Hey, /tg/. I didn't play tabletop RPGs until like 2 years ago, so I missed the controversy over this edition. What exactly made everybody lose their shit over this? D&D 4th edition is really fun, from what I've played. What was wrong with it that pissed so many people off?
It wasn't the previous edition and people were dead set to hate it.
>>44003498
It wasn't like 3rd/2nd/1st/Basic/Expert/0e/Moldvay
>>44003519
>>44003540
So, mechanically it's fine but people got mad it because of nostalgia reasons? That's so weird. I remember hearing one of my friends complaining when it came out because he thought it made D&D into World of Warcraft, which is a weird complaint because WoW was pretty fun back then.
>>44003540
To put a finer tip on that point every new edition some previous players will hate it, 3.5 had a huge player base which exaggerated the overwhelming hate thanks to the internet which other editions really didn't have to deal with.
4e is basically one step away from a board game, and I love it for that.
WotC stripped out all the bullshit from 3.X about random carpentry skills and other non-adventuring crap, removed blatant caster supremacy (especially as it came to crafting artifacts) and made 4e a very flat and straightforward game. Everyone worked the same way, with the same system, and the focus was on tactical battles, with the skills and other non-combat things streamlined into a small number of skills. You can play out all the non-combat stuff with just talking and an occasionally d20 check, and get to the meat of the game, which was going into dungeons and fighting dragons.
This struck people the wrong way, as they saw it as WotC taking out the RP from RPG. It didn't help that management had the spine of a gelatinous cube, and ran away from supporting the line as hard and fast as they could, leaving it half-finished in their rush to get to 5e.
Now let's watch the bait thread burn.
>>44003591
Well the first MM for 4th made the monsters way too tough and do too little damage so it made encounters drag and some people didn't like having to have a play mat and use templates and keep track of 20 differen't effects on creatures and the battlefield as well.
4th was great for online games but running it in person was more a pain in my opinion.
I've heard from many a places that 4e makes for a good "Fantasy Tactics" game with a D&D overlay. You can still RP with it, I mean, it's not hard to RP with anything. You might not be able to do -EVERYTHING- but you don't need to to RP a character.
While I personally prefer 5e and 3.5 over 4e, I'll still play 4e because I'm not a petty manchild.
>>44003640
>and some people didn't like having to have a play mat
Literally every group that has ever played D&D has used some kind of battle map with markers for players to determine positioning and distance.
The amount of people who have adamantly refused to this has always been miniscule.
>>44003498
Because of the combination of, successful marketing, being one of the first things on the early internet, a generation with more new gamers than any before, the fun of optimization puzzles, and a then stagnating games market, the OGL was REALLY SUCCESSFUL, to the point that a huge number of gamers in 2007 equated TTRPG with OGL. They were one and the same, and D&D (well D&D 3) was their originator. Many were expecting yet another OGL game, MAYBE about as divergent from the formula as Star-Wars saga was (and in-fact many saw SW saga as a "preview" for 4e.) What they got was a fundamentally different game that ran a fundamentally different type of campaign and offered a fundamentally different experience.
Basically, remember when windows vista was too much change too fast after a full decade of XP... now make the two products another order of magnitude different, and you'll begin to understand.
Personally, I was a 2e grognard who hated 3e, 3.5, PF, and every [insert-genre] d20 with a passion... largely for the same reason, and so 4e wasn't diverging from and discarding something I loved. I really love 4e, and it's my default system for running games these days.
>>44003498
Pretty much what >>44003604 said, though I wouldn't paint 4E as being as perfect as they seem to imply. 4E had a LOT of problems, mainly with scaling and stacking multiple bonuses. It's also the absolute worst implementation of magical items I've seen from the D&D games, though at least it wasn't as abusable as 3E.
More or less, 4E is better suited to wargaming and tactical combat, but not particularly robust in any other respects. Some people like crunchy combat, others don't, and there's no 'best' version of the game because of that.
Personally I found 4E's limited class archetypes and MASSIVE focus on grid-based combat absolutely atrocious but that's my completely biased opinion and doesn't reflect the quality of the product at all.
>>44003640
The Monster Manual and the original DMG was just bad math, but cutting the monster HP in half and basically solved the problem.
I didn't have a problem running it in person because the effects were all simple and straightforward (usually either a -2 or -5) and it's easy to make little ticks on my initiative tracker/monster cards and keep track.
>>44003688
Sure a piece of paper or some erasers on the table but not everyone used a mat the way that 4e required you to
>>44003699
>limited class archetypes
Can you explain this to me? I've heard this (and the related 'all the classes are the same') but I don't understand it. There's as many classes as any D&D, you get the basics with a few oddball classes at the start, and two big points where you can remake the character with a 'prestige class'.I don't think 4e is perfect, but it's by far my favourite D&D. Stacking can get messy, but I like the players working together to help each other and there are some good debuff options.
>>44003789
The game has used distances and units since 2E.
The rules have always required the use of some sort of system to govern and regulated positioning on the battlefield.
>>44003802
Defenders/Strikers/Leaders/Controllers
Each class was one of these archetypes that were supposed to do a job but each class did their job a little differently then another most of the time.
>>44003802
He hates that 4e threw back the curtain on class roles (Leader, Striker, Controller, and Defender) that have existed since the beginning and outright saying the X Class fills Y Role in a group. This totally ignores that every class also is flavored with a secondary role, for example most Arcane classes also have strong Controller elements in addition to their primary role.
>>44003817
Ok I don't see how this changes the fact that some groups run dnd completely without a grid or play mat but with 4e that just cannot happen which irked people.
>>44003716
I heard there was some sort of official hotfix for monster HP for 4th. Was it as simple as cutting monster HP in half or was there some other formula to it?
>>44003802
I'll defer to Rich Baker, one of the team members for 4E, and his November 14th 2001 edition of the Rule Of Three Q&A.
"One more lesson learned: It's harder to customize a character or play against type when the class is built to serve a specific role. If you want to build a wizard who behaves like a striker by putting out a ton of damage on a single target, you can't really do it; you need to build a warlock instead. Similarly, if you want to build an axe-throwing fighter, you'll find that the fighter offers darned few ranged weapon powers; it's hard to make the fighter into a character who fights well at range. You have to create that character by figuring out which class makes that concept work (slayer or ranger, perhaps) and call yourself an axe fighter while using the chassis provided by a class in the "proper" role. Role insulation helps to guide players into building effective characters, but it also limits creativity. It'd be nice to give players more control over which role their characters were filling, or even if they were filling a role at all."
>>44003918
Pretty much apply the math that was in the second monster manual for creating monsters to the first monster manual monsters, that's if you wanted to get technical
>>44003918
The quick and dirty was halve the HP and double the damage. The pain with monster math really didn't start until Paragon tier or when using Solos.
>>44003817
"Blast"
>>44003890
No one does that. No one has ever done that. It's a non-demographic.
And 3.5E/5E literally are exactly as grid-dependant as 4E, yet no one refers to them as such.
Look at a spell effect in 3.5E, 4E, and 5E. You will find the exact same information in all of them: Distance in either "grid units" or 5' increments, effect radius in units or 5' increments, and other specific data that required precise mapping to properly demonstrate.
No system in the lineage is written like "Distance: 30foot-ish, Damages a couple of targets nearby"
>>44003949
This seems to imply there is stupid blue text over your character's head that says...
>>Faggotron Fuckface
>>Level 2 Homosexual [Fellatio Build]
>>44003999
Alright anon I see you've attended every group that has played every edition of dnd so I'll concede to your well researched statement.
>>44003999
>No one does that. No one has ever done that. It's a non-demographic.
My group do.
>>44003999
Some do but they bracket stuff into ranges like "Close," "Nearby," and "Far." I want to say that is how 13th Age works.
>>44003999
Not every fight needs to be gridded out. Usually big or major fights get gridded out while a simple bar-fight or something doesn't need to be gridded.
5' increments help folks visualize things when not using a grid but since squares and 5' are the same thing, it's not that big a deal.
All the powers dealing so heaivly with the grid does make it a bit harder to run without one.
I think most groups switch between none-gridded and gridded for the most part. Making Tom play less viable makes things less flexible.
To me, the bigger problem was how immersion breaking encounter, daily and whatnot powers were. I never liked "a barbarian can only rage 3/day" in 3.x so having that aspect get amped up in 4e rubbed me the wrong way.
Though I blame the hate to 4e mainly on the shit pr during its roll out and how dogshit of an adventure keep on the shadowfell was.
>>44004138
I actually really liked the AEDU power structure, it felt very appropriate for me. Like a big fantasy adventure show or movie. Of course you don't bust out your big, special attacks a bunch of times each episode, that'd stop them being your big special attacks. Instead, you have a few reliable tricks that you use for the most part, with the big, awesome stuff only being busted out when you really need it.
