Why did 5e receive a way better reception than 4e?
>>47765639
Better marketing and lowered expectations.
>>47765639
Better marketing? Just calling it D&D is easier for newer fans.
>>47765661
>>47765670
>better marketing
How?
5e was just a better game than the clusterfuck that was 4e.
>>47765639
You might think you were baiting... But there's actually several reasons.
4e was a return to the days of Chainmail Miniatures. It was to a new edition of D&D what Final Fantasy Tactics had been to the previous seven games (although it had long been in development when 7 came out, so more like 6).
4e had excellent pre-release hype. It's when it came out that all hell broke loose. The skill system had turned out to be the whole thing, not some incomplete tidbit from the previews, for example. There was the "cut to the fun" stuff. There was the *relative* (as all D&Ds have always had plenty of combat stuff) lack of out-of-combat characterization and focus, despite the 'utility powers' (many of which were for combat instead anyways).
Even the homogenization of class powers pissed people off. Everyone had the exact same spread of X per encounter, Y per day, and they were written the same way. Standardization wasn't *bad* but it had not been a thing in RPGs for so damn long that it blindsided everyone, and it was only with experience and system mastery that one could finally see - or make - those abilities start to feel as different as they actually were.
Finally, martial-lovers were pissed as fuck they'd been turned into wizards, and wizards were pissed as fuck they weren't the greatest thing in the party anymore.
... and that's just the start of it. 4e was supposed to have this full, interactive online tabletop system to it, and fuck that, they even killed off the fucking minis in the end!
In the END though, 4e will have had a lot more lasting love than 5e is likely to get, due to a severe lack of support materials.
>>47765725
>How?
Because... people heard about it? Iunno they marketed it to old fans and new, maybe a return to form is easier to market than a complete overhaul
>>47765639
Because everyone was saying "3.5 IS BACK GUYS D&D IS SAVED!"
>>47765742
4e's skill system is better than 5e's though.
>>47765742
Don't forget that a lot of the initial 4th edition marketing was very anti-3.5. This ended up turning a fair number against the system before anything had even been revealed.
>>47765899
Oh, how so? I wasn't really into the D&D at the time, so I missed the marketing.
>>47765639
Murder/suicide
Pandering.
>>47765639
4e basically threw out everything from previous editions, which caused everyone to get really defensive and hate it for not being D&D, regardless of its actual quality.
5e promised to involve the community and bring back things from all editions, which regardless of the success of, made people look at it and nod and say it was indeed D&D again.
Opinions on quality or whether any of this was a good thing or not doesn't really matter. What matters is what people saw at first glance and how they reacted.
>>47765639
look, 4e sucked, and hasbro lost serious amounts of money to a pirate copy of 3rd edition.
5th edition doesn't have that problem.
All the people that got assblasted by 4e had jumped ship to pathfinder. Leaving the people who didn't care and the moderates to be around for 5e.
5e is also a lot closer to all the previous editions aside from 4e.
>>47765725
Do you even remember the marketing disaster 4e was?
>>47765639
5e has aspects to it recognizable all the way back to Basic (including elements from 4e).
4e was a huge departure that it looked like a completely different game with the D&D label slapped onto it.
Plus there was as above the anti-older editions slanted marketing that I think drove a huge wedge in the community (the same wedge which spawned Pathfinder), making it almost like WotC themselves fueled the edition wars.
Plus there was the fact that 4e was filled with empty promises, like all the digital support that fell through for unfortunate reasons. Towards the end of its life cycle 4e was just falling into mediocrity, and I'm sure Essentials rubbed people the wrong way after all the "there will never be a 4.5" talk, too.
>>47766054
4E sold really well, Hasbro even said that. The issue is is that it was losing the market to Pathfinder because 3E was, as you said, was pirated to another company and people would rather learn barely anything new over something nearly wholly new.
5E is a blast because it hits that sweet spot in having a bit of everything without being bloated out the ass.
>>47766045
Also don't forget how secretive WotC was about 4e's development vs 5e's open and "honest" approach.
I remember even hypothesizing about a potential 4e would get threads locked on the WotC forums with a mod saying "there are no plans for a 4th edition" right up to the day it was announced.
>>47766224
>5e's open and "honest" approach
You mean the "let's listen to the guys who want 3.X again and shut out everyone else" approach?
R.I.P. Martial dice
R.I.P. Sorcerer that isn't just a shittier blasty wizard
>>47766377
That's why "honest" is in quotes.
At least the community even knew it was being made before dropping it on them.
>>47766212
It's not like people who wouldn't play your shit anyway not buying your shit and instead buying somebody else's shit is actually losing you sales, but good luck trying to explain that to execs.
I mean, okay, lets say PF doesn't get made. So what? The haters still wouldn't buy it. I mean, there's probably a few that the smear campaign Paizo did wouldn't have convinced, but overall, things would be basically the same.
>>47766394
>smear campaign
The only smear campaign was on WotC's side, Paizo just capitalized on the butthurt it caused.
>>47766212
There's a difference between a product selling well and a product being well received.
Sure, everyone bought 4e, but nobody liked it.
>>47766462
Then there's also people like me, who bought the core books, even liked it, but never played it more than a couple of times so never bought more splats.
>>47766377
>You mean the "let's listen to the guys who want 3.X again and shut out everyone else" approach?
More people wanted the 3e stuff than didn't, I don't really see how that's WotC's fault. Making a product that the majority of their customers are looking for is just how successful companies work. You can whine all you want, but the reality is that you're in the minority, so you need to grow up and get over it.
Like it or not, 4e was incredibly different from what people expected or basic D&D so there was some hesitation from the beginning.
>>47765639
Because it's a better system
>>47766736
[ ] Not told
[X] Told
>>47765639
Why did obama get a nobel peace prize?
For not being its predecessor.
>>47766045
This. Memes matter more than reality to nerds.
5e had a reception?
Playing 4th edition maybe didn't exactly require a bunch of books and weird tokens/cards but it felt like it. Every time their was a gameplay issue their was some new supplement or handbook or gadget to fix it to the point that some of the Austin TX DMs were putting out "shopping lists" of what books/equipment were needed to play in their game.
5e went back to the holy trinity of DM guide, Players guide, and Monster Manual for *base play.* Sure, they had modules out before the MM hit and they've got new rule supplements in the books, but there's a clear perception that those 3 books are "enough" for a game, everything on top of that is gravy.
>>47765639
People don't want a new system like 4e, they want the same system but fixed
>>47765742
5e will get an OGL-type license.
I miss 4e. I miss when Fighters could have Wisdom as a secondary stat and were briefly useful and powerful. All hail caster supremacy, sucking the cocks of insecure nerd virgins since whenever!
>>47767442
See, my issue with that idea is...Jesus Christ, did you SEE the splatbooks for 3.5? It outsplatted 4e like crazy.
>>47767462
I miss fighters being able to protect their allies and Swordmages...being a thing at all.
>>47767462
Dude caster disparity ain't no where near as bad as it was in 3.5, hell I'm not even sure it still exists. 3.5 was really the only edition to have that problem
I actually wanted to like 4e and at first glance I thought it looked a lot more like a real rulebook, and less like some hack's first attempt at making props for their D&D game.
But goddamn did all the standardization irritate. It was like every ability was just a cut and paste of another ability, just changing a few small things depending on the context. And the diminishing sizes of the rulebooks really pissed me off.
