorly edited, and all around ass to deal with during game because of that one autist who built almost entirely out of splats and ends up breaking the game.
There's also the fact that even if the splats you're using are legit, most GMs won't let you use them due to having some guy turning into a demi-god dragon sorcerer by level 5 and breaking the campaign a new one by level 10.
>>47058614
And yet, the only thing that you can strip hitpoints down to is meatpoints.
>>47058577
>While I'd admit that WAS a problem, it is wrong to say 4e didn't do those things.
I don't think the argument was the 4e didn't have roleplaying/exploration, the argument was that it just kind of sucked at it.
>>47058634
>4e didn't have roleplaying/exploration, the argument was that it just kind of sucked at it.
>>47058624
Except that
1. if something is bad, you don't have to use that one thing. Even if there is exactly one decent element in a splatbook, it has given +1 good thing and +0 bad things because you don't have to use the bad thing, and
2. You are full of shit. The splatbooks were more balanced, better edited, and better thought-out than the core books.
>>47058654
>1. if something is bad, you don't have to use that one thing.
And if there's a landmine in your backyard, you don't have to step on it either.
>>47058539
>>47058592
There's also speed of play. The more splatbooks exist, the more reference is required on the part of the players and the more shit new players have to learn/buy to keep up.
>>47058634
>I don't think the argument was the 4e didn't have roleplaying/exploration, the argument was that it just kind of sucked at it.
Ok, let's go back then because I think it was.
>But a 4e Rogue can literally do all the exact same things...
(That one was me)
>I dont think thats true, and I played a lot of 4e.
That was the reply.
Then I posted the powers to show that yes, a 4e Rogue can do all those things.
>>47058625
Only because dipshits run off of assumptions that were drilled into their heads by video games.
Like how GMs assume it's their job to make paladins fall or how a critical fail means that the PC strips naked and does the hokey-pokey because "lawlz itz outrageous xD."
It's clearly stated from multiple sources what HP is supposed to represent, people being too stupid to read and too stubborn to avoid bad habits doesn't change that.
>>47057997
>4E just can't do noncombat. At all.
What makes you say this? Can you point me to certain mechanics or lack thereof that you feel limits your ability to roleplay?
>It also just plain *feels* like a video game.
Can you elaborate?
>>47058677
Of course he can't fucking elaborate.
When pushed anti-4e fags fall back on "it feels wrong" every single time.
They can never explain why it's wrong.
>>47058672
Please, strip hitpoints down to something other than meatpoints. And don't bother with "mental fortitude", "will to live" or any of that jazz, because I can just dismiss that as a psychosomatic effect that is ultimately meatpoints in the end.
5e characters become better at better at fighting as they gain levels but NOT that better at using skills.
A level 20 fighter is essentially a god of war.
However, that same fighter's proficient skills have only risen by a mere +4 since level 1.
Why would that level 20 fighter bother with resolving things with skills when they can fight like a demigod instead?
>>47058654
>1. if something is bad, you don't have to use that one thing.
People still play 3.PF so they're already down a degree.
> Even if there is exactly one decent element in a splatbook, it has given +1 good thing and +0 bad things because you don't have to use the bad thing
Except that people will use whatever bonus they can get from a particular option, which means that every bad thing in a book is a -1.
-99 vs. +1 is not a good thing, it's an ocean of shit with a few specks of diamond in it.
>2. You are full of shit. The splatbooks were more balanced, better edited, and better thought-out than the core books.
Not all of them.
Believe me.
>>47058718
>5e characters become better at better at fighting as they gain levels but NOT that better at using skills.
Objectively false. Bound accuracy was applied to skill rolls as well as AC.
>>47058718
When they have the option to resolve things through fighting, then they should prefer fighting. It's almost as though they were fighters or something. Not everything can be solved with fighting, though.
>>47058592
>While true, the issue is speed. The faster you try and churn out splatbooks, the necessarily less playtesting and editing can go into them. Hence 3.5 had an amazing update speed but released splats that had incredibly unbalanced features in them, like the Incanitrix or Manipulate Form.