But I can understand that being irritating from a world emulation standpoint, even if I prefer it as a form of genre emulation.
>>44003949
I can sympathize with this, but at the same time I can't. I get that people sometimes want to play a "Fighter with a gimmick" or a "Wizard with a gimmick" at the start, but the rest of the options probably won't work out down the line and people will want to play something that works.
Besides, I still can't understand how people get so angry and disturbed about having to write a different class on their sheet. Your PC has certain options available to them, you have to RP the rest.
>>44003949
This is true, but also kinda missing the point of 4e that Baker himself makes: You can file the serial numbers off and use one class as another. You can take the crunch of a warlock, add the fluff of a wizard, and you're good to go.
I know it's a bit disappointing when something isn't exactly how you like it, but it's also real damn easy to do.
I might be listing some faults with the system but I loved 4e and would gladly play it again, it's a really good time, anyone that ever seriously said that you can't RP in 4e is retaraded, just reading the campaign examples from Chris Perkins' old DMing Tips blog immediately disproved that sentiment.
Also it's really weird how 4e wasn't more popular with the murderhobo's crowd.
>>44004055
That's how Dungeon World works. In 13th Age all characters are considered Nearby, though some can instead be Far Away. Character can take move actions to become Engaged with enemies, to Disengage with them, to get Behind certain foes, or to Intercept enemies you want to prevent from moving. You can only make melee attacks against enemies you're Engaged with, and your ranged attacks draw opportunity attacks from enemies you're Engaged with.
It's pretty simple once you get the hang of it.
>>44004207
>Also it's really weird how 4e wasn't more popular with the murderhobo's crowd.
Because it required actually strategy and teamwork rather than 'I use a spell'. That's the root of so many complaints about 4e, even the 'I can't roleplay stuff'. People who spent their whole career relying on being able to obsolete problems with overpowered magic whining after it was taken away.
>>44004173
I get the reasoning behind it because it is pretty elegant and clean as a system. I just have a boner for world emulation. It actually bothers me when folks act like 3.5 uses "trying to simulate a world" as an actual design principle when so much of the system has the same "you can only do a special move 2/day because reasons" that they accuse 4e of.
Neither 3.x or 4e are good for the kinda games I like to run but I think 4e broadly tries to do the same thing 3.x does but succeeds at it.
>>44004138
Eh the powers thing just reminded me of the magic system from older editions just with a different veneer on it. So I wasn't too bothered by it but I understand the complaint.
>>44003498
It was really, really different game rules-wise from the previous editions. People hate different things.
>>44004202
This.
Going further, a "class" should not by design be able to do certain things simply because the player wants them to.
You don't choose a fighter if you want to do magic, and you don't choose a wizard if you want to excel at fisticuffs.
His complaint is not being able to have cake and eat it, or that a class can't do everything the players WANTS it to (I will bet money that the entire hypothetical only applies to class that previously could do everything like wizard anyway).
>>44004226
I think the teamwork thing was a big part of it. People were so used to being individual heroes working together, and 4e was so strongly based on team mechanics, that they felt underpowered and less capable. It's a complaint I can understand.
>>44004279
The complaint is "I can't win by myself and need the TEAM". It is a complaint that I have used subtly as a GM to weed out shit players who can't play games where the group is mightier than any individual.
>>44004272
It's not quite that bad (wanting to be a throwing stuff fighter isn't crazy bulshit) but it's also damn easy to say, "Hey, rangers have non-magical ranged attacks, why don't I just do that and ask the DM if I can throw axes instead of arrows?"
It's the same thing where building a certain concept requires a certain level of knowledge about what in the system will let you do that, but in 4e it says 'If you see something, it's barely a houserule to call it something different.'
>>44004279
I've noticed people who skipped over 3.x tend to have a better opinion of it than folks who started with 3.x oddly enough.
In interviews, I've seen designers mention that a lot of the class design ideas were inspired by early editions. it's really noticeable in that 3.x was the only edition without strong niche protection and where a character could fulfill every role.
>>44004025
That's not what it says. Re-read it and maybe you'll understand after a while.
>>44004184
You might call it a gimmick, I call it a playstyle. If I want to play an axe-throwing dwarven soldier I shouldn't have to play a Ranger. I could understand having to choose a different class if it was a core quality that you're missing (a Fighter who heals people would need to be a Cleric or Paladin, for example) but when it's your choice of weapon you shouldn't be forced to do so.
>>44004202
Fair enough but whenever a game forces the player to change the rules so they don't suck as bad, that's a failure on the game's part.
>>44004377
I feel like you're getting too hung up on class descriptions and names. If you want to play an axe throwing dwarf, choose a Martial class which has a lot of support for ranged combat options. It's not that hard.
>>44004377
>If I want to play an axe-throwing dwarven soldier I shouldn't have to play a Ranger
Why, exactly, when a ranger has just as much military connotations as a fighter?
You seem to be allowing yourself to be constrained by names and the fluff in the book, rather than using them to make the character your own.
>whenever a game forces the player to change the rules so they don't suck as bad, that's a failure on the game's part
What does this even mean? Why are you treating the book's text as sacrosanct?
>>44004377
Yeah but what powers would you give your axe throwing dwarf fighter? I think eventually those and the rangers powers would become too similar.
>>44004377
>Re-read it and maybe you'll understand after a while.
There is nothing to understand.
The complaint is clearly that, in a class based game, some classes do not have the potential to do certain things a player WANTS them to, and that is "bad".
>>44004377
>Fair enough but whenever a game forces the player to change the rules so they don't suck as bad, that's a failure on the game's part.
But it's not changing the rules. It's using an explicit part of the design to get the desired result. It says, "Fighters come in flavours X, Y, and Z. If you want something outside of that range, look at another class, refluff as needed."
>>44003604
Sounds boring as fuck
>>44004511
In practice it really wasn'tAs long as you didn't have a shit DM
>>44004465
The thing about refluffing to me, and this is a little autismal, but changing say electricity to fire, has a big change on balance and power when it comes to utility. Refluffing can change things in pretty strong ways if you're dm is doing a more world sim style. So if a person is used to things like "electricity should do extra damage" and fire having great utility for out of combat, then refluffing would be a change in the rules. Since the fluff of something really matters.
Like for example, changing arrows to axes in a lot of games is going to really effect how encumbrance, ammo price, reusing ammo, etc. are worked out.
>>44003872
>Threw back the curtain
This dramatic bullshit, haha. Of course everyone already knew about this and made it a point of emphasis more or less depending on how important the tactical element of the game is to them.
The system itself making these roles a focus is something MMOs have been doing for quite a while. It all comes down to whether or not you like an aspect of the MMO feel at the table top or not.
I do not.
>>44004377
That is exactly what it implies. He is booty bothered that the Fighter class does not support Ranged combat and as such making a Ranged combat based character as a Fighter is horribly sub-optimal. Simply being a Ranger or Slayer will support that concept and what the character calls himself is purely a Roleplaying concern. His idea that what class he writes in the Class line on his character sheet is always an in character thing.
>>44004596
So you prefer some characters being able to occupy every role and others being completely worthless?
>>44004596
The actual roles are pretty different from earlier versions of d&d. And focusing on balance in combat meant that the whole separation of "exploration, social and combat" roles you'd see in prior editions wasn't separated by class. That's a big part of what makes the classes feel "samey" imo that the role balance is very different with all classes contributing more or less equally to combat and out of combat.
>>44004539
Okay.. but what will be boring is a function of more than the DM. The system itself can be a "boring as fuck" approach (which is what I'm saying it sounds like) and I suppose the DM can do their best to fight against that.
MMMMM sweet sweet subjectivity
>>44004569
OK, I can see that. Personally, I've done plenty of changing around for characters, monsters, etc., and it's never caused a problem- someone with lightning powers who wants to set something on fire will find a way.
I appreciate why your autism is there, but I don't agree with it.
>>44004596
>mmos
So are you denying that tabletop games have, for years, had classes and character archetypes designed to excel at certain aspects?
Further, you are claiming that it is a bad design decision to tell the player upfront what the design intentions are.
>>44004629
I don't prefer that. Whether I do or not, however, is beside the point.
Balance is important for MMOs, not so much for pen and paper, but of course that's the subject of another thread (that pops up from time to time.)
>>44004669
I'm just explaining why "you can refluff" reads as "you can change the rules" to a lot of people. I actually think 4e is a well designed game, it just doesn't match my style of autism.
I've been digging running 5e but it's just as narrow in playstyle as 4e imo. It's kinda niche in that it's good for folks who like autismal sim but not autismal rules length and like running improv heavy sandbox games.
>>44004457
This, basically.
If you want to play 'axe-throwing dwarven fighter', play a RANGER.
In 4e, RANGER and FIGHTER are just mechanical labels. Nobody, in-universe, says "I am a ranger" or "I am a fighter". They're not in-game concepts. They're mechanical concepts.