>>47767438
it did, and they basically not did a 4e and released the books at a different time, the books were a hell of allot better in quality than 4th.
>>47767497
>the books were a hell of allot better in quality than 4th.
I'd disagree with that. It's a lot more fiddly and the art is kinda meh.
>>47765639
4E dared to do things differently. It innovated, and while some of its design choices sucked, others were amazing. It was actually new and interesting, and presented a whole new game experience from previous editions.
5E is a return to form, a game built not around being innovative, but instead being evocative of previous editions. It's the boring, safe regression into the comfortable known, instead of a progression into something new.
With a brand as old and respected as Dungeons and Dragons, you have a lot of players that don't want to come out of their comfort zones. Thus, the dreary 'safe' edition was better received than the innovative 'risky' edition.
>>47767505
quality as in, the ink didn't smear when I rubbed my finger on it, or smell like a fucking rotten egg because they used out of date ink.I agree with the art though,but hey, gotta avoid them lawsuits.
>>47766462
Me and my group played it for around four years. Had a two year main campaign even, best game I've ever been in. Fuck I miss my character in that game.
>>47767505
The art is really bad in 5e. I can't stand it.
>>47765639
>4e
Loads of marketing, trying to open the D&D market to the common dude, you saw advertisements for it fucking everywhere.
It was also a massive departure from previous D&D editions, even moreso than the 3e departure from AD&D.
Then there's the fact that because they decided to clean up the book formats, everything looked 'samey' from first glance instead of like in previous editions where you had to parse through shit to know what the fuck it was talking about.
The marketing ended up back firing as well as Paizo was able to take the "3e is dead" and turn it into "3e Thrives!" or whatever. WotC also learned the same lesson Nintendo learned, going for the mass market gets a fuck load of initial sales, but the common shopper doesn't buy additional books/accessories/etc.
>5e
Trimmed back the marketing to focus only on the people who actually play D&D, promised to keep things toned down (which in a way preys on the people who were angry with paizo going out of control with their splats). Playtesting that showed they were willing to go all the way back to the concepts of "There's a Warrior, a Mage, a Priest, and a Rogue, you pick your specialization to make your warrior a fightan-warrior, a holy-warrior, or a nature-warrior", and that they were willing to expand, shift, and change based on what their testers wanted.
Unfortunately a lot of awesome ideas died because of this, but ultimately it kept the books to what the people who would buy them actually wanted.
>>47767479
Swordmages were hilariously chuuni and hilariously baller. Teleporting magic sword stabs errryday.
4e let us have an all-arcane party having shenanigans at a magic academy. 5e will never let us know such joys again.
>>47767468
3.5 certainly had more splats than 4e. But few of them felt as required as the 4e books did.
>>47767558
Yeah, I think every power type except shadow got at least one class for each role, which let you legitimately go 'All divine game' or 'Arcane Academy'
>>47765639
OD&D - Innovative and struck right when people were wanting something new to play.
Basic D&D - simple with very slow but gradual expansion culminating in the Rules Cyclopedia.
AD&D - Splats, splats everywhere. That said, introduced perhaps the best settings and some of the concepts that people came to agree "that's D&D".
3/3.5E - Designed to actually reward players for "mastering the system" it was nabbed up by a new generation of players and with the advent of the internet being properly huge players could interact and discuss things such as 'character builds'. This led many to view it as the 'standard RPG' and few wanted to deviate because of fear that they'd have to spend hours/days to learn new systems and builds.
4E - Innovative but basically required an online membership to handle all of the feats, powers, classes, paragon paths and epic destinies, as well as items. While highly balanced (compared to other editions) and letting every class be good, people were turned off since they'd have to learn the system anew/didn't want to pay out for the online accounts.
5E - A massive public playtest and feedback system (though some things should have stayed from the Next playtests IMHO), it blends the previous editions and promised that, with just a tad bit of work, all of the old adventures (and possibly other things) could be easily converted and they slimmed down a lot of issues. Best thing is they aren't flooding the market with splats, moving slowly and releasing 3-4 books a year, mostly adventures.
>>47767585
Martials never got controller, I think...
>>47767611
I loved the interaction of the Elf/Dwarf/Human trio in that group. They had that right level of disrespect that made me really believe they were great friends.
The main gun also managed to be a great example of how a Warlord works. He's the guy with the crazy idea and the tactical awareness, not the always listened to leader.
>>47767468
Absolutely, especially if you count Paizo and other 3rd-party stuff. But they were just that, splats. You bought the base 3 and then splatted on any stuff you were interested in or thought would help.
4th had 8 "core" rule books (PH 1-3, DMG 1-2, MM 1-3) plus 6 "power" books for the individual classes (Arcane, Divine, Martial 1-2, Primal, and Psionic) that all were considered needful and all referenced each other. That struck me as an insane number for "core" even though the total amount of books put out was only a tiny fraction of the 3rd edition booklist.
5e, OTOH, plays on 3 core books, so if you have them, you have core. Then *if* you want to add something else you can add in that specific book as well. 3 must-haves plus 10,000 if-you-want is actually a lower burden than 14 must-haves and 10 if-you-wish from the consumer's standpoint.
>>47767631
3.5 had both a DMG2 and a PHB2 to be technical.
I'd also call the other books splat just as much as the 3.5 ones. They added stuff, they were not required to use the main books.
>>47767617
Right, yeah. Mind you, Cha-Rogue was a controller in many ways so that ALMOST counts.
>>47767617
Hunter, technically counts I think.
There was no melee controller, however, aside from the CHA rogue.
>>47767625
Truth. It felt like a retelling of an actual group's adventure with inside jokes and little funny asides. Hell, they even burn down an orphanage (though said orphans were zombies or some shit).
>>47767688
>though said orphans were zombies or some shit
>"At least nobody will miss them!"
>>47767706
Again, hilarious lines. Dammit, now I need to go and buy the compilation book...
>>47765639
To be fair, 5e is a lot less bad than 4e. They're both shit though.
Because Pathfinder is bloated as fuck now
>>47767512
Why should D&D be innovative?
Why try to fix something that isn't broken?
People who buy D&D want something that resembles D&D. If they wanted a complete departure from the series they would buy a different game.
>>47767791
This might be it. Though 5E is far from perfect, Pathfinder is just heavy now with splats. Hell, they are getting ready to release "Starfinder" for crying out loud!
>>47767817
>Starfinder
>Hahaha that can't be re-
>>47765742
>It was to a new edition of D&D what Final Fantasy Tactics had been to the previous seven games
That analogy don't really jibe. I mean, FFT was GOOD.
>>47767832
So was 4e.
>>47767817
>Starfinder
>there are people who will buy this.
>>47767832
FFT wasn't part of the main series though. Even the name implies that it's a different game.
Maybe 4e should have been called D&D tactics.
>>47767836
That's your opinion but you're in the minority.
>>47767857
I'm fine with that. The group i'm in loves 4e, I pretty much only play with them. But it was good. People do not have to believe it for it to be true.
>>47767888
My group only recently stopped playing 4E, mostly because one of the players wanted to run it but run it like it was a 2E adventure.
5E is a lot of fun so far but I'm now being lined up to run the Starter Set. Going to do a shout-out to 4E by putting the adventure in the Nentir Vale and expanding it out from there. End game goal is a "fracturing of worlds" event where bits and pieces of other settings are attempting to merge into the PoLand setting and the party needs to stop it.
Shit is gonna get fun real soon!