And yet it was the Player's Handbook that has the Cleric, Druid, and the Wizard alongside the Monk, Fighter, and Rogue. Incantatrix is only good because the original casters are good, and Manipulate Form does not work that way. Meanwhile, with splatbooks, you have Binders, Beguilers, Swordsages, and Warblades.
Splatbooks build on what has been done before with the knowledge acquired from doing so, while the core book is done with the least knowledge.
>>47058691
That point's already been elaborated within this thread.
Ignoring arguments doesn't mean they're not there.
>>47058734
PCs and NPCs/monsters do become demonstrably better at dealing ludicrous amounts of damage compared to the marginal increases they receive for skills.
4e characters, meanwhile, gained half their level to all skill checks and had their main two ability modifiers constantly increase to improve the skill bonuses for those. It helped that the 4e fighter's most common secondary score was Wisdom.
>>47058667
>The more splatbooks exist, the more reference is required on the part of the players and the more shit new players have to learn/buy to keep up.
Except that is not true, as nearly all of 3.5 and Pathfinder is available for free, online, in conveniently search-able websites.
>>47058671
The hypothetical Rogue that no one wants to play is hardly a compelling point, but you're technically right.
>>47058254
I'm not seeing how that argument is falling flat here.
The cleric could just buff the Monk's unarmed strike like he could buff his mace because monk's unarmed strike specifically benefits from magic/effects that would normally only work on manufactured weapons in addition to shit that works on natural weapons.
Why would a Monk use that 4k on a +1 enchantment instead of contingencies like Align/Bless/Magic/Versatile weapon potions? Hell even a permanent magic fang is a cheaper option in the long run. The only thing you really get out of the amulet is a weapon ability.
Fact is a Monk could replicate anything the cleric could do, granted it's a lot easier and viable the other way around but it's far from beyond the ability of a remotely competent GM.
>>47058765
That does reduce the amount you have to buy, but not the amount you have to look up. The amount of cruft in 3.5 and Pathfinder is staggering, and Pathfinder's cruft just keeps on growing. And each time another splatbook is released, there's the chance that some of what used to be useful information becomes outdated cruft. This is true whether you're powergaming or not - no matter what goal you have in mind for your play experience, there is a vanishingly small amount of material relevant to your needs, peppered across a vast library or wiki.
>>47058775
Honestly, the loss from a rogue going non-combat with his utilities is very low and leaping and climbing are both good choices even for combat rogues.
>>47058720
>Except that people will use whatever bonus they can get from a particular option, which means that every bad thing in a book is a -1.
Sure, let me go see all the omnificers and Pun-Puns that 3.5 players are playing.
...no, they aren't. The game you are describing exists in the imaginations of people who dislike 3.5 without playing it.
>>47058695
Fate.
Everyone has a certain amount of fate that can be used to avoid death but it doesn't necessarily protect you from injury.
>>47058760
PCs and NPCs/monsters do become demonstrably better at dealing ludicrous amounts of damage compared to the marginal increases they receive for skills.
And they gain ludicrous amounts of hitpoints. Meanwhile, the mountains do not get harder to climb, the oceans do not get harder to swim and the smelly peasants remain smelly peasants. The challenges of the world do not increase with the level of the PCs; rather, they become able to take on the greater challenges that already exist in the world.
Do you have a fucking point?
>>47058842
Omnificers and Pun-Puns don't exist because most GM's ban everything that isn't core.
Weren't you listening?
>>47058883
The vast majority of 3.5 games do not ban everything that isn't core. In fact, many ban nothing at all, because the players know what works and what doesn't just as well as the DM does.
Your scenarios that do not reflect real life. The players and the DM are not a hostile relationship. The player is just as likely to note what's worth keeping in the game and what isn't as the DM is.