Likewise, if you want to be a 'high damage spellcaster' - you pick WARLOCK. Warlock is the 'high damage spellcaster class'. If you want your warlock to call himself a wizard, then you can do that no problem. I'm not sure why people have trouble understanding this.
>>44004654
But, on the other hand, I like that level of balance in 4e because it's part of the basic design of the game.
It doesn't use the whole 'three pillars' bullshit, it's clear that there are two theatres for the game to take place in: In Combat, and Out of Combat. Everyone needs to have value In Combat because that's the main thrust of the game (being adventurers and fighting guys). Out of Combat, some people are better at certain things than others (people with a bunch of social skills and high CHA at negotiating, rogues with trap detecting powers and DEX at exploration) but you are never totally useless. You can try, and probably be shitty at something, but you never hit a flat no.
>>44004703
How can you say it isn't important? Balance is always something worth striving for in anything you're calling a Game system (And these are RP*G*s, after all).
Balance means all members of the group will be able to contribute and enjoy the game, which is something I would always consider an asset. Of course balance doesn't need to be perfect, but it's always worth striving for. Shit like 3.PF where some characters (core Fighters) can be nigh on useless out of combat and not much better off in it, while fullcasters are dominant literally everywhere, can have a real and practical impact on the enjoyment of a group.
>>44004596
"To throw back the curtains" is not about dramatic bullshit. It is reference to the Wizard of Oz, referring to the reveal that The Wizard was just special effects and it was just a normal man behind it all. Toto pulled back the curtain hiding the man playing the Wizard and revealed the machines that made The Wizard possible.
In this case, the Roles have always existed in RPGs and good groups had characters that covered all the bases. Before 4e the game did not explicitly explain the roles and what classes belonged to what role. So in that sense it "revealed the man behind the curtains."
>>44004703
>Balance is important for MMOs, not so much for pen and paper
Gygax flat out disagreed with that sentiment.
>>44004693
I literally neither said nor implied any of those things. In fact I explicitly said that we already knew about the idea of class roles.
I also said that it comes down to what you like, not that this MMO-like focus is objectively bad.
>design intentions
It's clear you're not really arguing with me. I'll continue to let you yell into the wind.
>>44004784
>Gygax
Who gives a shit? I'm into an idea, not the guy who had an approximation of it early on.
>>44004725
And that's why it has good balance. A big problem of 3x was that aside from being the most poorly balanced edition of d&d, the skill system wildly fucked with the out of combat balance.
The three pillars shit really only works when combat isn't a big focus of the game. If combats are quicker, less frequent and there's more focus to other parts; then it becomes a more viable way to balance.
Really though, with three pillars design. the idea that everyone should be able to contribute to each section of play is a better way to balance. With 4e's focus on combat, everyone needing to contribute to combat becomes an essential part of balancing.
>>44004808
>I'm into an idea
The guy who laid the foundations of the game you are talking about spoke at length about the importance of balance in games, both among the players and within the world they are encountering.
You saying it's not important rails against the bones of the game itself, and is incredibly silly.
4e had a lot of problems, especially with core monsters and a little bit with the core paladin. But compared to core 3e and 5e, it's nothing. It's basically the best DnD edition to come out in the last 20 years.
Play 4e with as many PHBs as you want, the DMG, and either the MM3 or the Monster Vault, and it's the best DnD RaW experience you can have.
>>44004808
Balance in basic and 1e was loose but actually much better than in 3.x. Basic and 5e are about the same level of class balance.
>>44004787
>I also said that it comes down to what you like
You are ascribing to mmos a concept that has existed in pnp games for decades.
Stop saying shit that is flat out wrong.
>>44004856
The biggest issue in 5e I've found is padded sumo combat. The saving throw thing and bounded accuracy are big departures from most editions but I consider them features.
>>44003498
I don't like running it or playing it, but all the yelling about it is just *ridiculous*.
It really had some legitimately good ideas, but didn't really use them or present them very well. Good game design, bad user experience design.
Altogether I would say Gamma World improves on the formula and streamlines things--if you aren't put off by the mutation and tech cards.
>>44004901
Gamma World was actually the best 4e product out there, and one of the best things WotC has ever put out, and it's a shame that no one plays it.
>>44004741
It's absolutely dramatic bullshit hyperbole, moreso if you draw a comparison to WoO. It implies that the designers were actively deceiving customers into thinking that there weren't class roles. We knew well before 4E that this was a feature of the system, and you could choose to make it a focal point or not.
>>44004926
Bullshit.
'We knew' isn't even relevant. The information was under the hood, but it wasn't actually explained to you anywhere in the system. Your anecdotal experience isn't evidence compared to being able to look up the books themselves. In 3.x? No details of the under the hood design ideas, even if they were there. In 4e, they were clearly laid out and explained. 'Throwing back the curtain' is an entirely accurate description and you're just getting wrapped up in pedantic bitching.
>>44004849
The... bones of the game? What a flowery way to be wrong.
That Gygax got the ball rolling doesn't make his ideas gospel. He doesn't have some spiritual connection with the soul of D&D.
Balance is good, but not so important for pnp as it is for MMOs. I somehow feel like I'm being asked to defend the 3.PF situation with all this horseshit about balance. I won't be doing that.
One of 4e's big problems was that its first free published adventure, for use with the Quickstart, was Keep on the Shadowfell.
And Keep on the Shadowfell was SHIT. Bad adventure design, filled with trash enemies, that didn't follow any of the DMG guidelines about encounter design and rests per day.
Turned off a lot of people, because it made 4e look like a long dull combat slog all day erryday
>>44004925
It's so much easier to hack into other genres than 4e, and the categorical gear is great. It brazenly shifts gears from how other D&D-patterned games are focused, so it's both familiar and a breath of fresh air.
I've been running a "MechaWorld" campaign with it and it's been a perfect fit. We created a setting from scratch; pilots use Lasers & Feelings rules, with Gamma World skills being stuff the mech can do through either unique equipment or software.
Mutations are static and we call them "Alpha Equipment", with the option over time to find more Alpha modules to choose from before a sortie.
Omega Tech cards will be things like special and heavy weapons, and essentially be magic items.
Fits like a glove. Couldn't be happier.
>>44004926
In 3.x deceiving the player was part of the design paradigm. It was there to reward players for Rules Mastery.
>>44005069
Related, to show anon isn't blowing smoke out of his ass. System mastery didn't just mean 'finding the best combo,' it meant avoiding the traps the designers deliberately put in there.
>>44005069
>>44005127
At the very least he clearly realized looking back that it was not a good idea, and even then that it wasn't executed well regardless.
>>44004959
You're fighting really hard to defend this silly imagery of the dramatic curtain reveal.
You're suggesting that a role system was sekretly buried in the rules before and the designers... shifty fuckers they are... were trying to confuse us and have us worry about the bright lights and loud noises over there!
No, child: a notion of roles was available based on the core rules, but enhanced and made the focal point for 4E. It wasn't a reveal. It was a reorientation.
>>44005245
Okay. Prove it. Find me a passage in a 3.x book (Not even a core book, just anywhere) which lays out the idea of roles. I can wait.
>>44005288
Not him, but are we talking about specifically codified and named roles, a la 4e's role-as-niche design hook, or what?
>>44005039
How is "Making all players feel relevant" Not important?
>>44005425
Well, more generally we're talking about the difference in design philosophy between 3.x and 4e. 3.x had a lot of obfuscation (as seen in >>44005127), burying actual design intent behind the mechanics for the players to figure out over time, while 4e 'pulled back the curtain' (An appropriate turn of phrase that an anon is strangely mad about) and instead laid out all its design ideas for the players to see, making its mechanics transparent and easy to understand.
>>44005069
I don't care about 3.x, I will say that it was no shrouded mystery that the concept of roles was available.
>>44005288
Prove what? That having more hitpoints and access to heavy armor/weapons suggests a tactical differentiation from a character with low hitpoints, little to no armor and area of effect spells?
I'm not sure exactly what you've decided I'm arguing. 3.x is stupid but if you wanted to settle on a tactical role for your class choice then the rules for that class gave you an easy to interpret build that helps determine that role.
I know I'm not providing a page reference and so I lose the argument I was never having with you. Them's the breaks, I suppose.
>>44005475
Well I think the argument is silly even without spelling it out for 3 editions players did realized that you needed to bring certain classes to fill roles in your party.
We gotta bring a cleric for cure x wounds we need the wizard for sleep, we need a fighter to keep trolls away from the d4 HD guys, and we need a thief for traps.
This notion was sprung on people who have played dnd before, but I think it is silly for people to look at the roll system and say that it's terrible, 4e just gave a name to those designations.
No longer do we need a cleric, we just need a "Leader" it's the same thing just a different coat of paint.
>>44005475
Ah, fair enough.
Yeah, 3.X leans very strongly on the metacommentary and community to really function as it's intended.
