How did D&D regress with its mechanics for defenses so badly?
D&D 4e defenses:
>AC (attacker rolls against static number)
>Fortitude (attacker rolls against static number)
>Reflex (attacker rolls against static number)
>Will (attacker rolls against static number)
>fairly consistent with defenses, Reflex is for anything that ignores armor but not dodging or cover, shields increase Reflex by default and let fighters and paladins lift up their shield against a dragon's breath
D&D 5e's defenses:
>AC (attacker rolls against static number)
>Strength save bonus (defender rolls against static number)
>Dexterity save bonus (defender rolls against static number)
>Constitution save bonus (defender rolls against static number)
>Intelligence save bonus (defender rolls against static number)
>Wisdom save bonus (defender rolls against static number)
>Charisma save bonus (defender rolls against static number)
>Athletics/Acrobatics (attacker and defender roll off against each other)
>completely inconsistent with defenses (Fire Bolt and Scorching Ray target AC while Fireball forces a Reflex save), save bonuses are actually different from ability check bonuses because of proficiency, Str/Int/Cha saves are rarely used, shields increase Dexterity saves only with a feat in a game with very few feat slots
>grognards weeping about long dead editions
Get with the times gramps
>>44016322
5e went back to a more dynamic mechanic, like it was before 4e. That's one of the big things most people disliked about 4e.
>>44016383
"Martials want to succeed, while spellcasters want people around them to fail" is dynamic?
>>44016402
>Martials want to succeed, while spellcasters want people around them to fail
That does kind of sum up most DnD arguments.
Because butthurt casterfags didn't like having to roll to make people cry with their broken shit and they cried loud enough for WOTC to pander to them.
>>44016322
>How did D&D regress with its mechanics for defenses so badly?
Because most fans started playing with another edition, and nostalgia made them cry to WOTC to make the new edition as similar to what they started out with as possible.
It's why the Ranger is getting this stupid fucking companion nonsense now despite it breaking the action economy like nobody's business and ruining a lot of what made 5E tolerable.
>>44017416
It's kinda funny that 4e managed to make summons/companions work pretty damn well by going 'Look, it's just not fair to give them a full extra turn'
im noticing the backlash against 5e has finaly begun
which is good when it first came out people would just accuse you of being a troll if you so much as said it was shit glad to see people are starting to think about it more
>>44017470
The fanboyism was pretty damn bad yes. 4E had issues, but the massive groupthink against it was just not warranted.
>>44017427
>It's kinda funny that 4e managed to make summons/companions work pretty damn well by going 'Look, it's just not fair to give them a full extra turn'
Indeed. Some of the things it did were brilliant, but some were simply, well. Elegantly simple.
>>44017416
But the ranger's animal companion breaks the action economy in a really UNDERPOWERED way.
>>44017470
Butthurt 4rries have been crying about 5E forever
>>44017520
>But the ranger's animal companion breaks the action economy in a really UNDERPOWERED way.
Irrelevant considering the amount of bullshit people cram into even the tightest cracks, plus it's just really awkward in play. Combat takes long enough to resolve turn-by-turn as it is and D&D is much more combat-focused than say WoD.
>>44017470
It was clear that 5e was going to be shit from the first playtest. But every wave was met with "it's not the final game" or "muh modules".
>>44017565
What did happen to that promised modularity? Weren't we supposed to be able to play a 1e and a 4e fighter side-by-side at the same table or something.
>>44017683
No, we weren't. They just wanted us 4rries to keep following the playtests. Nothing more than marketing.
>>44017565
true I think the only reason initial reception seemed so positive on /tg/ was that people who criticised it were accused of trolling.
4e might not have been d&d but at least it could be fun 5e couldent even manage that
they should have just started making new 3e content instead of making 5e
>>44017565
I'll admit: I'm still filling out all those WOTC surveys with "Warlord when WOTC?'
It's a class I can find so few games where I can really get that particular feel.
>>44017712
>I'll admit: I'm still filling out all those WOTC surveys with "Warlord when WOTC?'
Me too, bro. The Cormyr knight thing in the Sword Coast book kind of does warlord stuff, but for me it's too little too late.
>>44017731
The Purple Dragon Knight is about 15% of what a warlord is supposed to be.
It's still bolted onto a "deal big damage by attacking and attacking and attacking and attacking: the class" chassis.
>>44017049
When you take in the fact most spells can't critically fail and still do half damage on a save, it's more like casters can't fail ever.
Would 5e have an OGL equivalent? Would it work?
>>44017470
This is literally a Butthurt 4rrie thread.
It has no bearing on wider opinions.
But, you already knew that.
>>44018172
>Roll20 logins
>Meaning something
Ok.
>>44018260
>this degree of denial
Oh no, it looks like numbers hurt you. I guess hoping you can dismiss them is all you've got left.
>>44018260
What are you still using fantasy grounds or something?
>>44018285
No seriously, what's your point?