>>47058828
The Thievery one has a lot of use in combat too. If a guy hasn't drawn his weapon yet, you can steal it after double moving next to him.
>>47058812
The search feature means you look up only what is related to your character, no matter where it is peppered. Updates do not stop you from continuing to play your game as-is until you want to apply the update.
>>47058777
>The cleric could just buff the Monk's unarmed strike like he could buff his mace because monk's unarmed strike specifically benefits from magic/effects that would normally only work on manufactured weapons in addition to shit that works on natural weapons.
Considering that a mace already hits harder than the average unarmed strike and the cleric will likely have just as much AC on him, why would he waste the spell when it'd be of better use going towards him or another front-line fighter?
Also, a monk's unarmed strike doesn't become "okay" until much much later levels and by that point, the Cleric is capable of ending most threats in under a turn or buffing himself into being an unstoppable demigod of destruction anyways.
Point is, if I'm supposed to believe that the monk is the guy who is powerful enough to not need any weapons or magic then he should be capable of performing his job without the need of a third party.
Then again, martials get the shit end of the deal anyways and Monks get beaten the hardest with that shit so I guess it's not that surprising.
>Why would a Monk use that 4k on a +1 enchantment instead of contingencies like Align/Bless/Magic/Versatile weapon potions? Hell even a permanent magic fang is a cheaper option in the long run. The only thing you really get out of the amulet is a weapon ability.
Except that applying/drinking a potion counts as a standard action, which means that you're spending two turns to do a fraction of what the other martials are doing.
Also, permanent spells aren't cheap and you'd still need to find someone who can do it for you, which depending on the campaign is easier said than done.
>Fact is a Monk could replicate anything the cleric could do, granted it's a lot easier and viable the other way around but it's far from beyond the ability of a remotely competent GM.
Only in the sense that a bootleg still plays like the original, except you might have parts of the screen blocked by the audience.
>>47058927
"Vast majority" huh?
What do I have to say in the face of such anecdotal evidence against me?
>Your scenarios that do not reflect real life. The players and the DM are not a hostile relationship.
If that was even marginally true then we wouldn't have THAT GUY threads running every other week.
>>47059018
You're still missing my point entirely though, A competent GM would probably have a challenge ready instead of just having everyone else stand around like DBZ while the cleric buffs himself into an unstoppable demigod of destruction to steamroll and make trivial an encounter beyond trivial. (Unless it was a ploy to make the cleric waste his spells/resources.)
The Monk could be holding off the opposition in the meantime, stopping the evil cleric from doing the exact same thing your cleric is doing, etc. Still relevant as the GM's encounter lets he or the cleric be. If he wanted he could shut off all your buffs, then what? Buff again tomorrow?
The cleric and all T1/T2 classes can do alot of things, but even they can't do it all at once without something like a demiplane/timestop.
And why would you even believe a monk or any martial is supposed to be powerful enough not to need any weapon or magic item. All characters/classes have Wealth for a reason, they adventure and acquire treasure for a reason, this is just the basics of the hero's journey. Even casters need a "magic sword" or "treasure" to become stronger.
>Except that applying/drinking a potion counts as a standard action, which means that you're spending two turns to do a fraction of what the other martials are doing.
Assuming they are able to hit/do damage those two turns to which you wouldn't be using those potions then would you? If you were up against something with insane damage reduction against say anything not good aligned then you could pay one fucking turn to buff yourself since the cleric had time to do the exact same thing.
>Also, permanent spells aren't cheap and you'd still need to find someone who can do it for you, which depending on the campaign is easier said than done.
You could say the same thing for the amulet of might fist. (But it cost EVEN more.)
>>47059517
and to add, the monk can match the mace by...
being large
being enlarged
using a mace himself
using a mace himself with both hands and still have access to his unarmed strike through elbows, knees, and feet.
>>47057997
>2) The result of this was making every class "feel" the same.
>These spells in Etrian Odyssey are all the same. You pick from the list and pick a target.
>These monsters in Heroes 3 are all the same. You click what you want it to attack.
