Why do people say 4E D&D is too good for Dungeons & Dragons?
>>44470546
If you have to ask, it's not for you.
>>44470546
Because they are too cheap to just get into wargames.
>>44470546
Do they?
Never heard that one.
>>44470546
no one has ever said that
>>44470546
They don't
>>44470546
Okay, better question, what exactly are the strong points of 4E? I always hear hate about it, but, what's the good in it?
>>44470597
>>44470561
>>44470546
The most the general public said is that it would've been good if it was called in the dungeon tactics or something. It wasn't too good for DnD just simply was too different for a lot of people.
It's better than 3.5, let's just leave it at that.
>>44472264
Balance
Rule Clarity
>>44472833
That's it? Rock Paper Scissors has that, and it ain't a good game.
>>44470546
Same reason (likely the same) people put ketchup on their steak.
>>44472896
what a fair comparison
>>44472896
The classes all were made to have a specific role in mind, and were done well enough that they each contributed to the party without a class out shining everyone else or being useless compared to the others.
Everyone could have a full turn that actually felt effective as opposed to a complaint common with fighters in other editions in that "I roll to attack /turn".
>>44473213
This
I have played a lot myself and I think its fun. Some classes do still outshine others in their role if min/maxing is involved but when will that ever not be the case? Its a fun system, everyone feels like they are contributing, and role playing is still solid.
>>44473213
I am playing a 4e fighter currently, and it is mostly 'roll to attack'. We're level 2.
>>44473416
Essentials? Or PHB?
>>44473474
PHB. I've used Sure Strike once, Covering Attack once, and Cleave something like 3 times across 8 encounters. Most of it's been normal attacks.
>>44473574
Have you been marking enemies?
Also, have you been using your encounter and daily powers?
>>44473574
Why would you ever just basic attack all the time? You have at-wills for a reason. They are strictly better than basic attacks for a reason: so that you have interesting options in combat beyond "I attack".
>>44473637
But that's the thing, Fighter at-wills are not significantly different from basic attacks.
>>44473406
I'm still not a fan of the system. I can't ignore what is good in it though.
One of my issues though is that the game doesn't feel like it has classes in the normal sense. They make the party roles the classes while what we think of as classes being more like reskins.
Paladins are just a skin for the tank in 4e. Powers for tanks are all cookie cutter, but are refluffed.
I have others issues but those are my main ones class related.
>>44473617
Marking yes, Encounter and Daily aren't really that useful.
>>44473637
Here's the thing: No, they're not. Cleave is exactly the same unless there is a second enemy adjacent to you, and the rest of my party kills them before I can get set up for that, Sure Strike is +2 to hit in exchange for losing my STR bonus to damage, and I can hit all the things my GM has thrown at me so far, and Tide of Iron isn't really that usfeul without environmental hazards to throw people into.
>>44473574
Are you actually handicapped? Mentally, that is. I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm genuinely curious.
The game is meant specifically for you to use your at-wills instead of basic attacks, and despite the fact that at level 2, you won't have a whole lot of encounter abilities to throw around, very swiftly you're going to end up with a shitload of encounter/daily abilities that are going to change the game drastically and take up most of your turns.
Have you been using your other class abilities? Marking foes? Coordinating your efforts with your allies? Maybe are you using some interesting and fun weapons or feats? Have you used any racial abilities?
>>44473760
What encounter and daily powers are you using?
You had better say Villain's Menace.
>>44473793
Covering Attack and Brute Strike.
>>44473789
>The game is meant specifically for you to use your at-wills instead of basic attacks
That would require them to have an advantage over my basic attack most of the time. Which they don't.
>interesting and fun weapons
I have a broadsword that varies from +1 to +3 depending on how the enemy views it.
>feats
Nope
>racial
Human
>>44473887
I think you just suck at 4E, man.
>>44473793
>>44473887
Oh, and the daily utility that lets you regenerate.
And Impending Doom Style, but that's not really that interesting, it just lets me mark both targets on Cleave.
>>44473925
Why do you say that?
>>44470546
I still think 4e wasn't that bad as a game, just bad as a D&D.
>>44473760
So let me get this straight, you decided to pick abilities that you don't like, then when you don't use them because they don't work with you or your group's playstyle, it's the game's fault?