That 5e is more popular than 4e (at least on roll20)? So what?
When 4e came out and news of it selling out, Pathfags were everywhere screaming "quantity does not mean quality". Then Pathfinder started selling more and the tune changed.
Even so, we're talking about quality of game design here. How many players there are on Roll20 has no bearing on that.
>>44018316
Oh, look, you're already crying.
Hell, both Pathfinder and 3.5 have more games and players than 4e, with 5e all the way up at the top.
I guess you want to discuss your opinions on these games, and that's ADORABLE, but since it all just ends up being you just crying and whining about little things and hoping to exaggerate molehills into a mountain, that image helps put things into perspective.
You're whiny and dumb, and people love 5e. 5e is well designed, and while you can continue to try and pretend like anyone cares about your endless bitching, most will just continue to play the game they like over the game they don't like.
Sounds like that's a pretty good measure of quality, far more than your cries of "STOP LIKING IT STOP LIKING IT STOP LIKING IT."
>>44018364
Touched a nerve here, eh?
>>44018364
You're quite invested in a game that's been out for a year or so.
>>44018371
It's really easy to make 4rries cry. Just reminding them about 3.5 continued popularity is usually enough to break them down.
>>44018380
>Waah!
Am I the only one who thinks some form of 4.5e could be fantastic? Little here and a little there of each's best attributes.
>>44018404
I was talking about yourself.
For being such a tough guy, you call people names and whine quite a bit about what other people like.
Protip: you shouldn't define your own worth as a person on what kind of pretend elfgames you play.
>>44018421
You mean 5e?
5e already took just about everything good out of 4e
>>44018436
Yeah! Such as class balance, interesting monster design, tactical depth...
>>44018430
It sounds like you're just projecting, which is also cute.
I guess it's just what happens when you're backed into a corner and have run out of options. I mean, the game you like is losing popularity as another game rises, so you've got not many options left. I can understand your frustration to a certain extent, but that doesn't mean it's not still really pathetic.
>>44018482
>my game won, so I'm better than you
At least we were having a discussion about content, and not people.
>>44018457
Did 5e borrow anything from 4e at all? Nothing comes to mind except warlocks tieflings and dragonborn. And those aren't mechanics.
>>44018457
Yep. And it did away with all those too-samey classes, fixed the horrible combat math that made 4e such a slogfest, and tossed out almost all of the terrible lore and design decisions.
>>44016322
Stop spamming toushit.
>>44017493
I honestly hated 4e for the same reasons I hated 3.5e. Fuck locking you into using miniatures.
>>44017470
Serious 4rries and 3aboos hated 5e from the get go because it nerfed their precious power levels to something more down to earth.
>>44018496
It's not about winning and losing.
It's about you acting like sore losers.
>>44018514
>not about winning and losing
>it's about you losing
Okay.
>>44018436
>good out of 4e
>implying there was any good in $e to begin with
>>44018504
Healing/recovery is pretty much straight from 4e with an even higher reinforcement of "these aren't meat points"
>>44018569
>Healing/recovery is pretty much straight from 4e with an even higher reinforcement of "these aren't meat points"
Not even close.
Healing surges in 4e were first and foremost a hard limit on how much healing you could access in a day.
5e is back to "you need cleric magic" plus a tiny bit of additional health in the form of hit dice.
>>44018172
> Every eddition of DND is labelled separately
>every single Star Wars RPG is lump together from West End Games to fantasy flight
> Warhammer combines war game game and RPG
> fourth place is listed just as 'other games'
What the fuck sort of category system are they use here on?
>>44018595
Except you really don't, cleric magic over time becomes far less efficient than just taking short rests, and non-life clerics are below bard and paladin imo for healing aptitude.
>>44018172
>Roughly as many people are playing PTU as Exalted
...huh
>>44018550
Take a step back outside of yourself, and take a look at you and your attitude.
It's hard to look at them as anything except the cries of the losing dog, which is funny, because it's only you guys who thought there was some sort of competition.
If it comes down to a question of competing systems, 5e is so firmly affixed to the throne, that even broaching the subject of which system is better is like asking to be mocked and chided for overstepping yourself.
It's best to just say "Oh, 4e is nice. It's nice, right? In it's own way."
Trying to bring 5e into the edition war is like challenging a nuclear power when you're still struggling to fabricate Molotov cocktails.
>>44018511
Placement is an important aspect of d&d, period. Maybe you should look into a different, more abstract or narrativist sort of game?
>>44018673
>being this mad about MUH COMPETITION
>refusing to accept 4e's success when it came out
>>44018642
Reducing the effectiveness doesn't really change the principle at play here. The functionality of 4e healing surges is simply gone.
>>44018704
>Placement is an important aspect of d&d, period.
Confirmed for never having played before 3rd edition.
Placement was never important before 3rd and even in 3.0 people still played without a fucking battlemat half the time. The only part of AD&D that tried to use battlemats was Combat and Tactics in late 2e and literally no one used these rules.