>>47767993
Our tuesday game is 4e. Our thursday game was 5e and we just TPK'd in it, pretty much everyone but one player in the group likes 4e more.
5e is okay. but 4e feels more like what we want from D&D. I hope you enjoy it.
>>47768025
Hope so too. Might go back to 4E if I can get a decent printer again (my group is fairly poor, the best of us makes about $14/hour and only me and my fiancee have tablets so everyone else needs to print their character sheets every level or so).
Looking forward to a little lower-power scale game, personally. Need a break from the ultra-high-fantasy we've been doing for a while.
D&D players are literally autistic and hate change.
Because caster scum got their supremacy back.
t. Magefucker Witchtoucher, nerfed to the ground
>>47768072
see>>47767810
>>47768113
There is no caster supremacy in 5e.
>>47768302
No, caster supremacy is back but it's not nearly as bad as it was in 3.PF. Most of the game-breaking spells are far more limited in scope but casters can still dominate if played even remotely decently. Again, not as bad but still there.
>>47768319
No it isn't. 5e is pretty balanced. As was every edition except for 3.5
The problem is that you don't want a balanced game. You want martial domination.
>>47768338
That anon is right. There is still pretty heavy caster supremacy, it just only manifests in the second half of the level track. Single digit levels are balanced for all intents and purposes, double digits are not.
>>47768388
I'm not getting baited into another pointless casters vs martials trollfest.
Show us some concrete examples of caster supremacy in 5e or shut the fuck up.
Why are people saying 4e was a 'huge departure' when it plays exactly like a version of 3e that's actually balanced?
It's all the fucking same. Same magic items, same stats, same combat system, same action economy.
The only difference is that the classes are balanced and you have 30 levels instead of 20.
>>47768416
Polymorph, Wish, and other extremely versatile options in the second half of the level track bring back the same problems 3.X has. Namely, casters are extremely versatile, and martials are not.
Most martial in the second half of their level track get very very little in the way of utility abilities, and even combat abilities start to decrease in utility gradually especially without magic items.
5e fixes the combat system for collapsing AC into itself, balancing saves [except at high levels], weakening save or dies, and semi-fixes the skill system by making the more viable, but the core problem of caster supremacy was always the versatility problem, and around level 10 or so the power of martials vs the versatility of casters declines by a lot.
>>47768463
It plays nothing like 3.X, are you high?
>>47768416
Sorclock having the highest, longest ranged sustained ranged DPR, on top of being a 9th level caster.
Bard stealing the shit out of paladin and ranger spells, as well as expertise from the rogue on top of being a 9th level caster.
Moon Druid wild shape being less limited and overall better than the barbarian rage, on top of being a 9th level caster
Necromancers
Martials STILL only receiving ribbon abilities and magic STILL being the best solution to everything (special mention goes to the barbarian who at least gets to fly). Divine casters STILL selecting from the entire spell list every freaking day.
>>47768416
In terms of sheet damage, they aren't as strong as 3.P, but they again reign supreme in terms of versatility (especially the Bard). A fighter may increase his crit range, intercede with his shield in a fight, etc. but the Wizard can see invisible creatures, summon monsters, alter memories, raise the dead, and bring a person youth again. Those are all features from the various Wizard Schools. What can the Fighter do that is similar?
>>47768416
>caster supremacy in 5e
Cool, when does my fighter learn to cast Charm Person to easily get through a social encounter? Or even just Friends, if I don't care about ever seeing that NPC again.
When does my Barbarian get to cast Plane Shift? I mean that's a whole range of story possibilities right there, plane shift. When do I get to do something as meaningful to the story as opening a hole to another reality?
When do they get to do something exciting in battle that's not "I attack" or "I use my single effective ability"?
(Paladins are cool, I like the paladin ability set. If only they all had such a spread)
>>47768469
Indeed, fighters/rangers/barbarians/paladins/rogues don't have to stand still and full attack every turn to contribute. You also (usually) don't win/bypass an encounter with a single spell.
As >>47768463 says, it plays like a "fixed" 3.5.
>>47768469
>first poster lists things that are the same
You COULD have said:
>no, it's different because x and y
INSTEAD you said:
>nuh uh, nuh uh!
congratulations
>>47768463
gr8 b8 m8.
Try actually playing both games before saying they're the same.
>>47768464
Casters (Wizards more acurately) have always had access to Wish and Polymorph.
Of course caster are going to be more versatile than a class who's only good at one thing: melee combat.
There's no way of fixing that unless you want to give martials Wish, Polymorph, Gate, Teleport, Flight, etc...
Essentially you're complaining that that wizards cast spells while martials swing swords. That's what it says on the box dummy.
>>47768496
He's wrong. Its literally comparing apples and oranges. They play nothing alike. It goes from a system of attacking and combat manuevers, and daily spell effects, along with a bunch of by-class subsystems, into a one-size-fits-all system of Powers that are at-will, encounter, and daily.
It literally is nothing alike in terms of gameplay. 5e plays like a fixed 3.X, 4e plays like a completely different game.
>>47768502
No, I'm complaining that at high levels one character class is immensely more powerful and versatile than another.
If you think martials are "swing sword" the class, than you're 3.X cancer and should just STFU and stay away from game design.
>>47768489
No instead we have to wait half an hour for martial classes to pick which one of their viturally identical powers they will use this round.
It slows down combat to a crawl.
Having 1 wizard in the party is enough.
>>47768511
That's what martial are. Sorry m8. You're the one who needs to STFU. Or go play another game I guess.
>>47768513
>No instead we have to wait half an hour for martial classes to pick which one of their viturally identical powers they will use this round.
You must really fucking hate battlemaster fighters.
>>47768520
No thats what Commoners are, you go play another game.
>>47768520
Go back to 3.PF, faggot. Go and stay go, we don't want your cancer here.
5e was a good start, but it needs to do more.
>>47768505
TOTALLY DIFFERENT GAME
OH SHIT ROGUES WITH THE UNIQUE SNEAK ATTACK
CLERICS WITH CHANNEL DIVINITY
FIGHTERS ACTUALLY ABLE TO STOP ENEMIES
it's all the same game. YOu need to provide evidence of your claims, this isn't church.
pictured: class subsystems
>>47768525
>>47768537
Stay mad martialfags.
Keep playing your dead edition lol
>>47768464
>Polymorph
Requires concentration
>Wish
Has some severe limitations & can only be used once per day by lvl17+ sorcerers & wizards
5e casters have versatility at the cost efficiency & specialization. They're heavily resource reliant, & they can't surpass martial characters performance in their roles.
Casters can be very powerful at high levels but they don't make everyone else redundant any more.
>>47765639
The OSR movement and grognards like rules that make mages even better than everyone else and hate rules that don't require mind caulk to work.
>>47765742
4th ed is much harder to homebrew for as well because of the heavy standardization.
Might not seem like a bad thing, but I bet it made a certain kind of GM:s mad.
>>47768578
Nah, there's no reason not to have a party of two clerics and two bards.
The ONLY thing martials are good at is dealing consistent damage. That's it. That's literally the only thing they do - deal consistent damage.
That damage is good! It's really good!
But that's all there is.
The martial classes might as well say "every round, does x damage per level to an enemy" because that's what they boil down to. That's not an exaggeration - the math is designed that way (you can see the same progression in caster cantrips, especially the warlock Eldritch Blast).
There literally isn't a reason to be a Fighter when you can be a Paladin instead. 90% of the raw damage, but three times the versatility.