>These weapons in Vagrant Story are all the same. You attack things with it.
>These guns are all the same. You point it at something and pull the trigger.
>These swords are all the same. You stick them with the pointy end.
>These weapons in 3.5 are all the same. You just roll different damage.
>These spells on the wizard's list are all the same. Save vs instant death.
>These cars are all the same. You put your foot on the gas and it moves forwards.
>These keyblades in Kingdom Hearts are all the same. You swing it and they do damage.
>These skills in fate are all the same. You roll 4d6 and hit a target number.
>These skills in SW are all the same. You roll and try to get a 4 or higher.
>These skills in WOD are all the same. You roll a clusterfuck of dice and try to hit a single number.
>These powers in 4e are all the same. You roll to hit a target number and it does something.
A unified mechanic is the mark of good design. A clusterfuck of rules and hacking said rules to make something else work (Martial Maneuvers are a romhack of spells for god's sake) is the mark of an idiot.
>>47058677
For a tabletop that feels like a videogame it suuuuure has a lot of videogame adaptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_video_games
Know what the closest thing there is to a D&D 4e videogame? Darkest Dungeon.
>>47058625
HP is abstract. Until you start treating them, it is simultaneously all of those, but at the same time, none of them.
>>47060052
>HP is abstract.
No it fucking isn't. Unless there's huge bombs going off beneath you, only meatpoints can explain walking away from a terminal velocity fall onto a hard surface.
>>47058962
You don't know what you're searching for all the time, or even most of the time. The only things you can search for with confidence are the decisions you've already made, because those are the things you know the names of. When it's time to make a choice, you're fucked. You have to go through every option of its kind ever written to see if it's relevant to your needs.
And yes, DMs can ban new splatbooks until they're comfortable with all the information contained in them, but that's more pointless makework for the DM and players alike and at that point you might as well ban splatbooks.
>>47059935
Except that a lot of players, including what I suspect is a disproportionate number of players on /tg/, don't want everything to be unified under a single rule or mechanic. They like rules that are a little more complex so they can play with them more. And different players like different amounts of complexity. They don't all want identical hotbars with the same number of powers with the same distribution of cooldowns. The new kid wants something different from the jaded grognard. And I want my second character to feel mechanically different from my first, because it improves the longevity of the game for me. The solution is to make different character types with different amounts of complexity, which is exactly what 5e did.
>>47060219
>And I want my second character to feel mechanically different from my first
4e characters felt very different.
I mean, a Swordmage, a Fighter, a Warden and a Paladin all play very differently and they are all Defenders.
>>47058464
He was thrown off Olympus because he was born crippled.
>>47060424
He was thrown off Olympus because Hera spawned him entirely by herself, out of jealousy for Zeus's ability to give birth to Athena without requiring her, and Zeus was all "Fuck that shit. That's gross."
>>47060525
>Hear from me, all gods and goddesses, how cloud-gathering Zeus begins to dishonor me wantonly, when he has made me his true-hearted wife. See now, apart from me he has given birth to bright-eyed Athena who is foremost among all the blessed gods. But my son Hephaestus whom I bare was weakly among all the blessed gods and shrivelled of foot, a shame and a disgrace to me in heaven, whom I myself took in my hands and cast out so that he fell in the great sea.
>>47059517
>You're still missing my point entirely though, A competent GM would probably have a challenge ready instead of just having everyone else stand around like DBZ while the cleric buffs himself into an unstoppable demigod of destruction to steamroll and make trivial an encounter beyond trivial. (Unless it was a ploy to make the cleric waste his spells/resources.)
Then allow me to rephrase myself then.
What situations could a "competent GM" come up with that can only be done by a Monk that doesn't involve running away?
>The Monk could be holding off the opposition in the meantime, stopping the evil cleric from doing the exact same thing your cleric is doing, etc.
Again, what makes the Monk more effective than literally any other Martial in the core rulebook?