>>44018706
>still crying
>maybe I can hide my tears behind these laughing girls
>>44018725
The principle at play being that short rests and a bard playing a catchy tune will heal you up better than a cleric calling on the gods once you're past level 3?
>>44018735
>you're totally crying aren't you
>yes you're crying and not me
>totally
that feel when dry cheeks and not really caring about editions
>>44018805
>I needed to reply to show how much I don't care
Looks like the OP image suits you quite well.
>>44018510
make me, nerd
>>44018910
>>44018805
You're both just shitting up the thread.
The answer to the OP's post is literally that people had come to personally identify with older mechanics, regardless of whether they were better or worse than 4th editions mechanics.
I think people really don't understand the business decisions that WotC's D&D division makes and the fact that they are actually very responsive to criticism about the game. If you recall the tail end of D&D 3.5e there was a lot of bitching and moaning about how the game becomes rapidly unbalanced after Level 6 or so, and there was a fair bit of hate for so many different subsystems (Spells Per Day, Psionic Power Points, Warlock At-Wills, Weeaboo Fightan Magick, etc.). So WotC releases an edition with a more homogenized approach to class powers / spells, cleans up the skill list / nukes ranks (thank god), and provides a ton of balance.
So what happens? A portion (no clue how many, vocal minorities on Internet forums are not a good way to gauge these things...) of their userbase balks at these changes and goes over to Paizo's Pathfinder. There's nothing that Paizo puts out that WotC couldn't have if they continued to support 3.5e (or made an official 3.75e) so this is a ton of lost revenue for WotC. So WotC soldiers on through 4e and it has, by all accounts, a pretty decent run but WotC is thinking, like any good business, 'how do we recapture all those Pathfinder players?'
So what happens? We get an edition that has a lot of throw backs to 3.5e while keeping anything they can sneak in 4e (like the simplified skills, and implied roles) in hopes of being seen as going back to their roots and wooing back the Pathfinder market.
>>44018805
>>44018735
You both sound like children, knock it off.
>u mad!
>no u!
>not me u!
>no!
Shut up, jesus,
>>44018994
You make a good point but have also to keep in mind that there has been a pretty sharp change in the D&D division business model, from 1 monthly release + constant stream of subscriber only content to a couple new products per year + modules designed by licensed 3PPs.
There were business decisions at play clearly, but not necessarily care for the customer base, more like "how can we sell our stuff to as many people as we can".
>>44018996
I think it's just one guy posting to himself.
>>44019067
This is all hearsay but what I've heard is that D&D competes less with Pathfinder (in terms of ROI) and more with MtG. Hasbro has to ask themselves why not put more cash into MtG which is the real moneymaker out of WotC's products.
>>44019130
That's always been true though. Wizards bought out TSR with the MTG money, although trying to keep up the production quality of 2e probably didn't help their finances at all down the line when Hasbro bought them out.
>>44019130
I posted about this in another thread and don't really want to rehash the whole argument, but basically you are close to what some sources say happened.
Apparently WotC's business plan before the launch of 4e was to reach the sales numbers of MtG. Then a bunch of things happened, and possibly the goal was impossible to reach to begin with, and the whole thing folded in 2010-11. That's also why nowadays D&D division is so pared down.
>>44019130
>>44019185
>>44019195
The story goes that in the 3e era WotC could lump D&D and Magic's profits together, but since then D&D had to survive on its own. That explains the push to make 4e a bigger thing. Since it failed they're now downsized and basically reduced to keeping the brand alive for licensing.
>>44019195
It was always a ludicrous goal; normal kids played MtG during recess; normal kids didn't usually play D&D especially not in elementary.
>>44018994
>simplified skills
>implied roles
>is 4E
Of all the things to say that are 4E, you chose these. For Christ's sake, class paths and backgrounds are straight from 4Essential era.
>>44017875
A caster can't spam actual spells all day, now can he? That's a significantly more limited resource than 'I HIT WITH WEAPON'
>>44018364
>bandwagon fallacy
Vaginas please go
>>44019404
5e also makes it clear that long rest is only once every 24 hours since they realized rules lawyer were too fucking retarded to get it otherwise.
>>44018994
>4E
>implied roles
No, they were explicit. Literally.
>>44019404
>muh limited resources
>I can only reshape reality to my will 6 times a day, woe is me
>>44019471
They mean that 5e has the roles implied.
>>44019471
5e.
>>44017563
>D&D is much more combat-focused than say WoD.
I've spent whole sessions rigging trials.
>>44019459
>Extended Rest
>Once per day, you can gain the benefits of an
extended rest.
Literally 4e's PHB.
>>44019507
I'd forgotten that line. Also people whine about 5 minute workdays even in 5e, even with the exact same line about long rests.
Why use dice rolls instead of imagination? Its just overly complicated and dumb.