>>47768578
There's no point in trying to present factual evidence to these retards.
They won't be happy untill casters are good for nothing except lighting candles and decyphering languages.
>>47768592
>4th ed is much harder to homebrew for as well because of the heavy standardization.
Nah, it's pretty easy to homebrew - it's just that you notice more obviously when you get it wrong.
Like when you dump trash in a clean room vs a messy room. The same amount of mess was added, it's just more obvious.
>>47768602
>Look at the strawman I beat up mommy!
>Aren't I tough!?
>>47768600
>The ONLY thing martials are good at is dealing consistent damage
What exactly do you want Fighters to do besides deal damage?
Heal people? Throw fireballs? Detect traps?
>>47765639
Not that you need an out-of-combat system of skills anyway, given how the out-of-combat sections of the game are not the main focus, and are mostly just there to give the RPfags a justification to get into the combat.
>4e
>good
How triggered are you that 3.PF is still the most popular edition of D&D?
>>47768652
Read your own fucking chart, nigga.
5e has more games then 3.5 and Pathfinder COMBINED.
>>47768635
Cut through reality to step 1000 paces with one. Catch- and hurl- falling buildings. Run up lances and stand on their points. Rage so hard they twist reality and temporarily become a bloodthirsty monster. Those just being a few examples from Western mythology.
>>47768600
>Nah, there's no reason not to have a party of two clerics and two bards
Good, the more different party compliations are viable the more interesting the game is. There's also no reason not to have a party of 3 fighters and 1 rogue, because it's a TTRPG and you can play it however you want.
>There literally isn't a reason to be a Fighter when you can be a Paladin instead. 90% of the raw damage, but three times the versatility.
Here's a reason; maybe some people want to play as fighters instead of paladins? And they're free to do so, since fighters are perfectly viable in 5e. Some people just want to hit things.
Or maybe they want to be an Eldritch Knight and throw in some spells.
Or maybe they want to pick up a bow, choose some battle master skills & trip & disarm foes from a distance like Hawkeye.
They can do all those things, because your claim that
>The ONLY thing martials are good at is dealing consistent damage. That's it. That's literally the only thing they do - deal consistent damage
is so evidently false it's absurd. And that's only talking about fighters, because the claim that rogues are only good at damage is frankly beneath responding to.
>>47768685
There's a REALLY good reason not to have a party of 3 fighters and 1 rogue: you'll get your ass handed to you by level appropriate threats and your characters will die. And TPKs aren't fun.
>>47768692
[citation needed]
>>47768652
>popularity means quality
What the fuck are you doing on /tg/? Clearly there are superior forms of entertainment, like baseball. Or shitting.
>>47768698
Holy shit anon, are you serious? I don't want to go download the books for 5e for the dozenth time. Look through the bestiary every once in a while, and think about how long it takes an appropriate fighter or rogue to kill something the game says they're supposed to be able to fight. Then compare it to either the damage output of the monster or the chance whatever Save vs. Fuck You they deliver knocks one of them right out of the fight. Monsters and casters are playing with real weapons, martials get boffers.
For bonus chuckles, look at encounters with swarms of low level foes (like bandit archers or orcs). Higher level martials are also increasingly irrelevant compared to having an unimpressive band of tiny men.
>>47768753
Correct.
Basically, there's a 'Skeleton Number'.
This is the number of raised Skeletons that a fighter is numerically equivalent to in 90% of situations.
Beyond level 7 or so, a fighter's Skeleton Number is -less- than the number of skeletons that a wizard can have.
And the wizard can trade in skeletons for other useful things. A fighter cannot.
>>47768665
I don't care how well 3.PF does as long as nobody is playing 4e.
I hate 4e more than I like 3.PF
>>47768675
lol fuck off weeb
This is D&D not Naruto or Dragonball.
>>47765639
It's more like 3.5
>>47768788
Who the fuck plays a fighter anyway?
It's the most boring and mundane class you can pick.
Whether you like the show or not, I believe Critical Role as well as some other podcasts have really pushed forth 5E's popularity.
Virtually half the people I know that play 5E first watch or listened to some group playing it and wanted to play themselves.
>>47768652
>How triggered are you that 3.PF is still the most popular edition of D&D?
Why should I care when everyone I know hate 3.PF and constantly experiment with new systems instead of finding a single comfort zone to sit down in and then whine for years about how shit the chair is.
>>47768753
It's literally wrong, however. A shield-based fighter can merely avoid basically everything any high-level encounter can throw at him, while knocking it prone every turn and dishing out the hate in the long run. Mages are total fuck-ups in anything resembling a dungeon because you can be sure they will be out of everything by the second encounter.
>>47769151
>A shield-based fighter can merely avoid basically everything any high-level encounter can throw at him
Provided it's not a non-dexterity save.
>>47769182
At this point the fighter has huge save bonus in dex, str, con and one another very high one (WIS or CHA).
Don't forget that the fighter caracs progress much, much faster than other classes.
>>47769193
>very high one
What.
At best you get like +3 to one of those, and that's after picking up every relevant stat increase and feat you need for your damage to not fall off.
We are talking at level 12 the soonest when you can even consider putting stat-ups into something that's not your main stat(s).
A single hypnotic pattern will reduce your fighter to a drooling retard, and it's a mere 3rd level spell. Fuck, it happened in one of my games last weekend, if the cleric rolled badly it'd have been basically a TPK from a single spell.
>>47765639
4e was a departure from the established core D&D experience. 5e was a return to it.
>>47769229
BTW, said cleric is a life cleric with a shield, and shield master feat, he has like, 1 less AC than a defensive fighter but is absolutely unkillable/hit-able, keeps everyone alive, and puts up that fucking AoE aura that deals automatic damage and difficult terrain around him, so enemies can hardly even catch up.
>>47768991
why does that class exist then? Why are you wasting pages on useless shit?
>>47768698
If you look at the hardest monsters, they are all casters. The scariest thing about dragons isn't the fact that they can claw you to death or anything like that, it's the fact that they cast spells.
Same thing with demons, they're scary because they cast spells.
>>47769274
by-the-book 5e dragons aren't spellcasters anymore
>>47769229
>We are talking at level 12 the soonest when you can even consider putting stat-ups into something that's not your main stat(s).
Considering a fighter max dex or str at/before lvl 5 it's not even close to true.
>>47769274
I don't know.
Honestly they should probably just remove Fighters from the PHB. That would eliminate 99% of the whining about class balance.
I never hear whining about Rogues, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, Priests, Bards or any other class really. It's always Fighters whining.
>>47769750
>I never hear whining about Rogues, Rangers,
You are not listening hard enough.
Or, alternatively, you are not hearing whining about Rangers because everyone realized they are a pointless class. A fighter with the right background, or a Bard who steals Ranger/Druid magic are better rangers than the ranger.
>>47765725
The 4e marketing campaign went something to the effect of:
"3e is shit, buy our new game!"
... at a time when everyone was playing and liked 3e
>>47769946
Yeah, it was basically New Coke 2.0
My biggest problem with 5e is that the best grapplers are lore bards
Cutting words, expertise and access to spells just mean that they'll always out-grapple barbarians, fighters, rogues and monks
They're even better at grappling if you multiclass into wizard for two levels to get the divination school bonus
>>47765994
Some really stupid shit. A terrible animated talk show where, IIRC, the new tiefling and a gnome made fun of 3.5.