There are *some* books that kind of talk about things like roles. I know Eberron talks a little about the roles of existing classes, but that's honestly kind of an incidental thing spinning off from the sort of setting it is.
>>44005608
>we need a fighter to keep trolls away from the d4 HD guys
In no edition besides 4e has this been a thing a fighter can actually do unless they take specific feats. Nothing in 3e or 5e stops a troll walking right past a fighter, taking a hit if they want, and them slamming right into a wizard. I don't know where people get this idea that DnD has 'meatshields' from because nothing in the rules backs it up.
4e DOES allow this in the fighter's moveset, and in 5e you can ALMOST replicate it with the Unearthed Arcana 'Tunnel Fighter' fighting style and the Sentinel feat.
>>44005700
Nah you're right that's why people rolled around with 4 wizards and a cleric in their parties
>>44005700
I guess positioning and formations were never a thing in any edition of d&d.
>>44005700
>I'll take "Grapple actions" for 500 Alex
>>44005788
Neither of which are functions of classes.
>>44005757
I've been in many "No Martials" parties. Mostly they were a mix of Druids, Clerics, and Wizards.
>>44005700
In 5E you can grapple most things that aren't significantly bigger than you, which prevents them from moving. Not as elegant as the 4E Fighter's abilities but certainly effective and it makes more sense in-game. If a Troll's trying to get past you to stomp on the Wizard, attacking him isn't going to do much and getting in his way will just get you smacked aside. Grabbing him by the leg and wrestling him to the ground might not work, since he's huge and all, but if it does then it's very effective.
>>44005826
Ah two classes the can still be used as meat shields bravo
>>44005828
>>44005802
They can just be STR clerics instead of fighters, then. In 3e and 5e, both are superior to being a fighter.
tl;dr:
>3.5 causes brain damage.
>4e has real flaws but no one cares what they are because they have brain damage.
>5e is rehab for brain damaged people.
>>44005826
The fighter had to function as a meat shield because they had the best saves in the game, access to heavy armor and tons of hp. The high saves, high AC, and high hp were ways the martials actually mattered in older editions.
Zones of control were also more hard defense than opportunity attacks were.
The function of classes was that casters couldn't survive or even cast spells if they were in a melee. The low hp, ac, and worse saves(for example, fighters had the best will saves in the game) mattered a lot more mages didn't even get the benefit of concentration checks.
> Druids, Clerics, and Wizards.
You really shouldn't make claims about "every edition but 4e" when you're only talking about 3.x. A party like that would be absolutely stomped in older editions. Especially since the cleric had worse saves, worse AC, and virtually no combat spells other than healing compared to 3.x.
>>44005936
Certain battlemaster builds are pretty superior in combat to clerics desu.
>>44005936
Why are you just pulling examples from 3e and 5e? We've been talking about DnD as a whole not just 3 specific editions anon.
Damn you're dense.
>>44005990
damn man tell me about this battlemaster 5e build that stands up to some cleric calling down thunder from the sky and cursing his foes with blindness
>>44005990
>Certain builds of fighter can outfight a cleric
>It takes proper building and careful planning to do what your class does best better than someone who can do it in addition to their main role
Okay
>>44003498
It attempted to use a TTRPG brand and name to sell a board game, its attempt at broadening the market alienated the largest portion of the brands fanbase.
It's mostly an economics thing that made all publishers and companies hate it, designers don't hate things just because of game play.
>>44006122
Except, y'know, that's not true. 4e sold amazingly well. The negative reaction to it was large, but not enough to make it anything close to a failure. The problem was that Hasbro set sales targets for D&D based on MtG, and it was impossible for an RPG to match that.
It's why 5e is a much smaller and more limited game, with less staff and support. The reason it's such a rejection of 4e is Mike Mearls being a shitter.
>>44003999
I think you must be retarded, because many, many fucking groups play gridless.
>>44006051
The battlemaster uses his ranged attacks and reactions to disrupt the clerics spellcasting. The dex battlemaster shurgs off the laughably poor scaling on high level spell damage and uses his maneuvers to target weak saving throws. The battlemaster also uses his superior single target damage and mobility to whittle the clerics hp quicker than the cleric can whittle his.
If the battlemaster has the mage killer feat, then the cleric isn't going to be able to really do shit to him. If the dex battlemaster gets wisdom as a save, then the cleric isn't to succeed on any of those save or suck spells.
5e charop threads have been over this a million times. In one on one, there isn't any full caster who can handle a well built martial. It usually comes down to the martial being able to kill the caster in two turns, the caster needing 4-5 turns to kill the martial and the way saving throw scaling works, puts the advantage in the martials favor. A successful attack will generally debuff whatever buff, flying, etc. the caster has up.
>>44006191
>[Citation nonexistant] WotC does not and had never released sales data. The best we have are insiders like Joseph Goodman who broke good business sense and posted about the extreme pressure people were feeling over losing money with 4e.
This isn't an attack on the game, take your blinders off.
>>44005245
>No, child
You actually swayed me with your post until this point. Pretentiousness of this caliber disarms your entire point regardless of if you are right or not.
>>44006230
Piggybacking off your argument, the game isn't PvP.
But the CharOp forums are even more devastating when you compare high level encounters.
A Balor can teleport in, full-to-3-boxes dead,gib a wizard 90+% of the time.
Then lose to the Champion.
>>44003498
made shit really basic for casuals and combat was really weird and fucked
some people thought it was trying to be a video game
Not impossible to have fun with though but it had a lot of stupid shit in it
>>44006335
It always bugs me when folks bring up PvP and talk about a wizard flying and then dropping 4 buffs and killing the fighter with his "omg so high damage spells"
It's like they haven't even read the rules.
>>44006191
>with less staff and support
Less staff, yes, but I wouldn't say less support. Just that it's supported in different ways.
Adventurer's League, a very strong Twitter presence by the primary designers, and continual open playtesting and surveys--on the whole, I prefer this way of steering the game over monthly splats.
>>44006418
Do you actually have any points, or are you just spewing buzzwords?
>>44006525
I'm curious what buzzwords you think he used?
Are you enjoying using buzzword as a buzzword?
>>44006511
The cost of advertisement has gone down shockingly with social media.
Therefore profit margins have gone up.
>>44006560
The ones I spotted...
>>trying to be a video game
>>casuals>>fun
>>44006511
My big dissapointment with the support isn't the lack of splats since that kills game lines. And I do think adventures are a better way to support the game.
My disappointment is that we aren't seeing "campaign splats". Things like say a book with rules for mass combat, domain management, classes and feats for it. Or not just a "sailing splat" but an entire campaign level addon with rules and whatnot for nautical campaigns.
>>44006597
He said that some people saw it as trying to be a video game, which is true enough.
As for fun? Yeah, no such thing so I concede that one.
>>44006662
The Unearthed Arcana feature provides alot of that kind of stuff as well
>>44006662
What do you qualify the Sword Coast book as?
>>44006741
It's pretty close and it's a damn good setting resource but I'm talking more things that make the game radically different than a new setting. More "book of rules to make the game more tactical" or "want some wilderness adventure autism? Here's tons more rules for travel, herbalism, crafting with monster parts, etc."
Something really for drifting the game into completely different playstyles.
>>44006737
It does but I wish that content would be more well playtested and make its way into published material. Though unearthed arcana is really more for them to get feedback on playtest material. So hopefully it'll make its way into published books.
>>44006662
Yeah, there's a risk it might swing that way. I don't think it will, but it's a non-zero chance.
I don't doubt that there'll be a book that might normally have been a DMG II that will have that sort of content. Maybe a "Campaign Option Book" or something like that. It'd only be a matter of when.
>>44004606
Also, a Slayer is technically a Fighter in 4e, meaning there is in fact a Ranged Fighter option that can just throw axes if that is what you want.
>>44004856
What was wrong with the core Pally?
I only played to like level 9 as a Warlord
>>44003999
You're so fucking dumb. 4/5ths of the groups I've ever played with played gridless.
>>44005434
You're speaking at multiple definitions of the term "balanced."
Early D&D wasn't "balanced" in the way that modern gamers might expect, but every player felt relevant anyways.
Contrariwise, it's possible to feel irrelevant in a game that's tightly "balanced" like 4e, due to a number of reasons that I won't bother listing because nobody is reading this anyways and even if they were, it'd get argued into oblivion over semantice anyways.
>>44007873
>Early D&D wasn't "balanced" in the way that modern gamers might expect, but every player felt relevant anyways.
A big part of that was the differences in how XP was acquired by class and how much was needed to level.
As much as the potential for caster supremacy existed in, say, 2e, 3e's standardized XP made it something you *had* to acknowledge.
>>44007960
Although a hilarious/depressing number of people still dispute it.
>>44007960
I think also, out of combat, since there wasn't a real skill system, a character with high charisma, high dex or high str had similar levels of out of combat things they could do regardless of their class.