>>44019551
That's because this never *solved* the 5 minute workday.
The thing that solves a 5 minute workday is a GM who adequately and actively prepares threats that the party needs to check.
It doesn't matter if you can only prep spells once a week, if the thing you want to fix doesn't have a ticking timebomb on it there's zero reason not to wait.
5minute workday is a case of a GM being bad.
5e is a bland, boring game designed to 'feel' like real D&D rather than have any particular amount of design integrity. And apparently that's what D&D fans wanted? Which, y'know, is cool and all, if it's your thing then enjoy it. But don't try and pretend it's a well designed game, or that it has an innovative bone in its body. I tend to avoid D&D, but I can at least respect 4e for having a consistent design direction and trying something new. 5e seems like a game purely designed to be the same D&D you always enjoyed for the 3.5 era fans.
>>44019833
>if I repeat this enough, maybe people will believe me
Sadly for you, people have actually played 5e, leaving your arguments without much punch.
>>44019605
A success/failure mechanic adds an interesting dynamic to the storytelling, but I agree it should be simpler.
I think it should be a coin flip, heads = success and tails = failure. Advanced players can add something like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic: with advantage flip two coins, if either are heads it's a success (same for disadvantage with tails being failure).
No more complex than that though. Otherwise we'll end up with coin pool systems where you flip ten coins at a time or something.
>>44019927
At least I have an argument, while you have an anecdotal statement you've not made any effort to support.
>>44019605
Because of the 'Game' part. Sure, you can freeform RP or use ultra light/diceless systems, but the mechanics is part of the fun for a lot of people. I enjoy creating a character and engaging in a story, but having rules and mechanics to play with adds to the experience for me.
>>44019927
5e fan here.
He's right. It's a solid game, but your fooling no over but yourself of you think any part of that game was included for a reason other than "Because it's D&D."
Even the entire playtest was just looking for how "D&D" each thing in the game was (and asking how D&D something was was virtually the only thing every survey asked)
>>44019927
Other people (myself included) have played 5e, experienced firsthand how bland and boring it is, and moved on to other games.
>>44020037
>false flagging
Neat. I'm actually a 4e fan, but I can easily say that I only play it is because 5e is too awesome in comparison to 4e and it triggers my imaginary rape flashbacks.
>>44019833
>not well designed
I want you compare magic items and spells between the editions.
>>44018595
Except you heal to full HP after a long rest, for fuck's sake.
>>44020037
Ugh, the playtest.
>Here's the 3e spell list with a couple of 4e powers thrown in
>Rate each spell on a scale of 0 to D&D
>>44020077
And you're an adorable minority.
A whiny minority with incredible airs.
"Oh look, this edition is so boring. Let's move on to a more boring game, but let's pretend it's less boring in order to act like five-year late hipsters."
>>44020116
Oh, don't get me wrong, 5e is a vastly superior product to 3.5, much better put together and balanced, but it's still not a well designed game. Rather than having a central design philosophy, it's just a mishmash of stuff designed to feel like D&D. And, as I said, that clearly works for what fans of D&D wanted, but it's still janky as hell from an outside perspective.
>>44019481
Which roles are implicit?
>>44020200
Damage, and more damage.
>>44020146
>"Oh look, this edition is so boring. Let's move on to a more boring game, but let's pretend it's less boring in order to act like five-year late hipsters."
WTF are you talking about, I don't even play D&D.
What do you get for "winning" the edition war? more pussy?
>>44020173
What's janky/boring about it?
I'm actually curious what people don't like, but they're also so obtuse about it.
>>44020237
Call me an idiot, but don't you actually roll for damage?
>>44020252
A big thing is the utility/complexity gap. The combat mechanics do a good job of not rendering Martial characters utterly useless, but even with options like the Battlemaster you still end up with significantly fewer interesting choices to make both in and out of combat. Fighters are great walls of meat who hit things and get a few small combat tricks... But casters can still solve a situation with a couple of spells. I'm aware that isn't a problem for some people, it's part of the 'feel' of the game that they enjoy, but I've never liked D&Ds odd double standard where spellcasters can get away with anything but Martial characters have to be realistic, and the mechanical disconnect that arises from that is really offputting.
>>44020300
>Battlemaster you still end up with significantly fewer interesting choices to make both in and out of combat.
Battlemasters are sad. It's like being a caster and only ever getting more 1st level spells.
>>44020245
What do you play? What's this super exciting game?
>>44020341
Why do you need so much validation in your choice of games?
>>44020113
>Someone who likes the game has a criticism of it
>FALSE FLAAAAAG
>>44020400
Help me out here. If 5e is boring, what's exciting?
>>44016322
Because 5e is the "Backpedal into our comfort zone" edition?
>>44020540
Actually, I don't care about responding to you, you have been shitposting in half the thread and whatever I say is going to be dismissed with the same shitty attitude you have been showing in your other posts.