Also, they deleted the official 3.5 forums and archives in a staggering display of ineptitude to makeway for the new 4e ones.
>>47765742
>4e was supposed to have this full, interactive online tabletop system
That however was less WOTC's fault and more the chief developer was murdered by her ex husband.
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-murder-suicide-that-derailed-4th-edition-dungeons-dragons-online
>>47767417
>>47767417
>Memes matter more than reality to nerds.
Take marketing 101, man. Memes matter more than reality to all customers.
>>47768788
The number of skeletons a wizard can have generally makes a mockery of most higher level monsters as well.
They went a little too far with bounded accuracy.
>>47770053
Bounded accuracy makes for realistic, grim, gritty, low fantasy.
And it's awesome.
>>47770138
Kinda taken away from with the fact that most high level characters are complete walls of meat. Yeah, the guys can hit the fighter. They'll still need to hit him 30 times to put him down.
>>47770240
Don't forget that the average level 20 fighter can survive two straight rounds of immersion in lava, completely naked.
>>47767810
Except 3e was fucking broken.
>>47770240
>Yeah, the guys can hit the fighter.
They actually can't, unless they attack in hordes. I wouldn't have a problem with this, if the situation wasn't like this from the moment the characters can afford best armor+shield.
The PCs get huge AC right away that however doesn't scale without magic items, making it so that a bunch of low level enemies are instantly invalidated. Bandits have a +3, they have less than 1/5 to hit with an attack, for example. Once you get 2 +1 pieces of equipment and maybe defensive fighting style, they can literally only hit on a 20.
Meanwhile monster AC is comparatively low (even at higher levels, some outliers excluded), so players still get to hit a lot. So if you don't want your monsters to get roflstomped you'll need to use more of them, but then their offense which is "balanced" with the PCs relatively will imbalance things the other way.
It's really messed and it makes building a challenging encounter really hit and miss, in my experience.
>>47770439
Broken but fun.
4e is balanced but boring.
>>47770536
I found 4e Balanced and Fun. It was tactical and interesting.
>>47770544
Most of the community disagrees with you.
I found it very tedious. Combat in particular was overly complex and encounters took forever to resolve.
>>47765639
OG D&D: nobody knew any better
2e D&D: 0 competition; see OG D&D
3e: Trust in D&D 2strunk to die
4e: 3e whittled down trust in Wiz enough for many to see 4e for the garbage it was
5e: "this is similar to that thing I liked before 4e ruined D&D, so I'll play it instead," overrode everything we'd learned about not blindly trusting Wizards to make a good RPG from the abomination 3e devolved into.
i.e. a combination of legitimately good ideas + enough nostalgia to make people overlook it's persistent flaws long enough to hype it
>>47770583
It was honestly less complex than playing a spellcaster in 3e.
>>47769946
But people are playing and liking 3e to this day.
>>47769994
They also completely deleted the 4e ones as well.
>>47770599
Every class was equivocally complex to playing a basic spellcaster in 3e, on top of the contrivances in the core rules. They literally gave everyone spells and passive-spells as the "fix," to "boring combat."
>>47770622
>Every class was equivocally complex to playing a basic spellcaster in 3e
No. You had to slot in your spells every day with a caster, potentially choosing from over hundreds of spells if you played a divine caster, or had a huge spellbook, and then keep count of which ones you used, which was hard because you also had orders of magnitude of more spells to keep track of (a level 20 wizard that's geared up probably had more 0-2nd level spells than a lvl 30 4e character has powers in total).
>>47770536
>Broken but fun.
No, broken and boring.
>>47769962
>bard is best grappler
>magic and pomp give him bonuses
>basically the best wrestler is a pro wrestler
this amuses me.
>>47770656
So taking out tracking which spells you had and hadn't used is the pivotal difference, in your opinion, Between being a 3e caster and not?
>>47768475
I don't care how late I am
>Sorclocks
An unintended result of multiclassing. 5E shuns multiclassing, so this is clearly accidental.
>Bard
Bards don't do anything that good. They're a shining example of jack of all trades, despite being 9th level casters they're far worse than druids, wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks.
>Moon Druids
Are garbage. Moon Druids are trash. They can only transform into Beasts, and Beasts, if you've never flipped through the Monster Manual, are all complete trash after the Polar/Cave Bear (6th level).
>Necromancers
Only viable if they're spending all their spells every day on skeletons, which gives them ridiculous amounts of actions yes, but a single cleric will turn them all in a flash.
>magic being the best solution to everything
Except in "actually defeating an enemy". Outside of your loophole sorclock, fighters, monks, and barbarians output far more damage than any caster consistently and effectively. There's no spells that can instantly end encounters in 5E and few ways for a caster to blast higher than a fighter swiping around a +3 greatsword for two rounds.
>divine casters selecting from the entire spell list
This is only good for druids because the cleric spell list is fucking shit. (You'll notice I didn't say they were better than bards earlier. This is because 5E clerics are among the worst class options.)
>>47770622
So 'Abilities you can use' = spells?
As Passive Spells has got to be one of the most pointless terms I've ever heard.
>>47770710
>Bards don't do anything that good.
Grappling. Stealing smite from Paladins and Swift Quiver from Rangers. Beating Rogues in utility all day every day.
>There's no spells that can instantly end encounters in 5E
Hypnotic Pattern
Fuck, just teleporting or flying around things can solve an encounter.
Whatever, I don't have time for this..
>>47765742
>4e was a return to the days of Chainmail Miniatures.
The fuck? 4th ed was a massive departure from legacy. And 2, 3, and 3.5 all used miniatures. (I get that 4th ed DEMANDED you use minies as positioning mattered more, but it ALSO mattered in 3.5)
>It was to a new edition of D&D what Final Fantasy Tactics had been to the previous seven games
FFT was likewise a massive departure from legacy. It was wholely different. It was not a return to anything. But FFT was good where as 4th ed was not.
Going in a bold new direction only makes sense when it's not off a cliff.
>Even the homogenization of class powers pissed people off.
Yep, everyone's a wizard. It get why they did it. It's easier to balance when you put them all in a spreadsheet. But fuck that. It's why we pay you for this stuff.
>it was only with experience and system mastery that one could finally see - or make - those abilities start to feel as different as they actually were.
Pft, wut? There is no amount of "system mastery" that changes the fundemental mechanics of the game. They DID make the classes have different roles, for sure. That they lifted straight from WoW. DPS was a thing.
>due to a severe lack of support materials.
No dude. The core was bad. If the core is bad, then no amount of "support material" can prop it up.
>>47770749
>They DID make the classes have different roles, for sure. That they lifted straight from WoW.
Please don't post if you're retarded.
>>47770747
>Grappling
Grappling is minor field control in 5E of marginal utility.
>Stealing smite from Paladins and Swift Quiver from Rangers.
Again meager benefits.
>Beating Rogues in utility all day every day.
Nothing a bard can do can compare to the Thief archetype's Quick Hands.
>Hypnotic Pattern
I guess if you want to retreat, since that breaks on damage.
>Fuck, just teleporting or flying around things can solve an encounter.
Yes, flying around will certainly slay that dragon.
I'm not talking about encounters set up for a single magic button press but a generic scenario, which in D&D typically involves something or things from the monster manual coming at you. Rarely will "flying around" manage anything.
>>47770599
Except that in 4e, every class in the equivalent of a spellcaster resulting in combat rounds that take half an hour because the fighter can't decide which way he wants to hit the goblin with his fucking sword.