Fighters have more feats and access to heavy armors/weapons. Paladins would have access to heals and smites. Rogues would be able to deal more damage to a single target. Rangers can deal more damage from afar and deal additional damage against specific subtypes of creatures. Barbarians are able to deal more straight damage period while also getting some tools to effectively combat magic...
Let's see what a Monk gets.
>Stronger fists that only become as effective as a longsword.
>The ability for their fists to count as magic/adamantium/etc. at levels where you're not going to be swinging at monsters anyways.
>Extra speed which is contradicted by FoB, which only works as a Full-Round action
>Bonus feats that mostly consist of trap options
And that's not getting into the fact that a Monk needs good STR (for damage), DEX (for AC), CON (for health), and WIS (for more AC) just to perform the job of an optimized Fighter.
1/?
>>47059517
cont. from >>47060631
>The cleric and all T1/T2 classes can do alot of things, but even they can't do it all at once without something like a demiplane/timestop.
Missing the entire point of what makes T1/T2 so broken.
A T1/T2 class doesn't need to perform everything at once, they just need to use the right tool at the moment and end an encounter in just one turn, or at least make it so anything beyond that point is effectively marginalized at best.
With one spell, a T1/T2 class can do more to aid in the battle than any other class in the game, which is only exacerbated when you consider just how many spells they have access to.
>And why would you even believe a monk or any martial is supposed to be powerful enough not to need any weapon or magic item.
Because they're supposed to be heroes who are capable of bringing something to the table with the aid of magic or superpowers.
You don't see fucking batman asking for handouts when the shit hits the fan, he just goes in and uses his intelligence, agility, and subterfuge to get the job done and manages to keep up with super heroes that are capable of ending planets on their own.
That's what I feel a Martial should be.
>All characters/classes have Wealth for a reason, they adventure and acquire treasure for a reason, this is just the basics of the hero's journey. Even casters need a "magic sword" or "treasure" to become stronger.
Except that while Martials need to buy their buffs just to remain relevant, mages get more and more spells with each level and ends up being able to perform twice the work with only a fraction of the wealth in some cases.
I mean, there are certain spells that are expensive but it's not like you'd need to cast spells like resurrection or wish more than once in a lifetime anyways.
2/?
>>47059517
cont. from >>47060780
>Assuming they are able to hit/do damage those two turns to which you wouldn't be using those potions then would you? If you were up against something with insane damage reduction against say anything not good aligned then you could pay one fucking turn to buff yourself since the cleric had time to do the exact same thing.
DR only really becomes a problem if you're a class that's reliant on dealing big numbers to end encounters quickly.
A sufficiently powerful mage doesn't need to necessarily worry about that since not only is spells separated from physical damage but spells like force cage or wall or summon monster or shit like that will still be just as effective whether or not the enemy has some innate defenses up.
Not only that, but a good aligned cleric has a class feature that basically allows them to fire off a wave of positive energy that will damage any undead or demonic force anyways.
>You could say the same thing for the amulet of might fist. (But it cost EVEN more.)
Are you intentionally sabotaging your own argument at this point?
>>47059658
>and to add, the monk can match the mace by...
Yet he cannot enchant his fists to be more powerful and the only way that he can achieve those parameters is if asks someone to use magic on him.
>using a mace himself
>using a mace himself with both hands and still have access to his unarmed strike through elbows, knees, and feet.
Why even be a Monk then?
A fucking fighter can take improved unarmed and still be a more competent member of the team than a monk.
Somewhere there was a post about why 5e pandered to grognards and why it was a mistake. It was a blog post or something, some other anon linked it a long time ago and now I can't find it.
5e is okay but there's a lot of wasted potential there that I hope they pick up on.
>>47060092
Dude, people have survived jumping off of skyscrapers without a parachute completely unscathed.
Is it really so impossible to say that someone with sufficient amounts of experience could perform a similar feat?