Congratulations! You like 5e, which is a successful game, and thus are a better human being than all the other morons who play those other bad games. Go you!
Are you validated enough?
>>44018623
The winner here!
>>44020602
>I don't care about responding to you
Sounds like you do care. But, it also sounds like you don't have an answer.
You can guess I'm being mildly malevolent for forcing you into such a corner, but keep in mind that you're the guy who wanted to make an opinionated statement, but for some reason you also wanted it to go unchallenged.
>>44020300
I feel your pain with martial characters, they've been gutted at high level ever since they lost their followers, and most settings made magic users not a persecuted class.
However, martial characters in 5E(especially full fighters) are the highest damage dealers in the game. They're actually really fun, you can move and attack in between extra attacks, feels good. Killing and being able to survive is utility, that has always been the fighting man's use in every edition of D&D.
Rogues are quite good too, but really dependent on fiat like stealth always seems to be. If you want to be sneaky, you can't use magic at all really, since no Quite casting type feats or features exist. Most spells that would devalue thief type characters(like knock, find traps, or jump) were nerfed, make the specialized character always better to be cast on or don't even exist.
Resistances take a giant dump on caster DPS, they have to take a shitty feat and only one feature from one path to get past it, for one element or spell. Also, concentration combined with a tiny action economy for casters nerfs the nova big time.
I honestly don't think you've looked at 5E much at all. Specialization trumps well roundness in 5E, thanks to the tight power curve and advantage system. A couple of modifiers can mean the difference between getting one rounded or surviving the entire fight.
>>44021062
As I said, I can acknowledge every class is useful in 5e, but that some classes lack interesting options compared to others just makes the whole thing less fun, IMO. I much preferred Tome of Battle style Martial characters, as an example without referring to 4e.
>>44020845
You are the one engaging in dick-measuring contests on an anonymous board to assert the superiority of your favorite game.
Good for you.
>>44021182
If you're just going to let people trample you but you're still going to act like it hurts you, you might want to think twice about making mindless comments. If being reprimanded upsets you so much, don't be dumb in the first place, right?
>>44021155
>tome of battle
>4E
>martial
You have shit taste m8. Turning marital characters into short ranged magic users is weak.
Combat and tactics 2E is a true crunch book for martial combat if there was any.
![[ABSOLUTELY 2015]_1.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2dE8nGK.jpg "[ABSOLUTELY 2015]_1.jpg")
>>44016341
>>44017427
Never played or read 4e. How did it fix that and still have summons or companions?
>>44021315
Tome of Battle/Path of War Martial characters are the only Martials worth playing in 3.PF. They fulfill the same role while also having a selection of interesting options and ensuring the players actually need to make decisions instead of 'I move and attack' every turn.
Is it possible to create an interesting purely mundane combat system? Of course. But D&D has never even tried. Core Martial combat in D&D sucks, and it always has. Look at Song of Swords for a game which does that sort of thing really well.
>>44021436
Summons and Familiars/Companions use your actions. They're still useful, as they can have a variety of cool active/passive effects, but instead of 'Have an extra turn' it gives you an additional way to make use of your own turn.
>>44021436
Having a summon/companion take a standard action like an attack usually costs you your own standard action. I think some can move when you move but otherwise don't act on their own. Some also have opportunity actions they can use in place of you doing one yourself.
>>44021062
One feat with no prereqs allows you to cast without sound.
>>44021469
>it always has
Yea, in 3E.PF, since they removed all the weakness 2E casters had, but kept the same spells and made them even more stupid with the action economy and retarded initiative system.
4E just made everyone into a shitty sorcerer with various ranges and effects.
![1402536720882[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5M6ldV7.jpg "1402536720882[1].jpg")
>>44021680
>4E just made everyone into a shitty sorcerer with various ranges and effects.
>>44021667
>One feat with no prereqs allows you to cast without sound.
Please name this feat and provide page reference
>>44021704
You're right, 4E essentials fixed that.
>>44021788
Essentials classes suck
>>44021809
Oh yes, the core PHB was so great that it needed 27 pages of errata.
>>44021062
Martials were also the highest damage dealers in 3.5.
>>44022466
Which didn't change anything, because the damage economy rapidly became irrelevant due to the frequency of save or die/save or suck effects.
>>44016341
>4E
>long dead
You kids better get off my lawn
>>44022564
Nah, totally not true.
Martials were still better for MURDERING enemies fast. Really fast.
The real wizard gimmick was noncombat utility.
>>44022632
When I hear a discussion of various forms of D&D and someone brings up 'linear warrior, quadratic wizards' in my mind I hear 'I'm incompetent'
>>44022917
So you're an idiot who ignores obvious evidence?
>>44022965
No
I've read and understood the rule systems
>>44023031
And you've missed out on the glaring disparity, how exactly?
Because caster supremacy is a real thing.
>>44023068
In 3.5 and Pathfinder if, if, the DM is a fuckwit, maybe
Otherwise?