>>47770797
So only spellcasters get complex actions?
>>47770732
In 4e every single party member had as many powers as the wizard.
Now you have an entire party of wizards resulting in combat that's as slow as molasses.
Seriously, 1 spellcaster per party is enough. You're a fighter. Hit the monster with your sword for fuck's sake. No need to give you sword swings stupid anime names and slightly different attack rolls.
>>47770809
Exactly.
Not every class needs to be as complex as a spellcaster.
If you want a complex class roll a spellcaster. If you want a simple class roll a fighter. Nothing wrong with that. Some people want to play simple classes and they tend to gravitate towards melee fighters.
>>47770832
>Seriously, 1 spellcaster per party is enough. You're a fighter. Hit the monster with your sword for fuck's sake
I hate you and everything you stand for.
"I sword at the dragon" is neither fun nor interesting game design. Less options, and especially not precisely one option, is not better in any conceivable spectrum.
I WANT to be able to get different attack rolls with different results and not be locked into "oh um well I guess I swing my sword again for the 28th time" as my only choice for a turn.
5E, thankfully, satisfies both of us. You can play your Champion Fighter, and I'll play the Battlemaster or Eldritch Knight.
>>47770832
why does wizard need stupid anime names for their attacks? Can't they just throw fireballs every turn?
>>47768478
>When does my Barbarian get to cast Plane Shift? I mean that's a whole range of story possibilities right there, plane shift. When do I get to do something as meaningful to the story as opening a hole to another reality?
Let's be honest about one thing. When you go on an adventure, no one cares who owns the bus. No one thanks the bus driver.
>>47768788
A single strong creature is going to have very different strengths and weaknesses than a large group of weak, stupid creatures. They aren't easily interchangeable. You also probably made up some shit instead of doing sound comparisons to determine your skeleton number.
>>47769962
>Now you can't run away from me, you're doomed.
One attack, light armor, only finesse martial weapons, d8 hit dice. There's more to it than a high skill check. The lore bard would lose to all the other good grapplers, and lose hard to a good grappler with a good coach.
>>47770862
>I WANT to be able to get different attack rolls with different results and not be locked into "oh um well I guess I swing my sword again for the 28th time" as my only choice for a turn.
Then play a different classor a different game.
>>47770832
>In 4e every single party member had as many powers as the wizard.
Actually, the spellbook feature was one of the big unique things about Wizards in 4e. It meant they got more powers than everyone else but could only memorize a certain number at a time.
>>47767810
>Why should D&D be innovative? Why try to fix something that isn't broken? People who buy D&D want something that resembles D&D. If they wanted a complete departure from the series they would buy a different game.
Why did the Beatles go to India and start incorporating sitar and eastern styles into their music? Why try to fix something that isn't broken? People who listened to the Beatles wanted something that resembled the Beatles. If they wanted a complete departure from the band's style they would listen to a different band.
>>47770882
Because wizards do more than just damage.
Fighters are purely for damage. Stop trying to do some fancy Naruto bullshit and learn your fucking class role.
>>47770844
And what if someone wants to play a simple spellcaster or a complex fighter?
>>47770918
I'm sure lots of people hated the Beatles' new sound and said exactly that. People are always complaining when a band tries something different.
It's hit and miss.
In 4e's case it was a miss.
>>47767457
5e HAS an OGL-type license already, dude.
>>47770906
I don't play champion fighters to begin with.
>>47770929
Then play a different game.
Seriously, there's no way that D&D can cater to everyone nor should it try to do so.
In my experience, most new players like simple classes such as fighters and barbs. A new player doesn't want to memorise 30 different powers at level 1. He just wants to roll dice and kill things.
>>47765639
Because it improved on Pathfinder instead of trying to go entirely different direction.
>>47765639
4e was such a huge departure with the abilities that rubbed people the wrong way, 5e felt like a return to 3rd edition that most people grew up with, but with streamlined skills.
>>47770961
Exactly. Fans don't like change, and 4E's changes were radical and interesting. I don't like every mechanic in 4E, in the same way that I don't like every song in the Beatles later discography, but for every 'Doctor Robert' bomb there's a 'For No One' that makes it all worth it. With 4E, for every 'Magic Item Treadmill' there's a 'Fighters and Wizards are reasonably balanced now'.
>>47770609
We're playing it, but sometimes I'm not so sure we're liking it.
>>47770797
>Except that in 4e, every class in the equivalent of a spellcaster
>>47770832
>In 4e every single party member had as many powers as the wizard.
>Now you have an entire party of wizards
>>47770844
>Not every class needs to be as complex as a spellcaster.
What I get from this is that the people who hate 4e are dumb. As in literally dumb. They don't like complexity (even though the amount of complexity for any of the classes in 4e is nowhere near anything from 3.pf) and want simple straightforward answers for their fightan mans.
They are also incapable of differentiating game mechanics from what actually happens in universe. Actual spells cast by wizards by wiggling their fingers and saying some shit and the fighter who utilizes his special fighting techniques when the opportunities to use them present themselves are all the same thing to them if they use a standardized system of game mechanics.
>>47770926
>Fighters are purely for damage. Stop trying to do some fancy Naruto bullshit and learn your fucking class role.
Why do you hate Western mythology with its martials who cut through reality to step 1000 paces with one, catch- and hurl- falling buildings, run up lances and stand on their points, rage so hard they twist reality and temporarily become a bloodthirsty monster
Fuck martials beholden to Earth physics, I want martials from myth doing cool shit.
>>47770994
'People who'd like more than a single option for fighters' is a pretty wide group.
>>47770926
why do wizards do more than just damage? Why are fighters purely for damage?
Why can't fighters have kawaii sugoi moves while wizards just cast magic missile over and over again?
>>47771060
I wouldn't say so. Most people who wanted more options just stopped playing fighter.
>>47771059
Some people prefer simple classes. Deal with it. Why do you feel that every class has to have a complex and intricate playstyle?
>Why do you hate Western mythology with its martials who cut through reality to step 1000 paces with one, catch- and hurl- falling buildings, run up lances and stand on their points, rage so hard they twist reality and temporarily become a bloodthirsty monster
I don't. I just don't want that nonsense in D&D. We're not throwing all semblance of realism out of the window just because you want to play as Hercules. Fuck off.
>b-b-bbut wizards can do cool shit it's not fair moooooooooooooooooom ;_;
Wizards have an established system of magic that clearly expalins how and when they can do cool shit. It's called magic and it follows clearly established rules.
>>47771100
Is that because they wanted to play stuff other than fighters or because they wanted to play something that wasn't simple.
With how damn popular Gishes are for offering options and melee, I think it's the latter.
>>47771079
Why do clerics and paladins get to heal people? Why do rogues get to pickpocket and disarm traps?
Because that's their class role baka yarou.
>>47771131
>I just don't want that nonsense in D&D. We're not throwing all semblance of realism out of the window just because you want to play as Hercules
Haha oh wow.
>D&D
>realistic
pick one. My level 20 fighter can wade through lava for 12 seconds and come out alive.
>>47771148
What do you want your fighter to do other than hit things with a sword?
Heal people? Roll a pally.
Track monsters and have an animal companion? Roll a ranger.
*teleports behind you*? Roll a monk.
If you think fighters are boring you might just be playing the wrong class. Ever thought of that?