I remember that prestige class for Dragonborn that lets you get wings and I convinced my DM to let me burn a feet for just the wings but they were non functional but cool for when I was intimidating someone or just trying to be heroic
4e was flawed sure but its not like it was the Antifun
A lot of people thought the DMG's 'page 42' was "all environments scale to your level!" rather than what it was actually saying, which is "an appropriate DC for adventurers of level X is Y."
i.e. The lock on the gates of heaven is a challenge for level 20 adventurers and has an appropriate DC compared to an innkeeper's safe.
>>44008974
It is written that way, but obviously common sense shouldn't let that actually be true.
However, if you start applying Rule Zero, then it gets awkward because you can't dismiss as many pro-3.x arguments.
>>44004722
There's a bit of a problem here
While this is mostly true. Rangers will always be trained in either dungeoneering or nature, which, while it doesn't matter so much with 'axe-throwing dwarven fighter' who would probably be trained in dungeoneering on account of being a dwarf, but a 'spear-throwing gladiator' doesn't have much reason to be trained in either, and explaining that away is a bit annyoing
>>44011490
Agreed - 4e would have been much better if they'd just said "pick 6 skills to be trained in".
They were torn between improving the game, and 'staying true' to the past.
>>44003519
I came here to post this.
Also, Wizards promised a bunch of support that came way too little, too late, and then cancelled it all. It had nothing to do with the rules themselves, but it gave detractors something else to rag on.
I think I still prefer optimising for 4e over optimising for 3.5
Sure there's more stuff to optimise with for 3.5, but in 3.5 it feels as though I have to choose between a fun build or an effective one, whereas in 4e it's far more likely for them to be one in the same
>>44013931
3.5 can be fun but it's more of an 'exercise in limitations'.
Like, you can have a fantastic, really fun, RAW 3.5e campaign... you just have to limit everyone to tier 3 or below. maaaaaybe some low tier2.
4e works out of the box - even the shit you need to fix doesn't need too much fixing.
It's 3.x edition design philosophy implemented correctly (without the fuckups). Which is "we are making a game solely about beating up monsters and fiddling with wonky stats."
I like the combat rules for what they are. It's sort of a sub-game in the main game that's intended to stroke your stats-n-dice boner. You like stats? You like rolling dice? You like tactics and beating monster face? 4e has all you can want and more. It's all abstract and intended to be fluffed as you go, as far as actual roleplaying goes. But it doesn't need to be the main game. It's just an oversized gameplay add-on that has a LOT of extra options in it.
Everything outside of combat is THE MOST CORRECTEST: you just describe what you're doing and fucking do it, maybe making a dice roll based on the DM's whims every now and then. They try to tack on some recommended rules for skills, like those godawful skill challenges, but there's no compulsion or dependency that forces you to subject yourself to that crap. There's nothing stopping you from pulling out an older edition book and using a subsystem from that when you're not beating monster face.
There's no reason to bitch about 4e. It's a great set of fighting-monsters-on-a-grid rules. But anyone who prefers less rules, less stats, less fiddling around with game mechanics, they already lost interest in any edition of D&D after it was acquired by Wizards.
>>44014714
2e came about before Wizards bought D&D, and that has so many fucking tables for the most random shit that here is no way that you can argue it involves "less fiddling around with game mechanics"
>>44006662
I'm ticked off about killing the forums.
I still used those things for finding 4e guides. Now I need to Wayback Machine them.
>>44014989
quite a few of those guides were frustratingly out-of-date
The druid guide for example recommends a polearm-momentum build, despite the fact that the feat was errata'd to only work with weapon attacks
Anyone remember 4e Touhoufag?
>>44015108
Some were out of date, yeah but they were still bloody useful.
>>44014856
I think you meant to say 1e, which had a lot more tables and bullshit in it than 2e. But what you fail to see is that all those things were subsystems. Which means you don't have to use them if you don't want to.
When I said fiddling around with game mechanics, I meant video game shit. You know, playing with numbers to create a "build." Stat me, and all that shit. Rules SOLELY for their own sake, because rules are fun (as indeed they are, to an extent). Not rules to help facilitate things or make the game easier to play. Just rules because it's a game and games have rules and it's fun to talk about rules because we're nerds.
The rules of pre-Wizards D&D just existed to help the DM make rulings when situations came up so they didn't feel flustered to improvise on the spot. All the old school designers will tell you how baffled they were when people would mail them rules questions, like they were gods. Everyone's rulings are equally valid, because there is no "system" you have to work within, whose mechanics you can accidentally break if you don't know it in and out. It's all just a bunch of independent little tables for you to reference for specific scenarios, by and large.
>>44003498
>>44003591
>mechanically it's fine
Not until MM3 and the later player handbooks.
The math wasn't necessarily broken (some bits were but it is D&D so what do you expect), but it did make many aspects of the game a horrifically monotonous chore, specifically combat against a huge chunk of the monster statblocks turning into an awful grind.
There's no reason to buy 4e now that Strike! exists, unless you want to give WoTC money for an unsupported product (unless you can get it dirt cheap).
>>44014989
I remember making a really neat sorcerer/rogue buils that used a dagger to teleport and use his spells as melee attacks never knew if it was any good in practice since wizards eratta'd the weapon implement feat
>>44014418
3.5 and 4e optimisation both have elements of stracking feats and features together until they make a cohesive whole.
I prefer doing it in 4e though, as there are far, far fewer feats in 4e that have other feats as prerequisites.
4e also has my personal favourite example of it.
Fighter (class) + glaive (heavyblade/polearm weapon) + cleave (at-will) + heave blade opportunity (feat: use at-will powers instead of MBAs on OAs when wielding a heavy blade) +
longhand student (feat: cleave now pushes the target 1 square on hit) + polearm master (paragon path: level 11 feature: all push/pull/slide effects push/pull/slide 1 extra square) + polearm momentum (feat: if you push/slide an enemy 2 squares, you can knock them prone at the end) + polearm gamble (feat: get an OA when an enemy enters a square adjacent to you) = an impassable defender
>>44005757
Fan-nicknames for class roles in 3.x include "God" and "Dead Weight". That's a pretty strong implication. And this is from pre-4e charop boards.
>>44006265
4e books have been consistently in the top seller charts of Amazon, the NY times, and other sources until 2010, when Essentials happened (and it was a bad move from a marketing standpoint).
WotC never released sales numbers but representatives declared that the initial print runs were higher than 3.5 and sold out completely.
Goodman is a 3PP which was a bad place to be during 4e beacuse they were completely cut off from the digital offering and thus never gained any real traction.
Plus it's a well known fact that what killed 4e eventually were the absurd income goals set by hasbro that led to some pretty stupid marketing decisions in the last year.
>>44016162
Please, that's been an outdated build for a long time.
>>44016338
Outdated by errata or a superior build?
>>44015984
This is quite an overstatement. The math wasn't perfect at the start, true, but it was a matter of a couple of points beyond the expected ratio, which could be recuperated in other ways. It wasn't by a long shot the issue that these threads make it.
Now, a real problem was the design of a number of specific monsters, that were severely non-interactive (examples: the MM1 hydra, tons of HP but low AC and many attacks with low bonuses, or the dracolich with repeteable stuns). That is the great innovation of the latter MMs, giving monsters more interesting things to do in fights. But the math wasn't that much of a problem.
>>44014989
They've been moved to ENworld.
>>44014714
>Which is "we are making a game solely about beating up monsters and fiddling with wonky stats."
You know that there are two books about the design intentions on the authors? And while there's no denying that "beating up monsters" is a big part of it but there were a lot of other things going on.
Also skill challenges are perfectly fine if the DM is not retarded. I never hear complaints about all the other games that have similar rules, but in D&D somehow they're bad.
>>44004279
I actually like the teamwork thing. It's a bit weird when you come at the game from 3.x, but I think it rather fits with AD&D, though the combat rules apply more on a tactical level.
>>44004338
3.x is more of an exercise in combining powers/feats to build a powerful character. It's also crazy broken. To be honest I'm not sure 5E isn't going down 3.x's issues but with less options at the moment.
>>44003498
It's not what made people lose their shit over it (that'd be "not 3.x" and a shitload of 3.x players plus the internet) but a legit flaw I've heard of is you not gaining much from new powers, and I certainly do feel like there are a bunch of things ticking up as you level for no good reason. But I'm by no means an expert when it comes to the system.
>>44004662
I shouldn't respond to this in case you're shitstirring/baiting, but the system does not have a boring as fuck approach, and you're turning "it's bad with a shit DM" into "it's bad unless you have a great DM", which is two different things.
You're confusing one poster's inability to write an elevator pitch that appeals to you with actual game quality.