Just a heads up, every level you can swap out an at-will for a different one. Use that to try different attacks. If you're doing something other than just using a two handed weapon there are lots of great ones. I suggest Weapon Master's Strike or Crushing Surge if you just want to be slightly harder to murder or want something strictly better than basic attacks. Wicked strike is good if you want to squeeze more damage out of an easier to hit target. Vicous offensive is great because you can have multiple foes marked. Dual strike is solid if you want to attack multiple foes and spec into TWF. Resolute Shield and Shield feint are strictly better than regular attacks if you use a shield.
You have zero excuses.
>>44473929
>>44473887
I think it'd be worth sticking with it for a few more levels so you can get some of the more interesting powers, level 2 is still really low powered for a character.
Important thing though is are you having fun playing it? If not then there's no harm is looking for another game.
>>44472896
Well then I guess pokemon isn't a good game then.
>>44473951
Well, what are you going for with this fighter?
Two-handed? Sword-and-board? Dual wielding? Temporary hit points? Grappling? Improvised weapons? Alchemy?
What's your build?
>>44473962
The fact it wasn't bad as a game definitely makes it an oddity from Wizards-made D&D.
>>44470546
Don't know who says anything about 4e anymore.
We get 5e threads daily.
We get 3e general threads every two days
We get Pathfinder threads daily
We get 4e threads... Maybe once every two months. Perhaps slightly more often then that.
>>44474030
>What's your build?
Fuck builds, I work of my character concept
>>44473988
>you decided to pick abilities that you don't like
No, I picked ones I thought fitted my concept. I was just saying that I don't seem to get use out of them because basic attacks are all I really need. There would be no point in swapping them out, because I still wouldn't use them, because tehere'd be no point.
>>44474083
What's your concept?
>>44474083
What's you fukkin' character concept then?
>>44474083
>Fuck builds, I work of my character concept
I don't think 4E is for you. 4E is the edition of the character optimizer.
>>44473951
Because it appears that you have literally no idea what you are doing, you are getting outclassed by your other teammates in one of the most balanced editions out there, and it doesn't seem like you've read very many of the options available to you. 4E fighters are martial jack-of-all-tradesmen in addition to being to best defenders in the game.
>>44474083
>>on builds
He means what fucking class feature did you pick, dildo. There are many powers that key off those features that significantly change how they are used in play.
>>44474083
>>44474143
>you are getting outclassed by your other teammates
But I'm not, really.
>>44474083
>Fuck builds, I work of my character concept
This is building a Magic: the Gathering deck and saying "Fuck archetypes, and fuck strategy!"
>>44473887
>Covering Attack and Brute Strike
...and building your entire deck out of Timmy-fodder and trash cards.
And then complaining that Magic: the Gathering is shit because of your own terrible choices.
Build your fucking character!
>>44474073
The bait-threads don't count as 3e generals.
>>44474135
Nah, that is 3.x. As long as you follow the basic advice in 4e (16-18 in primary stat, choose a race with matching stat bonuses or a complementary racial ability, yadda yadda yadda) you will have a character that is capable of doing his job. In 3.x you really have to work the system for a martial to keep up with the casters from midgame on.
>>44474083
>Fuck builds, I work of my character concept
This is the absolute worst excuse for being bad at a game I have ever seen. Is your character concept "not very useful"? What does being able to attack in a slightly different way that doesn't thematically change your character have to do with your concept?
>>44474209
Then what the fuck are you complaining about precisely? You just use boring attacks because you intend for your character to be boring. Sounds like you should be rather contented with the situation. Continue being bland until the game's progression catches up with you and you also become ineffectual.
Sounds like a blast.
>>44473887
Could you give us some info on the other players? Covering Attack is a very co-op exploit, it'd only be useful if you had another party member that would be beneficial to give that extra movement.
Brute Strike is a bit of a gamble but if you're confident that you have a character that can hit what its aiming at then sure, why not. Otherwise though then the other two lvl1 daily's might be a better choice.
Also Sure Strike is mostly useful when you have some kind of peculiar weapon and you're relying on that's gimmick to harm the enemy, rather than usual damage. Otherwise Reaping Strike (guaranteed damage even if you miss) might be a better choice, with Tide of Iron being amazing if you have the right party to benefit from it. I have nothing but good feelings about Cleave.
>>44470546
I don't see people say that. I see less people bitch about 4e these days, but that's mostly because half the bitching was just bitching for the sake of bitching about DnD in general.
Mechanically, 4e had some good combat ideas, and some okay social ones (that were really mishandled).