>>47771181
What if I want the fighter to be able to do things like lock down people with a polearm? Or smash people with a hammer hard enough to knock them over?
Or heck 'Protect allies from enemy attacks'?
>>47771154
Then why do other people get to fight better than a Fighter?
>>47771202
You can do all that in 5e. What are you complaining about?
>>47771216
>Then why do other people get to fight better than a Fighter?
They don't, in 5E.
5E fighters are supreme among fighting men.
With the sole technical exception of an Open Hand Monk succeeding on his Quivering Palm technique roll, which is the only save-or-die roll available to the players.
>>47771237
This.
What edition are you guys playing?
>>47771202
>What if I want the fighter to be able to do things like lock down people with a polearm? Or smash people with a hammer hard enough to knock them over?
Feats. That recent UA feat expansion in particular.
>Or heck 'Protect allies from enemy attacks'?
Sentinel feat. Anybody not attacking you gets punished.
>>47771216
Because some suckaduck didn't play their fighter better. A fighter's skills, feats, and in combat tactics should let them reasonably do better than someone just dipping into their pool of abilities.
Blame the player.
>>47771254
Feats are optional rules.
>>47771237
I only have limited experience with 5th but is Fighter really better than, say, Druid in Wildshape?
>>47771131
Vicious Offensive
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Attack: Strength vs AC
1[Weapon dice] + Strength modifier damage, and you mark an enemy adjacent to you until the end of your next turn.
Wow, so complex, I hit a dude and another dude next to me suffers a minor debuff.
Exorcism of Steel
Fighter Attack 17
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee Weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Reflex
Hit: 2[Weapon dice] + Strength modifier damage, and the target drops one item it is holding. You can choose to catch the item in a free hand or have it land in your space.
I smack a dude and he drops something and then I immediately catch it.
So complex, much rules, wow.
>We're not throwing all semblance of realism out of the window
D&D stops being realistic after level 6. Its even talked about in the rules for extraordinary abilities in the PHB, at least in 3.pf. If you want realistic, go fucking play Riddle of Steel instead. Im going to play a high fantasy high magic game filled with dragons, undead, wizards, and gods.
>>47771275
It's variable. Druids in wildshape are very much a level-by-level thing due to the full stat replacement.
>>47771131
> We're not throwing all semblance of realism out of the window
lmao
>>47771275
Depends on the level.
There are like 3 levels where Druid is better, and at high levels the Druid can get near infinite HP if they're set up right for it.
The issue of course being at those high levels, the druid's wild shape is near useless in terms of actual combat potential, so the HP just makes them a beatstick.
>>47771275
In the early game they can manage, but in the late game not at all. Wild Shape only permits a Moon Druid to become a Beast of CR [Druid level/3], and later CR Beast are pretty shit at fighting later CR enemies.
They can keep up with fighters at level 2-4 by doing battle as a Brown Bear, and again at level 6 by doing battle as a Polar Bear, but levels 5 and 7-9 the fighter clearly wins. At 10, elemental wild shape lets a Moon Druid again manage to hold their own, but every level thereafter they lose ground as Fighters get 3 attacks per round at level 11.
>>47771131
"all semblance of realism"
When you can snap your fingers and make food and water appear. When you can fight the very gods themselves. When the name Dragon is in the title. When you have brain eating octopus headed mind reading/controlling tyrants. When the dead can come back to life through various means.
Realism got fucked a long time ago.
You are playing the wrong game.
Let the guy play Hercules. You damned well might need him to arm-wrestle a fucking giant.
>There are people in this thread who would call AD&D books saying level 20 fighters should be able to single handedly slay dragons, entire armies, and powerful demon lords as "not D&D"
>>47771273
>Feats are optional rules.
Optional rules that literally everybody uses.
>>47771131
>We're not throwing all semblance of realism out of the window just because you want to play as Hercules. Fuck off.
>>47771402
I said ALL semblance of realism.
Yes magic and gods exist in D&D but that doesn't mean that everything suddenly becomes realistic.
A human cannot wrestle a giant or move mountains. That's just not physically possible. Fuck off with your weebshit.
>>47771451
>A human cannot wrestle a giant or move mountains. That's just not physically possible. Fuck off with your weebshit.
"A human cannot cast a ball of fire it is not physically possible."
Do you see why people are poking holes in your logic?
>>47771451
>treating a 10th level character as a mere human
You're making hilariously fatal missteps. Humans in the scope of earth never go past level 5.
A 20th level warrior is already bordering on a demigod, and can indeed wrestle giants, dragons, and even throttle the lesser gods with the right equipment.
>>47765639
One reason is that in 5e, all the classes are actually different. In 4e there's no practical difference between a wizard and a fighter, just one calls his magic "magic" and the other doesn't.
>>47771470
>"A human cannot cast a ball of fire it is not physically possible."
>>47771479
Have you actually played 4e?
A Swordmage, a Paladin and a Fighter all play dramatically differently and those are even the same ROLE.
>>47771451
okay, let's talk about realism:
If there are spells that let the caster know if someone is lying, how can there be corrupt policians? Shouldn't every politician go through lie-tester first?
If there are spells that can create food and water out of thin air, why doesn't the government teach those spells to as many people as possible and give them shittons of money to go to some random village and make sure nobody ever starves?
Why aren't wizards the rulers of every single country on the plane? You only need 1 mad powerful wizard to conquer a plane.
>>47771513
You're in denial, how cute.
>>47771494
There are clearly defined rules that explain how it's possible in the context of the game.
The same does not apply to your naruto tier superhuman fighters.
Play another fucking game. Seriously. D&D isn't for you.
>>47771451
>Fuck off with your weebshit.
>weebshit
No, Anon, you are the shit.
It's not weeb. It's Herakles or Gilgamesh or Sampson or Cú Chulainn.
A 20th level Fighter bears, or rather should bear, as much resemblance to a town guard as a 20th level Wizard bears to a stage magician.
The worst thing D&D ever did was taking the chains off spellcasters. 3E not only nerfed Martials by making everything neat they could do a Feat, but it took out the checks that previous editions had to ensure that Casters weren't effectively Fantasy Batman.
>>47771521
Those are valid questions. I suppose each setting would have to address them in their own way.
Again, just because magic exists under strict conditions doesn't mean that any nonsense you come up with suddenly becomes possible.
>>47771540
Ok. How do they play the same? Swordmages don't even like to be NEAR the people they are locking down while Fighters like the blockade them.
>>47771521
Devil's advocate here (I prefer nonrealistic D&D). Those are setting specific though.
>If there are spells that let the caster know if someone is lying, how can there be corrupt policians? Shouldn't every politician go through lie-tester first?
I would consider it quite awesome if D&D courts are held in a permanent Zone of Truth (with the responsible caster present to know if someone is unaffected by the zone).
>If there are spells that can create food and water out of thin air, why doesn't the government teach those spells to as many people as possible and give them shittons of money to go to some random village and make sure nobody ever starves?
I don't think there's ever been nonmagical famines in D&D lore. Magical famines obviously would cause Create Food & Drink spells to fail via some method.
>Why aren't wizards the rulers of every single country on the plane? You only need 1 mad powerful wizard to conquer a plane.
Gods (and celestials et al.) can interfere with that. We already know corrupt sorcerers and liches arise and are overthrown various times in most settings' histories.
>>47771548
Westaboo shit if you prefer.
Regardless, it doesn't exist within the context of d&d rules. If you want to play as Hercules then play another fucking game.