>>47058376
I agree. Why should professional game desingers, who are being paid to design a system that people are in turn paying for, design the content that everyone is paying for, instead of everyone just throeing money at them and writing their own material?
Shit, why are you even playing 5e? Just write your own system, everyone.
>>47060897 #
See also: immersion in lava/acid/etc., environmental damage, and poisoned weapons being more accurate than non-poisoned weapons.
>they're called fighters so they fight lel
Fucking everyone can fight in this game, why does one class need to be singled out to not being able to do anything else.
>>47057744
Look, everybody who joined up in 4e? If you'd just go off into a field and kill yourself, that'd be great...
Did I call it or did I call it? Just as I get on break and open my laptop, the thread has devolved into rampant shitflinging and no good arguments.
And to the autist that said RAW is better than RAI, you're a fucking neckbeard grognard, because you're the type of person that says "Well, the rules for grappling don't SAY that I need appendages to grapple!" Because it's not RAW.
Those of us who are well-adjusted human beings know better.
>>47061266
>"Well, the rules for grappling don't SAY that I need appendages to grapple!"
>>47061293
Constriction != grappling.
>>47058470
This.
5e is great if you have zero experience with 4e whatsover, which most of its players do because they jumped right from 3.X to 5e and think its changes are masterful innovations instead of giant leaps backwards.
>>47061202
Mostly because WotC. The people making these arguments are doing it retroactively, to justify existing features and thus reduce the discomfort people get from liking something but acknowledging that it is flawed.
In my own games (3.5), I made Fighter and Rogue one class. 8+int skill points, all skills as class skills, all saves are good, d12 hit die, Rogue special abilities available as feats, and sneak attack, evasion, and uncanny dodge are also feats (like Unearthed Arcana generics). That way the class is big in combat and out.
>>47060219
Complexity is not a good thing. What people want is depth and flexibility.
I repeat: D&D is a clusterfuck of subsystems and hacks of said subsystems.
>>47060219
You are mistaking complexity for depth. Classes do not have to operate under multiple different subsystems to be mechanically distinct.
>>47058003
>All the classes are relatively balanced except at the top end where a bit of caster supremacy starts to creep back in because of versatility.
Well, as long as you ignore the examples where you are supposed to use first level spells as a basis for destroying artifacts and shit...
>>47057897
>Oh, every Edition release since AD&D has done that.
Even AD&D 1e did that to an extent, because of what it was originally designed to be: a regulated and largely unmutable ruleset, in part for the benefit of tournament play. They dropped that idea soon enough, of course, but not before Gygax got all grumpy about homebrewing and just-for-fun games in what was supposed to be the D&D equivalent of the Queensberry rules.
>>47060372
Are you high? They all had the same number of powers of each type at each level, and they all did the same goddamn thing, and it was a thing that previously had never existed outside of video games. Their hotbars may have had different pictures on them, but they were even less differentiated than the tanks in the typical MMO.
>>47057744
It's almost as though the numbers in 5e have a meaning now instead of just inflating at a uniform rate to create the illusion of progress.
>>47062410
No they didn't. Thing is with 4e, even targeting a different defense or shifting something a single space is a big deal when looked at as part of the whole. This gets especially crazy when the higher levels are reached.
Hell, a +1 to your hit rolls is a big deal. Give someone a choice between +20 HP and +1 to hit, they'll probably pick +1 to hit.
>>47062473
We're all aware that 4e was built for optimizers so that you were fucked if you didn't pick up every attack bonus that the rules allowed. This was the same for all characters, so that's not a way to differentiate them.
And as >>47057744 so helpfully reminded us, defenses inflated at a more-or-less uniform rate, and the system made sure nobody had low defenses even if they had some dump stats, so targeting a different defense wasn't actually a very big deal.
>>47062567
>We're all aware that 4e was built for optimizers so that you were fucked if you didn't pick up every attack bonus that the rules allowed.
Thankfully, they were pretty far and few inbetween, which is while inherent bonuses+free expertise houserule basically covers everything. Any other bonus to-hit on top of that was mostly from class/race specific stuff, so it did differentiate characters.