>>44474212
Is what I say
>Every two days, not every two hours.
>>44474415
>Could you give us some info on the other players?
Not mechanically, no.
>>44474461
What about their classes?
>>44474461
Is this some sort of heavy immersion roleplay stuff? That's fair, but I think I see your problem. 4E does not lend mechanical support to social roleplay. All of that must be conducted by the players themselves for the most part (which I actually like,) so treating it like other editions or games just doesn't play well with it.
Perhaps 4e is not for you?
>>44474083
>Fuck builds, I work of my character concept
Fun fact: 4e encourages refluffing. That means you can adapt most mechanical concepts to most narrative concepts.
The fluff of the powers in the books is merely a suggestion, an idea to work off of.
>>44474461
So what is your character concept, then?
>>44474479
Mage, Monk, Bard, Ranger
>>44474504
No, that's just because I don't know what's on their sheets.
>>44474541
You don't need to know what's on their sheets, you need to know what they do.
>>44474541
>Mage
>>44474562
Kill things.
>>44474597
Metal.
What's your characters name?
>>44474541
So what are you and what is your concept, fuckwad?
>>44474563
Wizard. You understand.
>>44470546
Ignore shitposter.
What's the silliest fighting style a martial character can have?
>>44474597
Okay, walked into that one.
You need to know how they do it. What they do to kill things.
>>44474678
The monk runs around at high seed and sets people on fire, the ranger spams Twin Strike and Hunter's Quarry, the wizard uses Phantom Chasm and some ice thing, and the bard uses Skald's Aura and... helps, I think?
>>44474675
Pratfalls and silly walks.
>>44474738
So you don't have a character concept? That is fine, but don't lie about it. Don't be an asshole.
>>44474675
Once had a fighter, starting at lvl 5, whose deal was that he wore giant metal mantle on his shoulders in the shape of a gigantic shuriken (homebrew falchion). He literally fought by shaking his shoulders and spinning around like a top, I nicknamed him the Cleave-Machine.
It worked alright because the party were pretty much a group of "Free" gladiators on tour throughout the continent, so weird ass weapons just made us more famous.
>>44474816
What? How is that related to that post?
>>44474563
mage is the essentials wizard
they're the best essentials class, they get bonuses to particular schools of magic and encounter spells in their spellbook in exchange for no implement specialisation and no rituals. Making them an equal, but different, alternate option to the wizard.
As opposed to, say, the fucking bladesinger
>>44474738
Have you considered explaining to them how you find your current abilities boring and asking them for more interesting suggestions?
>>44474853
How about you tell us your concept then, after we've asked you for the umpteenth time?
>>44474883
It actually was wizard. I didn't go looking in Essentials, so I thought the terms were still interchangeable.
>>44474853
He won't tell us what his character concept is, and his character concept is his given reason to not explore other options that may fit his playstyle and increase his enjoyment. I've asked him several times what his concept is, and he refuses to respond. So I'm done with it.
>>44474928Because I've forgotten what it was.
>>44474925
I don't find them boring, I just don't see any reason to use them over basic attacks most of the time.
>>44470546
>all I want is 4.5 so I can have books with the correct math
>oh and I guess some better ritual rules and good virtual tools wouldn't hurt
>it will never happen because of all the 4e hate
God fucking damnit.
>>44474957
Well, if your character concept is so damn boring that you can't even remember it yourself, then it's no wonder your mechanical concept is just as bad.
It's safe to say that you suck at every aspect of RPGs.
>>44474957
Perhaps you should consider MMO'S, since you lack even the tiniest spark of imagination.
>>44475003
Why hasn't anyone made a retroclone of 4e yet?
>>44474957
Wow, you are an asshole.
>>44475067
They have.
Trifold 4e, for starters.
>>44475067
>>44475140
There's also Strike!.
>>44475170
I wouldn't exactly call that one a retroclone.
It's inspired by 4e, but doesn't really target its audience.
>>44475003
All I want is DMG3
>>44474025
>pokemon
>balanced
>>44472896
>That's it? Rock Paper Scissors has that, and it ain't a good game.
Wait wait, hold up: Are you bad mouthing Rock Paper Scissors AND 4e? On /tg/, that board whose favoritest games ever are Rock Paper Scissors AND 4e?
>>44474025
Pokemon has hideous balance issues. types like bug, poison and ice alongside types like water, steel and fairy.