Incompetence
>>44023111
3.PF is the context generally used when talking about caster supremacy, yes. And while a good GM can work around it, for the most part, that doesn't stop it being a mechanical flaw which makes the game weaker on the whole.
>>44022632
>The real wizard gimmick was noncombat utility.
That, and ending combat as soon as they get their turn.
>>44023182
There is no save-or-die that doesn't have enemies immune to it.
>>44018670
>Almost 3 times as many PTU games than Exalted
>"Roughly as many"
>>44023397
If you're allowing saving throws at all, you messed up
>>44023144
It isn't a 'workaround' it is being 'vaguely aware of the rules'
>>44023739
Yeah, no. The caster supremacy is way, way worse than you think. Either you're talking out of your arse, or you've never had to deal with a fullcaster actually trying.
>>44023766
Go cry somewhere else, whiner
I've been running TTRPGS for 35+ years and never heard of bullshit 'casters are unstoppable' until fa/tg/us whined about it
>>44023840
You've been gaming that long and you still don't see it? You must be an awful GM.
Reminder that 3.5 casters have the whole spell list in their spell book, always know what enemy they are going to fight, and always have enough spellslots even with spending slots on scrying spells so that they are never surprised.
4th edition had the best combat. Why would I play 5e and other shit where the combat is worse?
>>44024122
Where's that picture that compares what 3.5 casters are like to what fa/tg/uys think 3.5 casters are like?
>>44024184
>>44024122
Except that you're mistaking examples of the issue for the issue itself. Caster supremacy is clear in the core mechanics. Disproving individual or extreme examples does nothing to disprove the issue itself... Because it's inarguable. Unless you're an idiot, you're aware of caster supremacy in 3.PF.
>>44023873
Perhaps it is because it isn't there is you start with a knowledge of dynamics and an understanding of the difference between 'damage density' and 'total damage capability'?
Perhaps the balanced understanding of the actual roles of party memebrs and the various classes leads to a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the overall system?
Maybe my knowledge of Tweet's fucked up outlook from a strong knowledge of Ars Magica meant that I was chuckling to myself as I read the 3.0 PHB without realizing that people reading it first wouldn't understand the flaws in his underlying thinking and outlook?
Maybe, just maybe, I realize that the tempo and face of an adventure is as critical as any other element and that the wizards in 3.P rely upon controlling that more than anything to gain an advantage and simply not letting them do so or disrupting their understanding of the same?
Could be lots of reasons that you've never thought of, mightn't it, kid?
Fact is, many of the really good older players I know (I guess you might call them grognards) never really encountered that issue with 3.0/3.5 and never participated in the 20+ splatstravaganza that evolved in the Pthfinder fens as 4e went all retro wargamey
>>44024469
>stupid tablet keyboard
Sorry for the typos
>>44024279
>Because it's inarguable
But - people *are* arguing...?
>Unless you're an idiot, you're aware of caster supremacy in 3.PF.
OOOOOHHHH! You're using the old "no one argues about this except people who argue about this, but anyone who disagrees with me is a moron by definition, so all of those people who DO argue about this don't actually count because I am right and they are wrong"
>>44024165
If you play D&D for the (low-level) combat only, 4e is really the best choice.
If you care about any other element, 5e does them better
>>44019404
>A caster can't spam actual spells all day, now can he? That's a significantly more limited resource than 'I HIT WITH WEAPON'
>>44019476
>muh limited resources
>I can only reshape reality to my will 6 times a day, woe is me
This. The idea that wizards are 'balanced' by their daily spell limit is a flawed design. The party isn't about to press on with their wizard fully charged up if they can avoided it.
They had out right limited the spells per session (verisimilitude be damn) maybe
>>44017690
>4e might not have been d&d but at least it could be fun 5e couldent even manage that
I like this. Granted, I think arbitrarily defining "real D&D" as "whatever I started with in a varried and changing genre" but, you know what early internet+social-stckiness=not worth my arguing, and "4e is totally its own thing, but at-least it's fun, and 5e tries to emulate the past, and sucks at being a fun game" is a stance I can get behind.
>they should have just started making new 3e content instead of making 5e
Isn't that basically what they did with 5e? I mean I can't check anymore, because I deleted the 5e core from my hard-drive to make room for fun stuff, but from what I remember, it was basically identical to 3e, but with a slower, more unified, BAB progression, stat-ups as dependent on class level rather than character level, and Save-Or-Done spells being cancel-able by concentration checks. Those are all improvements, to be sure, but you can only polish a turd so much, and it was largely identical.
>>44024553
What makes it better in your opinion? I really don't care that professions and shit like that went away in 4e, so if they brought them back in 5e, whatever.
>>44024555
>The party isn't about to press on with their wizard fully charged up if they can avoided it.
Translation
>If everyone else in the party, the monsters, and the DM all work together to overcome the limitations of the spellcasters then those limitations are minimized
No shit.