And then there's lazy warlords who just don't give a fuck.
>defenses inflated at a more-or-less uniform rate, and the system made sure nobody had low defenses even if they had some dump stats, so targeting a different defense wasn't actually a very big deal.
Not only do players and monsters operate differently, you still also had a relatively large difference between AC and non-AC defenses, and a smaller one between the defenses themselves.
>>47057952
5e has plenty of caster supremacy. It just hid it behind making everyone a caster.
>>47062722
I know, right? Even fucking barbarians can get rituals.
>>47062669
Even lazy warlords, who were the closest thing you could get in 4e to escape having to make an attack roll, had to hit with an attack now and then, usually in order to cause some kind of effect that has absolutely nothing to do with attacking but requires a hit with an attack anyway, because video games.
>>47063026
As opposed to the superior "making others roll to save vs your DC".
What mechanical depth 4e threw away!
>>47057537
>trimmed down mechanics
Compared to...4e?
>in the name of easier fluff and create-your-own-content
Feats and background seem pretty easy to balance but most of these classes I see running around from homebrew are just nasty due to the specificity of mechanics through the system.
>ditched existing fluff
In what realm is FR not "existing fluff"?
>diched gamey crunch
Where, and how?
>better for narrative
I've not really seen this assertion made by WotC channels.
>hasn't shown up yet
UA have been posted constantly as they trickle out.
>nuked the old shit
Hey, look, a legit gripe (maybe, I pirated and stopped forking over for new editions long ago, so I don't know if this is actually the case; that said, it's not hard to hunt old Dragon Magazines or whatever).
>Almost opposite approach
???
>polarized the community
I'm lukewarm on 5e. Enjoy playing more than running, don't really care about it in any capacity, seems like another standard "just not-shitty enough to play" edition of Neckbeards & NEETs.
>sad 4e players
It's really awful watching you guys lick each other's wounds.
>>47063157
Not so much sad as disappointed.
I wanted to like 5e.
>>47057725
>>47063112
That's not what we're comparing. We're comparing how much play styles vary between 4e and 5e, in particular whether attacking every turn is mandatory. Support characters in 5e can support a little and attack in the same turn - if they want to. There aren't any support abilities in 5e that absolutely require you to hit an unrelated third party with an attack before you can help your ally. Why not? Because that's horseshit and makes no sense.
>>47057537
It is probably the best DnD we had since ADnD. So no, it is more like GW started to use an updated version of the Epic rules for 40k.
>>47063377
>Support characters in 5e can support a little and attack in the same turn - if they want to.
...So can characters in 4e?
You don't have to attack anyone to use most Leader support powers.
Healing Word, the cleric power that got straight ported to 5e, works the same between editions.
>>47062473
>>47062669
>>47063112
>>47063469
>responding to obvious bait
Come on, now.
Holy shit why the fuck won't you fucking 4rries just play 4e if you like it so much?
Stop complaining about something that is perfectly fine and people like and go play your fucking World of Dungeonsanddragonscraft like the 3.PF grognards do, nobody is stopping you
Why do you have to bitch and moan that the new game doesn't cater to your need for fucking rules collars and chastity belts?
There is a game for you already, leave mine the fuck alone
>>47063377
>Support characters in 5e can support a little and attack in the same turn - if they want to.
So can 4e characters. Minor action support powers (including, but not limited to their heals) are a support character's bread and butter.
>Why not? Because that's horseshit and makes no sense.
"I steal some life from this guy, and give it to my ally"
WOW, HOLY SHIT I JUST MADE SENSE OF A SUPPORT POWER THAT REQUIRES A HIT.
I MUST BE SOME KIND OF REAL AUTISMO WIZARD OR SOME SHEET.
>>47063487
>4rries become the same edition crybabies they made fun of when 4e came out 3aboos were salty.
George Lucas can't spin and fire pottery this beautiful.