>>44476226
Rock, Paper, Scissors has too much homebrew
>>44475140
I haven't heard of Trifold 4E, what's that about?
>>44477077
Dynamite is completely balanced within the original paradigm as the developers intended, go fuck yourself
>>44477197
It's 4e. With trifold character sheets. Like AW.
What would a 4e retroclone be about if not 4e?
Yo how should I play a Swordmage in 4E? Thinking of running the "Darth Vader" Swordmage/Warlock hybrid build I've seen on the web. Any other cool options?
>>44477293
Any way you want.
You can do a striker secondary, you can do a controller secondary, you can hybrid with Warlord, you can hybrid with Battlemind, you can do pretty much whatever.
>>44477293
heroic, paragon or epic?
>>44472896
>talking shit about RPS
>>44477538
Probably a campaign spanning heroic and paragon.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471674-Darth-Vader-Swordmage-Defenderlock
Thinking of running something like the build linked here.
>>44477240
Who gives a shit about dynamite with issues like ninja and pirate taking each other out still in the game?!
>>44472300
>It's better than 3.5, let's just leave it at that.
No, no it really wasn't.
>>44474675
In 4e? Probably warlord just yelling at people to hit things. It's technically a martial fighting style.
>>44477678
I've tried a variant of that build before, it works very nicely from mid-heroic onwards
That said, consider avenger/swordmage hybrid for ludicrous AC, just something to look at
>>44477901
Lazy warlords a best, I played mine as a grumpy old man for whom the youngins of today were never good enough.
>>44477937
I just finished playing a slew of divine characters so I'm looking for something else. Cool idea though!
>>44477952
I prefer bravura.
>>44477937
Avernian Knight is what really pulls defender-locks into their own. It looks pretty janky before that.
Too bad we never got the pactblade feat for normal warlocks. Would mean the Vader build comes with its own light saber.
>>44478053
Just grab a sunblade
>>44470546
I've literally never heard that, but I agree with it.
>>44472264
In my opinion
>1: Combat is fun enough to be a game in and of itself
>2: Non-combat is disassociated from combat enough that the lackluster noncombat rules (and D&D noncombat rules have always been lackluster) can be completely ignored and replaced with "fuck it, role-play."
>3: Everyone has a useful role in combat
>4: PC's feel like fantasy action-movie/series/novel heroes because of the following (some may not find this to be a plus, but it runs this genre better than any other game I've found, and I like running games of that genre.)
>4-A: PC's are built on a fundamentally different mechanical chassis from PC obstacles like monsters
>4-B: PC's are unlikely to accidentally die from a single encounter, creating a sense of plot-shield, but universal diminishing resources from encounter to encounter maintain tension throughout the adventuring day
>5: The mechanics and fluff are sufficiently divorced from each other that refluffing becomes incredibly easy, and nearly every class (barring some essentials erra shit) is totally viable at all tiers of play. This makes nearly every fluff-concept, no matter how weird or pulpy, viable and doable without a "must start at at-least X level to have Y prestige class and Z feats" requirement.
>6: The mechanical focus on cooperation and synergy has a subtle effect on players, making many who are on the edge of "that-guy-ism" refrain from disrupting the party dynamic, because going out on your own without a party to support you is a BAD idea.
>7: The aforementioned ease of refluff (applies to monsters too,) and elegance of mathematics makes DMing a dynamic campaign much easier than any edition before it.
>>44478132
As a rampant, uncontrollable minmaxer, I freaking love 4e warlords.
I can optimize like crazy, but instead of overshadowing my allies I help them do awesome things by loading power bonuses on them and giving them free attacks
>>44478258
I share this sentiment.
>>44478258
>>44478701
Nobody seems to mind a high-optimization character who contributes much more than his fair share to the party's victory when what he's optimized to do is make everyone else awesome. Meanwhile, you get to feel like pic related.
>>44477240
>>44477811
>>44477077
Guys, all this splat/homebrew shit is missing the point. If you understand the RPS meta even a little, core is the most broken.
>>44478867
Exactly. Fourth edition had massive problems but it was really build to make sure class complimented with each other. In a co-op game that's necessary
Even power gaming and is tolerable when your Min maxing to help your friend stay in the spotlight.
John wick (yeah I know) Game balance isn't about attacks or damage it's about spotlight.
>>44478907
The whole meta fell to bits when they errata'd out using rocks to smush paper. RAI, it makes sense.