>>47771549
To be 100% honest, the only check on a high-level AD&D wizard's powers was how generous the DM was with giving him spell scrolls to copy into his spellbook, which isn't really a limit.
You can talk all you like about how wizards were super-vulnerable at low levels (they were) or how they levelled up slower (they did), but provided you DID survive to high level you'd outclass a Fighter every single time.
>>47771583
They still weren't invulnerable. The lack of things like metamagic helped a lot.
>>47771579
>it doesn't exist within the context of d&d rules
And you're wrong.
That whole "grappling automatically fails if the opponent is 2 size categories above you" rule was 3.5 specific and has never been seen again.
You can and should wrestle storm giants if you've got the chops for it.
>>47771567
> implying that two classes that do the exact same thing are in any practical sense different
>>47771451
Exaggeration and playing with scale weren't always the realm of anime and superhero stuff. They started in myths. And in the realm of D&D, all that kinda stuff is more than possible. Pardon someone not jaded for wanting their warrior to try feats and experiences more evocative of things seen in Platinum games or God of War rather than just the movie Gladiator.
>>47771579
>Regardless, it doesn't exist within the context of d&d rules
Sure it does. A normal human can't survive a 10,000 foot fall onto hard pavement without some kind of mitigating circumstance, like tree branches to slow the fall or something (which can and does happen in real life, albeit rarely). But a high-level Fighter in D&D can. Ergo, he is superhuman. Ergo he should be represented as such.
>>47771605
That wasn't an explanation.
I provided a clear example of difference in play. Explain how they are the same.
Heck, 4e Wizards and Sorcerers were the most different from each other than they've ever been.
>>47767993
I just now realized that's literally the plot of DS2.
>>47767817
>starfinder
what.
>>47771598
While they weren't 100% invulnerable, they still outclassed Fighters in every way. The only way to deal with a high-level wizard in AD&D was another high-level wizard, or if that wasn't available, a character specifically designed to take down high-level wizards.
>>47771611
My (admittedly dark elf, not human) thief at 8th level single-handedly (basically) slew a CR 13 white dragon (I say "basically" because the first 16 points of damage were done by other members of the party, but circumstances prevented them from contributing at all past that). That's probably gonna remain my crowning moment of awesome in any game of D&D I play ever.
>>47771626
> 2016
> flailing this desperately in a pathetic attempt to defend Worst Edition
>>47771479
Fighter
Role: Defender. You are very tough and have the exceptional ability to contain enemies in melee.
Power Source: Martial. You have become a master of combat through endless hours of practice, determination, and your own sheer physical toughness.
>Combat Challenge
In combat, it's dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. Marks do all kinds of cool stuff.
>Combat Superiority
Fighters are especially vicious with opportunity attacks. They get bonuses for attacking people who provoke AoO and they prevent movement.
Wizard
Role: Controller. You handle crowds by creating hazardous terrain and repositioning enemies, or spreading conditions and damage over multiple enemies
Power Source: Arcane.
>Arcane Implement Mastery
Wizards make use of orbs, staffs, and wands to help channel and direct their arcane powers.
>Cantrips
Cantrips are simple spells that a wizard doesn't need to store in a spellbook or prepare in advance. At 1st level, an arcanist gains his or her choice of any four cantrips.
>Ritual Casting
Arcanists gain the Ritual Casting class feature at 1st level. This class feature grants Ritual Caster as a bonus feat.
A wizard’s spells are potent in combat and useful in a variety of challenge encounters and other situations, but the wizard is also the undisputed master of magical rituals.
>Spellbook
You possess a spellbook, a book full of mystic lore in which you store your rituals and your daily and utility spells.
They play utterly differently and your just another one of the retards who have brain problems that prevent them from being able to tell the difference between in universe effects from game mechanics. Incidentally, all the people who rage against fighters doing myth stuff are also retards who have brain problems that severely limit their imaginations, rendering them dull and boring people.
>>47771620
>A normal human can't survive a 10,000 foot fall onto hard pavement without some kind of mitigating circumstance, like tree branches to slow the fall or something (which can and does happen in real life, albeit rarely). But a high-level Fighter in D&D can. Ergo, he is superhuman.
Or he is regular human and gravitational constant of the setting is lower than that of our universe.
>>47771637
Remember that the clean divide between fantasy and science fiction is relatively recent, basically starting with Asimov. Prior to that you'd get magic in your otherwise sci-fi settings and alien devices in your otherwise fantasy settings. Conan fought an autochthonic robot once, for example, and the last official Conan story, Red Nails, has the final villain wielding what is for all intents and purposes a lightning gun.
Pathfinder fully embraces pre-Asimov stuff by going full-tilt into Planetary Romance, a la John Carter of Mars.
>>47771653
Are you going to actually give an answer or just sling insults?
>>47771678
why do low level fighters then die from a similar fall?
+ if the gravitational constant of the setting is lower, at that point why not just change the laws of physics so that fighters can punch holes into mountains
>>47771678
Now you're just shitposting.
>>47771688
They have a fucking country for that John Carter shit.
Hell, if you had a wizard cast gate or teleport or what ever, you can already go to other planets.
Why did they need this?
>>47771688
I like that sort of thing more than this whole clean divide people have been pushing for so long.
>>47771678
>and gravitational constant of the setting is lower than that of our universe
GEE ANON I DUNNO THAT SOUNDS PRETTY """UNREALISTIC"""
>>47771694
> 2016
> refusing to accept the baldfaced truth that 4e sucked gorilla shit
>>47771714
Because Starfinder is that 'I only know D&D so I'll use it for all settings' made manifest.
>>47771732
Right. Insults it is.
Good day.
>>47771730
Or gravitational constant is the same but the planet is smaller making its gravitational pull lower.
>>47771743
> getting this butthurt over other people calling out Worst Edition as such
>>47771678
>Or he is regular human and gravitational constant of the setting is lower than that of our universe.
Not supported by available facts about most published settings that I'm aware of - even Mystara, which is explicitly hollow, ergo not as dense, ergo SHOULD have lower gravity.
But, for example, if the gravity of the planet was low enough for humans to have a non-fatal terminal velocity (which would require the gravity to be only about half as strong), that would have a notable effect on the average height of humans (we'd probably average around 6 feet, or more). Yet humans are described as being the same height as normal Earth humans.
Not to mention objects in D&D are measured according to their weight, not mass. Weight changes based on the gravity - you weigh less on the moon even though you mass the same, for example. yet objects in D&D are described as having the same weight as they would in the real world.
So, no. The default assumption of D&D is Earth standard gravity.
>>47771743
The other dude has a point. 4e is terrible compared to other editions of DnD, and everyone knows this now.
Fifth Edition has been out for a long time, and the previous editions still exist. Play those instead. They're a way better experience than 4e
>>47771714
You could just, I dunno, not buy Starfinder if it offends you so much.
>>47771721
So do I, personally.
>>47771774
I was asking WHY it's considered the worst and the only argument given so far 'They all play the same' hasn't had anything back it up.
You can't win a debate by just going 'X is bad, why are you still using X'. You need to use logic.
>>47771774
I honestly don't understand why /tg/ has such a hardon for 4e. Is it contrarianism?
Everyone I know who plays tabletop RPGs agrees that it's the worst edition of D&D.
>>47771733
Truely, we live in an era where someone finally said, "now you can run Metal Gear in Pathfinder".it is a dark time indeed