>>47063505
Most 4e powers are not fluffed in that way. Maybe none of them are; I'd have to look it up. The vast majority of them are something like "I have this healing magic from my god that will only work if I hit this guy over here with my mace" or "I have this brilliant strategy planned that will win us the fight, but it only works if I and I alone go to the front line and hit this guy with my sword. I cannot just tell my team what the plan is or have our best swordsman do it." The uniform power list meant that they had to take the attack powers of each role and tack some shit onto each one related to that role, even if it had nothing to do with attacking. You couldn't have some classes get more attack powers or utility powers than others, because that would be different and therefore unbalanced!
>>47063487
>Holy shit why the fuck won't you fucking 4rries just play 4e if you like it so much?
I do.
>Stop complaining about something that is perfectly fine and people like
Its a thread about 5e opinions, you should expect opinions from people who dislike 5e.
That being said, I'm perfectly happy with people playing 5e. Hell I'll give it a spin myself from time to time. But that doesn't mean its immune to criticism, just like any other edition of the game.
>>47063648
>The uniform power list meant that they had to take the attack powers of each role and tack some shit onto each one related to that role, even if it had nothing to do with attacking.
Literally every single leader has a minor action healing power dude.
>>47057537
KEK
I DON'T GIVE A FUCK
Stopped playing at 3e, still playing it and i don't see the fucking point playing anything higher.
>>47062437
Nail on the head, 5 damage against a 50 HP enemy is the exact same thing as 500 damage against a 5000 HP enemy.
>>47062567
Optimizing in 4e almost always assfucks you in other stats, and the "optimization" translates into a tiny amount of benefit, if that, and you have to actively, purposefully, deliberately, and autistically create a bad character.
>>47063714
Yes, they have that as their role-defining extra thing that everyone gets in some form at 1st level, and they also have a bunch of attack powers with support effects tacked onto them, most or all of which make no sense. I'm talking about the latter right now. Keep up if you can.
>>47063901
4e goes out of its way to me more comfortable for optimizers. You can have up to three dump stats with no negative repercussions whatsoever.
>>47057537
>>trimmed down mechanics in the name of easier fluff and create-your-own-content
This is a good thing.
>ditched existing fluff in the name of giving you a sandbox
Also a good thing.
>ditching 'gamey' crunch and selling that lack of crunch as better for narrative.
They ditched problematic crunch, and apparently some crunch you liked. Sorry for your loss.
>promised swathes of new content at release (re-done races/modular systems) that hasn't shown up
l2unearthedarcana, noob
>nuked all archives of existing content and support to force uptake of new products
Are you high, nigger? http://www.dmsguild.com/ click on D&D Classics. Drink from the firehose of existing content.
>almost opposite approach to power, from high fantasy to low fantasy and low fantasy to space fantasy
I have no idea what you're talking about.
>has polarised the community
The community polarized itself. Apparently you don't remember the shitstorm that was the AD&D->2e switch, the 2e->3e switch, or the 3e->4e switch. Buttanger happens.
>>47064000
>and they also have a bunch of attack powers with support effects tacked onto them, most or all of which make no sense.
I'm not sure how calling out a healing prayer while attacking doesn't make sense, but okay.
They also have plenty of utility support powers that can heal or otherwise support the team that require no attacks.
>Keep up if you can.
Its difficult when I'm having trouble figuring out what your complaint actually is.
Are you mad that supports can attack and heal at the same time if they want to?
>>47064106
As opposed to other editions, where this is only true for SAD casters.
>>47064158
They have exactly as many utility powers as everyone else, and exactly as many attack powers as everyone else. So in order to make them focused on utility, their attacks have to have utility nailed to them.
And what doesn't make sense is a healing prayer that ONLY works when you're hitting an unrelated third party. That's what my complaint is. Attack powers that are only there because everyone needs the same amount of attack powers. It's straining suspension of disbelief for the sake of a complete uniformity that isn't even desirable.