This is like arguing that fighters are unstoppable/the top/supreme because "of COURSE they will have max hit points! What party wouldn't want their fighter at max hit points?'
>>44024778
A dead party that tries to die? If your party's at half-strength and you go into an encounter it's your own damn fault that you didn't retreat and come back later when you die.
>>44024826
>assuming all encounters are planned/foreseen/avoidable
>not seeing that all you are doing is admitting that casters have a limited effect and that once they have done a few things they are fucking useless except to absorb damage
I never understand the whining about the MMORPG inspired design. What was wrong with designing 4e after fun games like World of Warcraft?
>>44024469
>start with a knowledge of dynamics and an understanding of the difference between 'damage density' and 'total damage capability'?
>Tries to talk about system mastery as it relates to fullcasters and then mentions damage as though it matters
Pleb,
>>44025007
Because WoW was based on D&D - you were copying a copy and inheriting the flaws of the original and the copy while throwing in new ones
>>44025007
I think it was a step in the right direction from both a gameplay and marketing perspective.
But there are people who persistently defend that 4E was not inspired at all by MMORPGs, as if it's a bad thing.
>Maybe my knowledge of Tweet's fucked up outlook from a strong knowledge of Ars Magica meant that I was chuckling to myself as I read the 3.0 PHB without realizing that people reading it first wouldn't understand the flaws in his underlying thinking and outlook?
So few people understand that D&D 3rd edition was Tweet's 3rd edition of Ars Magica
>>44020121
The difference is this
>3E
Get beat up, cleric heals you with money spent on cure wounds items until you feel like stopping, or you spend a week resting it off.
>4E
Get beat up, rest up. Repeat 2 or 3 times a day. Maybe 4 times if a Leader heals you.
>5E
Get beat up, rest up. You can do this once a day, unless you have a healer caster then you can go as long as they have slots to spend on healing.
Each one leads to a very different style in practice.
>>44020267
You're an idiot.
>Confusing Role and Roll.
>>44020200
All of them? They're no longer explicit, but clerics do something different from wizards, but very similar to bards. Barbarians, melee Fighters, and Paladins have similar general effects on the battlefield.
>>44024778
Except 3.X is the kind of edition where a fighter can die in one round from full HP, or other fates just as bad which naturally only casters can prevent, cure, and recover you from.
>>44016322
ProfessorCirno, did you get banned from SA or something?
>>44026653
I have no idea how you can say that. They have nothing in common.
>>44017470
Shit or not, I like the sun monk.
Makes me want to make a ToB version of it. I mean monk isn't like FC strong, but not horrible.
>>44027346
>Makes me want to make a ToB version of it.
It's literally Desert Wind.
Fireball is AOE hence Dex save. All the targets making a single Dex save is more efficient than the caster rolling a dozen times
>>44018742
I hated bards and warlords.
Healing people by words was retarded.
>>44028556
It's not healing, because it's not meat points. It's helping you regain energy through motivation. Or maybe it's playing a song that makes you remember your home and makes you feel better and reminds you why you're there.
>>44028556
Except it isn't.
HP has always been abstract. Look in the DMG, it flat out tells you that it isn't a measure of physical injury, it's an abstract representation of losing the ability to fight.
A Warlords healing is restoring morale and confidence, nourishing weakened spirits and encouraging people to give it there all.
>>44020024
Really? As anytime I read something involving die mechanics, my eyes just glass over and I tune out.
>>44016341
>a few years is a long time
This post is a textbook example of inadvertently outing yourself as a high schooler.
>>44028310
But... what?
That's the exact same number of rolls!
>>44016322
>not understanding the concept of targetted v.s. AoE
Fire Bolt (a bullet of fire) being AC and Fireball (an explosion) being reflex is exactly how it should be.
Also, the proficiency in saves is literally copied from 4e, its just 4e's "proficiency bonus" is always half your level. Same for skills.
>>44029608
That would make sense at first, but then you realize Sacred Flame is a single-target Reflex save.
>>44029469
Most of which would be made by the DM, so you aren't even parallelizing the process.Best is just to have the wizard make a single roll that applies to everyone's static defenses.
>>44021062
>Resistances
You mean like non-magic resistence?
>>44018172
>game sample size: 39969, player sample size: 35544
>more games than players
>D&D 5E: 12031 games, 14292 players (1.19 players per game)
>PATHFINDER: 8135 games, 13369 players (1.64 players per game)
What the fuck?
>>44018731
>Placement was never important before 3rd
OD&D combat defaults to Chainmail, a wargame.
>>44030402
Ignore the player count, that's just "people who put 5e in their online bio."
Game count is actual Roll20 games labeled as playing 5e, though.
>>44030564
That is some lazy fucking sampling, there.
>>44030418
>t. 3aboo
OD&D derived its rules from Chainmail, it didn't use Chainmail's placement rules or its battlemat as a rule. No matter how many times 3.5 players claim it, it won't make it true.