Other pitch: You like Hero Quest? You like Final Fantasy Tactics? Got you covered. Things that don't need rules* are gone, this is a game of dungeon delving. A game of Dungeons and Dragons. This is High Fantasy. Go Big or Go Home.
*Who the fuck rolls to weave baskets in an adventurer party, ever? Why would an adventurer of average intelligence be literally unable to do anything but swing a sword around?
>>44016305
>Top best seller lists for books
That's entirely based on release date actually, it's an interesting process and well-studied. Also meaningless as you have to balance sales to the cost of marketing and production costs. (It's called Net Profit)
>It's a well-known fact.
No, it's commonly circulated, 100% unsupported bullshit made up by someone during an edition war fight.
It's neat because it's interesting to watch how something circulated by random people can be latched onto by people who feel the need to associate themselves with a product.
However, not only is it false, it doesn't even make sense from a business standpoint.
>>44005057
>>44004138
To be fair, it seems to be a rare miracle when game designers realize how goddamn important a good or excellent starter adventure is for an RPG. Not just to set an example for adventure design, but to teach the game to newcomers.
I can't name a single good adventure for D&D* - all the good ones I've heard about are for entirely different game lines: Transylvania Chronicles, Horror on the Orient Express...
*(usually because people don't bring up D&D adventures, but still)
>>44016564
>No, it's commonly circulated, 100% unsupported bullshit made up by someone during an edition war fight.
>It's neat because it's interesting to watch how something circulated by random people can be latched onto by people who feel the need to associate themselves with a product.
>However, not only is it false, it doesn't even make sense from a business standpoint.
Not random people. Ryan Dancey said that, a former WotC employee and one of the minds behind the OGL.
He was also working for Paizo at the time he wrote that piece, so he wasn't exactly the one to defend WotC.
What I find fascinating is that facts that were know at the time get diluted over the years and end up being dismissed as "it's just edition warrior narrative". But whatever.
>>44003498
>It was a completely different experience than the games it was claiming to be like.
>They discontinued the game it was named after and it's not even close to an adequate replacement if you liked the prior edition and wanted something similar but new/revised.
>Lots of PR fuckups around release time and after:
>>Insulting the customers who liked 3.5, on film
>>Destroying/Discontinuing settings many people loved.
>>Clawing back people's purchases on dtrpg when they decided o stop selling some stuff
>>Promised support for 4e that never came.
In short; a combination of PR Fumbles, and bad business decisions on WotCs part pissed a lot of people off.
>>44016407
Where on ENworld?
>>44016610
>Insulting the customers who liked 3.5, on film
What? Is this about the Gnome video?
>>44016608
I don't think he said what you think he said, anon.
It's just like the D&D insider "stats" for sales that were proven grossly wrong half a decade ago but are still purported by people who love 4e more than reality.
>>44016648
Haha. No, it was some shit Mike Mearls said at a press conference/convention, IIRC.
>>44016610
Which setting got discontinued that people loved?
FR stayed (The spellplague was a clusterfuck but remember: The Time of Troubles was the last edition change. FR always gets fucked sideways when editions change), Ebberon stayed, Dragonlance got support, Ravenloft was about and so was Dark Sun and THE Spelljammer was statted in one of the books.
>>44016655
Ok then, find what he DID say rather than going 'No, you are lying' to everything.
>>44003498
it wasent d&d
if they had called it d&d tactics or something I would have been fine with it.
some people just dident like the mechanics but that happens with every system not everybody will like a games mechanics
there were a few retarded complaints against it though the main one being that it played like an mmo that was retarded and untrue.
>>44015984
>There's no reason to buy 4e now that Strike! exists, unless you want to give WoTC money for an unsupported product (unless you can get it dirt cheap).
Wait... there are people who use things other than pirated PDF's and the offline builder? My friends and I LOVE 4e, but none of us actually invested any money into it, because we don't invest money into ttrpg.... it's not a money-sinking hobby.
>>44003890
how the fuck does d&d have to use a map specificly
>>44016667
I was thinking FR & Ravenloft, FR in particular. Time of Troubles was nothing compared to blowing up most of the continent, all sorts of cultural/racial behavior that makes no sense given the history of the setting (like all of the elves that suddenly became "eladrin" suddenly changing their cultural identity over what amounts to one decade of their life and forgetting millennia long gripes), among many other things, and advancing the timeline 100 years invalidates a ton of other things in the setting.
The shattered forgotten realms bore little resemblance to any of the previous editions of the forgotten realms, and was basically a completely different setting, but with some version of waterdeep dropped in.
>>44016700
I mean a mat specificly
>>44016703
Gold and Moon elves (The guys who became Eladrin) were still assholes at each other's neck. They just became teleporting assholes at each other's neck.
The Time of Troubles was also kinda a big deal. The nerd tears flowed freely back then too with them killing gods and replacing them with what people thought were shitty knockoff replacements (Mystra/Midnight)
Ravenloft was still Ravenloft.
>>44003604
>especially as it came to crafting artifacts
that's an interesting complaint to hear
I assume you meant magic items in general though but still I always thought making magic items was to slow although I don't auctualy think the caster supremacy is as bad as people say in general.
>>44016723
I mean how does 4e need one fuck I need to think before I hit submit.
>>44005959
>5e is rehab for brain damaged people.
you mean because its so empty of content that people don't have to do any thinking
>>44005936
>In 3e and 5e, both are superior to being a fighter.
why do people still spill this bullshit.
>>44016757
Well, in 3e it's pretty damn true.
>>44016641
They're around the "Emergency lifeboat" subforum.
>>44016760
no its not caster supremecy Is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be
I wonder if maybe the reason people think fighters cant be useful is because there not giving them enough magic swords or something.
>>44016798
Yes it is.
It's horrifically true and 'Extra feats' does not make up for the other guy having 9th level casting.
>>44016655
>Sometime around 2005ish, Hasbro made an internal decision to divide its businesses into two categories. Core brands, which had more than $50 million in annual sales, and had a growth path towards $100 million annual sales, and Non-Core brands, which didn't.
>Core Brands would get the financing they requested for development of their businesses (within reason). Non-Core brands would not. They would be allowed to rise & fall with the overall toy market on their own merits without a lot of marketing or development support. In fact, many Non-Core brands would simply be mothballed - allowed to go dormant for some number of years until the company was ready to take them down off the shelf and try to revive them for a new generation of kids.
>Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it.
>The team did a yoeman's effort to make 4e work anyway while the VTT evolved, but they simply couldn't hit the numbers they'd promised selling books alone.
Source:http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Some-History
What I gather from this is that WotC set an high goal for 4e sales, that they couldn't reach, and when the sales started declining there were a number of attempts to shake things up that didn't work for a number of reasons (see Essentials, Fortune cards, et al) and ultimately led to closing down the 4e line.
The drastic change in the development and marketing modes we are seeing in 5e shows pretty clearly that the 4e model was unsustainable and thus scaled way down.
Now, to me it seems that it's you who bought into the "4e was a commercial failure" line and are incapable of seeing what actually happened.
>>44016688
>it's not d&d
What's Dungeons and Dragons to you? Vancian casting? Every always says that but never qualify it so that they exclude 4e.
>>44016675
>"No, this quote contradicts all the other people who said otherwise. I promise it exists, now you find it. Burden of proof on saying something doesn't exist after all."
Oh, his bad.
"Everything that anon said was correct." ~Ryan Dancey
>>44016823
All your conclusion doesn't follow, all it says is that they divide things.
>>44016836
You have about as much evidence as the other side here has. Nothing.
This thread kinda wants me to play 4E again
>>44016824
Generally everyone who says "it doesn't feel like D&D" really means "it doesn't feel like OGL d20" 9/10 times.
However, for many of the people who mean that, OGL d20 is what they learned D&D with, and it's what they learned nearly every other genre of role-playing with, because it dominated the market with [insert-genre]d20 games for a LONG time. If you've only had one brand of soda as your only beverage for your entire life, and suddenly you tasted iced-tea, it stands to reason you might say "this doesn't taste like a beverage."
>>44016843
>Success for 4e was defined (by Wizards) as generating annual revenues between $50 and $100 million. By that (self-imposed) definition, it is a failure.
>If it were working financially, you wouldn't have seen Essentials. Essentials, to me, was the visible indicator that the strategy of selling the highest margin product - the core books, had failed for 4e, and that Wizards was seeking to make revenues (and profits) elsewhere. As I didn't see a huge groundswell of reaction to Essentials, I conclude that the strategy didn't work either.
Source: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column/page20#ixzz3tXTN4Mzb
So, since the sources disprove your point you are recurring to the "no u" position? come on.
>>44016868
Plenty of people do still. I find that 4e games on roll20 are much more likely to survive past the first session than any other sort of D&D.
>>44016882
I also find they don't last much after like level 10
Though I hear the 3rd MM fixes one of the main reasons why
>>44016798
>I wonder if maybe the reason people think fighters cant be useful is because there not giving them enough magic swords or something
>>44016925
The only time I've ever had games last past level 10 in 4e is when we started at level 11 or 21. Where they've gone to level 20 and 30 respectively.
The "tier" divisions in 4e are a bit harder than I think the designers intended, it's much easier to start at level 11 with the paragon path in the backstory than it is to explain the paragon path over the course of going from level 10 to level 11
>>44016925
Our 4e game is in it's 4th year.
We take breaks during the Summer.
23rd level now. After the DM figured out the right defense/damage/HP balance for antagonists, it was smooth sailing.
>>44016925
>>44016968
>it's much easier to start at level 11 with the paragon path in the backstory than it is to explain the paragon path over the course of going from level 10 to level 11
Starting at level 5 works pretty well also. I just wrapped up a lvl 5-26 epic fantasy-novel adventure, and am starting up a new follow up campaign in the setting they helped create.
>>44016925
>3rd MM
MM3 is the best OGLd20 game out there, but that's only because there's nothing of value to compare it to. I honestly wouldn't suggest MM3 as anything other than a TTRPG "nicotine patch" to ween people off of OGL games.
>>44017014
I think he meant MM as in Monster Manual, not Mutants and Masterminds.
>>44017023
>I think he meant MM as in Monster Manual, not Mutants and Masterminds.
Ah... that would have been more clear a few hours ago when I was more lucid. Thanks anon.
>>44016882
I'm in a game of it that's been going on just over a year.
It's proving a lot of fun so far. A whole heap of people having adventures in Ebberon...of which none are actually natives of the nation we are working in.
>>44016873
This is what kills me.
I started with 2e, and played almost every version except Chainmail and 5e, because I finally got sick of the bullshit, and all the people in meatspace are diehard 3.pf tryhards that barely play any other game period.
I don't understand the mindset. I've played so many different games and systems that I can't remember them all offhand, and still want to try more (my boy is interested in Mouseguard and Hackmaster). Why not play new shit? Why not expand your palette?
>>44018052
You have played 3.PF, so you know what it's like
3.PF is a complex and overwhelming beast, there are so many books, so many rules, so, so many trap options and OP options.
And if that's all you've ever known, naturally you'd assume every other tabletop rpg is the same.
So they choose to stay within their little sphere, because they fear spending years learning the ins-and-outs of other systems for little reward.
>>44003498
It was different
4e taught me a very important lesson. That lesson is to to do /tg/ style shit with your actual friends; never meet-up/make friends/campaign with someone else because they are a fan of this stuff. Sure most of my friends aren't nerdy enough to enjoy /tg/ type stuff on their own, but despite that they are still open minded enough to try things out no matter how different they are.
The only real weakness to 4e is the fact that combat goes on for too long, even after the MM fixes. But after the fixes it is nowhere near as bad with the "DnD turns take fucking forever" as the editions before it.
Imo 4e is probably the best DnD edition. It's probably my favorite system to use whenever we are playing a campaign akin to Fire Emblem/Final Fantasy Tactics/Tactics Ogre.
I guess I'm late to the thread, but I'll contribute anyway because I like posting things that will be completely ignored.
At first, the backlash against 4e was of course that it was the new thing and it was different. But it's not as if it was entirely unreasonable--people were heavily invested in 3/3.5, and there was a fuckhuge library of splatbooks (both from WOTC and 3rd-party publishers) and homebrew content, and suddenly this new, different system was incompatible with the old stuff.
The second issue is that there are, in many ways, less options to make characters meticulously crafted to each individual player's tastes. Each character, at the beginning, is little more than their race, class, and personality in 4e--contrast with the options for feats and skills and spells and all other else in 3.5e.
There are some other things which come down to preference, too. All classes in 4e work essentially the same, allowing people to take on any class and know how to play it as long as they can adapt to the role. But, that makes it feel like there's no actual difference between the classes, and classes that play the same role can feel like essentially the same thing but with a different coat of paint.
>>44019082
>The second issue is that there are, in many ways, less options to make characters meticulously crafted to each individual player's tastes. Each character, at the beginning, is little more than their race, class, and personality in 4e--contrast with the options for feats and skills and spells and all other else in 3.5e.
A big part of this was also people comparing 4+ years of 3.5 releases with the initial offer of 4e's PHB and making up their mind right then and there.
By the end of 4e you had around 40 classes to choose from, character themes, subraces and a bunch of other stuff.
>>44019117
Not to mention that the sheer quantity of character options is 3.5's biggest strength
You can't really compare ANY RPG to 3.5 in that regard, there's just a stupidly humongous amount of stuff for that system
>>44019082
>All classes in 4e work essentially the same, allowing people to take on any class and know how to play it as long as they can adapt to the role. But, that makes it feel like there's no actual difference between the classes, and classes that play the same role can feel like essentially the same thing but with a different coat of paint.
This isn't true at all though. Each class is designated for a particular role. It's also why it's the most balanced form of DnD. A wizard is great, but can't do all four roles better than everyone else akin to 3.PF
Also people that say there aren't as many roleplay options are bullshitting. The skills are more generalized, but that's a good thing because it's a better middle ground for having skill stats. Example of this: say...I wanna play a character akin to any of the main characters in Assassin's Creed. If I wanna skill him correctly, I would have to give him an absurdly high INT stat in 3.PF which makes no sense. But such a character is more easily done and role played in 4e with its generalized skills. So as a result 4e opens up even more role playing options; it just has less hand holding when it comes to role playing.
>>44019202
There are some really flexible classes in 4e though
A Bard, for example, is inherently a leader, but also has a bunch of powerful control spells and can be built as both a meaty frontliner or a heavy damage dealer.
Most classes can't dabble in all four roles like a bard can, but every class is at least a little bit capable of doing another role's job.
>>44019297
Yeah each class does have the ability to fullfill a secondary role, but doesn't do it as well as those that specialize in it. Bard can do all four roles, but a Bard is jack of all trades (unlike 3.PF Wizard who's master of all trades.)
>>44019482
Well, most of the time, again, there are exceptions to the rule. A charisma warlock can, for example, match most controller classes for hard control, and a charging fighter can exceed a surprising number of pure striker classes for single target damage.
Then again, a character with no race and no class can do good damage if optimised for charging
>>44003498
It's like they tried to make MMORPG: Tabletop Edition
>>44003498
Eliminating Vancian magic was a poor choice.
>>44019584
But a CHA Lock for example will never be able to match someone like a Wizard who's the absolute expert at control. Not to mention if you spend that many points in making a Lock a controller he won't be as good a DPS. Same with a Fighter if you spend too many points on the charge stuff he won't be as good a tank. It's all still balanced out.
>>44019604
>>44019622
can't you said what you want in a single post?
>thank God for IP counts
>>44003604
That's pretty accurate. It's also exactly what many people didn't like about it.
>>44019626
I never said it didn't balance out, but you can still play several classes that are categorised into one role as a different role, which was my point.
The roles are not as hard and fast as they appear
>>44019651
Which is cool cuz they there's some level of versatility in builds without making everyone play the exact same.
>>44019626
Wizards in 4e are bullshit, spell focus is so fucking good that it would be necessary on every single controller class, but is only availabele to wizards, while the others have to make do with multiclassing into warlock for a paragon path or weaker versions of spell focus
>>44003498
Long story short is that it gets boring really quickly.
It was new and fresh for a while, but it has so many awful design decisions that outweigh the good ones that the game becomes monotonous after two or three sessions.
The few people who can't see that are the people who think people hate it just because it's different, when the real answer is that people hate it because it's just not as fun as they pretend it is.
>>44003872
Hell most classes had 2 different secondary roles they could go into.
>>44007606
The problem with the core Paladin was that it was a Y shaped class with piss poor support in core. Once you start adding splatbooks it becomes a much much better class.
>>44019715
Did... Did you just sincerely incite badwrongfun? Are you serious?
>>44003674
>I don't play the versions i like best because I'm not a manchild
Cool.
>>44019786
You are an idiot
I don't even care if you are trying to make a joke, you are just an idiot
>>44019765
It goes a bit deeper than that
The problem was that Paladins, in core, were blatantly MAD, regardless of what powers you picked.
You needed strength in order to have decent melee basic attacks for opportunity attacks or stuff granted by a warlord, you needed charisma in order to enforce your mark, and you needed wisdom for a bunch of different riders and also for your lay on hands.
The only effective build for core paladins was to be a dragonborn and go for a balanced split between charisma and strength, sacrificing basic class features just for the capacity to function
>>44019202
They're the same in that powers work basically the same way as spells--that's what the big one is. In 3.5, spells and any sort of abilities that a martial character would have worked in entirely different ways.
>>44019991
Except for all the Martial abilities which were x/day anyway, and didn't make any 'sense' then, either.
>>44006741
A steaming pile of hot garbage?