It's also completely relevant to both editions of AD&D which were entirely not reliant on placement, neither was BD&D.
>>44030402
People start games that nobody joins, then join another one.
>>44030726
>it didn't use Chainmail's placement rules or its battlemat as a rule.
>Recommended Equipment: [...] Chainmail miniature rules, latest edition
The combat system in Men & Magic is an alternative for if you don't have/want to use Chainmail. That's why it's called 'Alternative Combat System'.
The descriptions of Elves and Halflings refer to Chainmail.
Morale checks are as either the included table, or Chainmail.
The level-up charts include 'Fighting Capability', for the character's equivalent in Chainmail.
Conjure Elemental refers to Chainmail.
>>44023840
My experience with people insisting Wizards are fair and balanced
>Insists 3.5 is perfectly balanced if you keep those instakilling martial builds in line
>Make a baseline effect Wizard
>Has us do what was supposed to be an "unwinnable fight" against his epic super awesome BBEG
>BBEG has a bunch of custom magic items that basically make him immune to anything martial characters can do
>Shit like Ring of Arrow Deflection, Sword-Repeller Shield, Helmet of All-Around Sight, etc.
>Drop a single spell on BBEG
>DM starts fuming as the Rogue starts stealing all of the BBEG's magic items while he's disabled
>DM starts screaming and basically kicks me out of the group, telliong the Rogue to not write a single fucking thing he got on his character sheet
>Week later he's running the same game. Hear from someone he "retconned" that session, where he deflected my spell and made it disintegrate my body and soul so I can never be resurrected by anything ever.
>Insisting once again Wizards are fair and balanced and can't break anything if you're a good DM like him.
>Hear screaming half an hour later and a bang.
>Replacement player rolled another Wizard and apparently cast a spell, so the DM responded by screaming and throwing the DMG he had at the player, which went wide and hit the wall, missing the owner of the store by a few inches.
>Owner and two other guys grab the guy and literally throw him out the door.
So yeah, I put little stock in 'B-b-but good DM" these days.
>>44026766
Main difference is in 4e, you're 2-3 time a day rests are 5 minutes long and only get you abck your encounter powers, and let you spend surges to heal.
You need a full long rest to fully heal and get back dailies like other editions.
4e just puts a hard cap on how much healing and "walk it off" your body can take before it just needs a good night's sleep to feel better.
>>44018172
>Chart counts 3e and PF as different games
Disgusting
>>44030402
I might hypothecize that at any given time, there are more dying/dead 3e/PF games on account of the game being more fun to optimize/character-build than it actually is to play, and once you've had the pay-off of having your character perform successfully at their gimmick on-table, there's less reason to actually continue playing. In RL games, there's the social pressure, and the excuse for RL social interaction keeping you coming, even if the game itself isn't any fun (sort of like a theme party where you're not excited by the theme, but still go because you like the people,) but online, this social effect isn't a factor.
I've seen a NUMBER of 3e/PF games rise quickly with a lot of enthusiasm during character-creation, then peter out once everyone has had a chance to show off their build.
>>44032452
>Main difference is in 4e, you're 2-3 time a day rests are 5 minutes long
IDK man, for me, when you're talking about the plausibility of fitting in 2-3 short rests in an active adventuring day (because the inactive/traveling days don't really count do they) changes a lot when you go from 5min to 60 min. It's hard to fit 2-3 hour-long short rests without it feeling like railroadey spoon-feeding, or the players OOC chosing to take shorter rests to make the short-rest-recharge character feel useful even though there's no real IC reason to do so
>>44032901
Stop playing with powergamers.
>>44032964
I did. I found them by not playing any OGL games anymore.
>>44030726
>It's also completely relevant to both editions of AD&D which were entirely not reliant on placement, neither was BD&D.
I've never played AD&D without some sort of squared grid. It had AC modifiers for facing ffs
>>44016402 >>44017049
>>44032452
I'm pretty sure the explicit length of time given for a "short rest" in 4e was 15 minutes, not 2-3
>>44029191
You aren't the world, though. Just because you find mechanics boring doesn't mean everyone does.
>>44030116
>Fireball
>Best is just to have the wizard make a single roll that applies to everyone's static defenses.
That's way too swingy. Most of the time you'll end up hitting either everyone or no one.
>>44016322
>Saves are inconsistent with checks.
Because during the playtest, they tried out just having proficiency with ability checks instead of having narrower skills, and that didn't test well.
>>44036443
>implying they cared about the playtests
>>44036481
>Implying the playtests weren't held hostage by 3aboo faggots that forced them to abandon the best ideas.
>Implying you didn't know that
Design by committee is terrible.
>>44036488
Oh god how horrible
They probably did all the playtesting like they did for 3e as well
>>44036488
Half that, half the design team basically already knowing what they wanted in the game and just using the playtest as a marketing stunt.