Seriously, the 5e Sword Coast is terrible. The art is good, but the layout is shitty (bleed on every spread, no scale on any map), and all the mechanics and new specializations are crap, and the backgrounds are barely tied to the Realms at all.
It's a shitty book that at best is useful for people who want not-very-detailed info about the Realms, but don't have a steady internet connection to check a wiki.
Powers are super duper video gamey. 4th edition was so fucking different from what I had played before, that it frustrated the shit out of me. I eventually learned how to make some pretty interesting builds so it got fun, but I'm glad my friends (who had only ever played 4th) finally agreed to play 3.5.
>>44003498
It's Dungeons and Dragons: the MMO and I don't like it.
>>44011490
>>44011745
Really? Having to be trained in a skill is a problem?
'My gladiator comes from a tribe of steppe nomads, and he learned much about the world before the Empire captured him and threw him into the fighting pits.'
'My gladiator loved visiting his uncle's farm and caring for the animals, and he entered the arena to win enough money to keep it in the family after the debt collectors came.'
'My gladiator was friends with an elderly eccentric, who showed him books full of knowledge about the natural world, along with samples collected in his younger days. Little did he know that eccentric was planning to sell him to slavers, who would use his obvious strength to make money in slave fights.'
Bam, done. If you are so anal that you literally will not change a single aspect of your prewritten character backstory to fit the class you want to play, then ask the DM about training in another skill, or just decline the points/never roll that skill. It's a non-issue.
>>44019160
Gurps
>>44016581
>I can't name a single good adventure for D&D
>I have never played D&D
Fixed that for you. Seriously, Castle Ravenloft, Red Hand of Doom, Temple of Elemental Evil, Against the Giants are just some that come instantly to mind that can be dropped into any setting. People talk all the fucking time about great D&D modules.
>>44020220
That's literally what Backgrounds are for in 4e.
>>44020411
I know. I left aside the whole 'you can get training in whatever skills you want via background' and specifically went after 'having to be trained in X skill is bullshit because it doesn't fit my character concept that I created entirely separately from the system.'
>>44003604
>This struck people the wrong way, as they saw it as WotC taking out the RP from RPG.
Important note to keep in mind is asking many of these same people for examples of RP mechanics gets you a list of "Get out of roleplay free" spells and abilities.
>>44019160
>>44020330
Also: Unisystem. NWOD.
>>44019848
It still ticks me off that mutliclass feats for Paladin are mostly Wis based.
Just...why?
>>44003699
I rather liked 4e magic items. They were largely unimportant beyond the numerical bonus (which inherent bonuses replaced easily), but the special abilities they gave were still nifty compliments to whatever build you were working with.
>>44003949
>You have to create that character by figuring out which class makes that concept work (slayer or ranger, perhaps) and call yourself an axe fighter while using the chassis provided by a class in the "proper" role.
Personally I prefer this method of character building
>>44020056
>Except for all the abilities which were x/day anyway, and didn't make any 'sense' then, either.
>One of the worst parts of 3.X, *thankfully its not unavoidable in 3.x* but it is a design decision that is very difficult to correct unless you start rewriting class abilities left, right, and center. I've been working on doing just that for my home games, because I like most of the system and really like its mountain of support and prewritten adventures, but hate the disassociated mechanics.
>4e is an entire system that mechanically centers on the thing I hate most in 3.5., and then runs with it.
No huge surprise 4e's not really my thing.
>>44020754
Same. I don't know if it's because I play a lot of Apocalypse World using the scads of fan-created playbooks, but I love coming up with concepts, then hunting through the playbooks to find something that can make that come true (usually with a twist depending on the playbook).
I never really enjoy having to work from a class backwards, because most of the time they don't have a ton of flavour built in.
>>44019160
>Not to mention that the sheer quantity of character options is 3.5's biggest strength
>You can't really compare ANY RPG to 3.5 in that regard
though in all fairness, 3.5 really isn't one game, it's more like 5 different games that use a unified system, and aren't really intended to be mixed. If you compare the most versatile tier as a game it stops looking so "overwhelmingly versatile."
>>44020063
>>44020063
A lot of the maps are just zoomed in portions of the main map, which has a scale.
If you mean the city maps then I admit that's a flaw. Maybe email Jared Blando and ask?
>>44020611
Personally, I would point to the entire X/Encounter mechanic as what I have as a problem with it. It pulls me out of character to deal with the boardgamey tactics. Unfortunately it's a thing in 3.x, too, but it doesn't come up every single round for every single character. I could somewhat ignore it for spells (in both editions) because "That's how magic works. Like a weird collections of nick-nacks you make each day and keep in a bag until you take them out and throw them at people". But why exactly can I, as an expert swordsman, only do an overhand sword swing once every 5 minutes, but can still do every other trick I haven't used yet?
Been too long since I played 4e for me to name specific abilities, but it was mostly the martial/mundane ones where it bothered me.
Personally I dislike the idea of "pick a class and work to make it fit your concept" because of several reasons.
First of all it makes those classes very generic and winds up turning such games into what they are: very inefficient point buy games.
D&D 3.5 is a point buy game like GURPS except "character points" are levels in that game. If you want to be an archery fighter you have to take 3 "points" in fighter, 4 "points" in warlock/sorcerer/other class and 2 "points" in arcane archer/other PrC. But unlike GURPS or M&M the actual buying system is again horribly inefficient.
I'd honestly rather a game tell me "this is your class and this is what you do" and work around that then a game giving me a confusing network of bullshit I need to buy and combo just the right way to get a concept to "work". And even then I may have to just abandon the class I initially wanted anyway.
>>44020964
I actually really like these mechanics, because they make narrative sense to me. In a fantasy adventure story, of course they don't use their big spells/attacks all the time. That would take away from them being their big spells or attacks. Instead, you stick to the basics most of the time, and bust out the big guns when narratively appropriate. But it's much more of a genre emulation thing than a world emulation thing.
>>44020941
Even so, it's good form to put a scale on every map, rather than having people take a ruler to a separate map and try to work out the scale you are now using. It's a recurring problem for Blando.
>>44020964
See that's the problem though:
3.5 has TRAINED YOU to think that Martial/Mundane abilities are things you can do infinitely and spells are things you only do once a day. It really doesn't make any LESS sense if you bother to do enough mental gymnastics you probably did to reach you own conclusion: it's just that you're so use to the previous edition telling you things work one way and that this is meant to simulate reality that when the other game comes along, does something different, and ISN'T telling you it's simulating reality then of course you'd go "this isn't realistic and it's bringing me out of the game".
Simulationist RPG's are the greatest scam in tabletop history. They exist solely to fool the player and narrow their view of which mechanics are consistent with their narrow view of reality.
>>44021061
And furthermore it's not like 3.5 never did that itself.
See: Barbarian Rage.
>>44021061
Not that anon, and I love 4e, but in-universe AEDU makes no sense. There are a bunch of encounter powers that someone capable of doing it once could do it multiple times in several minutes, without needing a water break. I can accept the meta-rules of spell preparation, but I know how physical bodies work and I know that ducking, rolling, and coming up swinging isn't something that requires additional fuel.
It works for the game, but it's a stupid thing if viewed from an in-universe perspective. Acknowledging the metagame nature doesn't hurt.
>>44021061
>>44021085
This.
>>44021085
>No reading comprehension.
Yes, the thing that bothered me most in 3.5 and is the backbone of 4e, is in fact, present in 3.5.
>>44020993
>they make narrative sense to me.
>genre emulation thing than a world emulation thing.
I guess I am looking for world emulation more than genre emulation. I like when I can make my decisions from my character's in-setting knowledge perspective.
I would prefer something where those big attacks:
1. Tire me out, gradually.
2. Have negative consequences that stop me from spamming them. OR
3. Attacks that you only get the opportunity to use with the right circumstances, which you will then have to set up before you can use the attack.
As in, that fancy overhand swing? Sure I can do it a second time, later in the fight, (so long as I'm not too exhausted). I might hurt myself if I do, though, so I won't risk it if I don't have to, and I won't waste it in a fight that's not a challenge, in case I need it later.
>>44021137
Who's that in the Thor costume?
>>44020964
>But why exactly can I, as an expert swordsman, only do an overhand sword swing once every 5 minutes, but can still do every other trick I haven't used yet?
Because the opportunity only presented itself once, you only had the focus/energy/timing/whatever to do it once, etc. You simply imagine a narrative that justifies things working out that way. You don't think about "well why couldn't I use x power again?" because powers are meta concepts that don't exist within the narrative of events. Your character displayed their immense skill by deftly performing a unique martial maneuver at just the right time as all the right factors came together. Each incident of you using x power is, within the narrative, a unique and unrepeatable instance of you improvising something awesome. It's not a trained, reproducible skill. On a meta level though, it's just a daily power.
4e requires a very strong mental division between the narrative and the mechanics to make any sense at all.
