[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.10189505 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

3.5 is for fags, 4 is the future

>> No.10189511

How... Startling.

>> No.10189529

another edtion war theard....

>> No.10189539

>3.5 is for fags, 4 is the future

>> No.10189543

D&D is shit, guys.

Seriously, the good gamers have all moved on.

>> No.10189571

Don't forget your sages.

>> No.10189597

Def not samefag

>> No.10189663

>Seriously, the good gamers have all moved on.

To pathfinder.

>> No.10189691


>> No.10189704


>> No.10189729

Pathfinder is barely different from 3.5e.

>> No.10189738

Stop bumping this shit.

>> No.10189745

If by barely you mean largely improved then yes.

>> No.10189755

If by largely improved you mean slightly improved, than yes.

>> No.10189795

>Seriously, the good gamers have all moved on.

Old systems to not become bad once a better system comes out. In fact, many old movies that are considered classics have major flaws compared to modern cinema, but this does not make them any less enjoyable.


Pathfinder is 3.5, but with a few tweaks that don't even address the real problems. Of course, to address the real problems would result in an entirely different game, so Pathfinder isn't bad for this. It's just that Pathfinder is still 3.5 on the inside, and to pretend it fixes everything is foolish.

>> No.10189803

If by slightly improved you mean barely different, then yes.

>> No.10189804

You know, I'm really curious, what are the merits of both editions?

>> No.10189807

CMB/CMD alone is enough to warrant a "largely'. And there's much more that was improved.

>> No.10189836

>> No.10189906

>Of course, to address the real problems would result in an entirely different game


>> No.10189934

From a DM's perspective: I enjoy and am more excited about DMing 4E, it's more entertaining AS it happens. But I still enjoy 3.5E from time to time: also I prefer the psionics in 3.5e a lot more.

>> No.10189941


>> No.10189972

Skill-based RPG mechanics were here

Classes and levels can eat a dick

>> No.10189982

Well yeah, but it loses a lot of that modular quality which is like half the reason I play 3.5

>> No.10190034

Can you explain what you mean by modular quality? cus I kind of like 4E and 3.5e, but I can't actually explain WHY I still like 3.5e. It's an emotion/concept I can't put to words, nor conceive.

>> No.10190092

That's only because there was nothing better to play, now there is

>> No.10190120

I never understood why you fatties can't look at them as separate games.

>> No.10190159

Well I mean I play 4E and 3.5E, and I feel like quitting 3.5e cus I like it but feel like I'm liking it for no reason, and it is confuuuusin me.

>> No.10190177

The sheer amount and variety of multiclass combinations, spells (especially spells), feats, and the like meant you can make virtually any character concept you want. 3.5 was about the closest a level-based game ever came to being a point-based one.

That said, when a wizard, cleric, or druid can out-anything your meticulously made fighter/rogue/cleric/PrC, it is kinda lame.

>> No.10190179

Since people are trying not to discuss systems too much, I would like to divert this thread into easily moddable systems. Last time I saw a thread with a fuck ton of optional settings for Maid (Castlevania, Medieval, Spaceships...) as long as you affixes some tables inside.

What is the system easiest to mod for you, the reason/steps, and for what setting?

>> No.10190180

...why do you like 4e?

>> No.10190196


>> No.10190207

Well 3.5 is like a series of tables that you can just put on top of each other in an incredibly open way. There are fuck tons of prestige classes, items and spells to work with to a ridiculous point. Obviously balance issues result from that sort of thing, but there's still a lot of interesting things that can happen. 4E is filled with safety net sorts of things, but that's not to say there isn't still variety in there.
In the end whatever you play probably has more to do with whatever the majority of your group wants though, so whatever

>> No.10190215

Well, for the reason I like D&D in general, but COMPARED to other D&D editions, because the combat is exciting as fuck, and because having a character is just fun. It feels strong, it feels interesting, it feels like advancing it will be rewarding.

>> No.10190233

What is touhou?

>> No.10190237

More annoyingly, why is it /tg/ related?

>> No.10190242

Yeah, I guess I understand, though I like the one-class+paragon path and picking out of a small variety of powers a lot more than trying to mix and max classes and exchange rp for optimum effect, that's probably why I like 4E more, because I just like my character more. But I still can't figure out why I like 3.5E. Maybe it has to do with the fact I DM?

>> No.10190243

For easy modding, the first choice for me is West End's old D6 system. Simple, elegant mechanic, easy to teach new players, and the games run in the system tend to lead themselves to all kinds of awesome fun.

Second choice is Omni, which is d20 slimmed down to bare bones.

Third choice is d20.

>> No.10190275

Touhou is all about crazy magical girls that ROLEPLAY FUCKING LASERS

>> No.10190282

I just hate the mechanical sameness of 4E. Not that the powers are all the same, but that each class functions in exactly the same way, with the exception of some of the new psionic classes.

>> No.10190299

>> No.10190302

Sound gay and b

>> No.10190317

>> No.10190332

1. It is a series of japanese scrolling shooter games. Think Gradius, but replace all space ships with girls in hats who are ridiculously powerful. The one guy who makes the games is constantly drunk, and the plotlines are absurd as a result. It generates a vast amount of fanart.
2. There is a Touhou PnP game, currently being fan-traslated. Touhou characters are occasionally used as NPCs, expy PCs, and sometimes the game's setting (Gensyoko) is used; it translates fairly well to most high-magic campaigns/systems. A particular CharOp type, refered to as Touhoufag, posts tangentially related touhou fanart along with his posts, rather than using a tripcode or name. He is /tg/'s residential expert on D&D 3.5 and 4e, as well as nWoD, Riddle of Steel, and the MaidRPG.

>> No.10190336

Well the function the same but that sort of stock feeling makes them work together well, I find. And they still play interestingly diverse. My party has a Warden who is constantly hugging the Barbarian to keep him alive, the Barbarian rips shit up, and then the Avenger actually pulls enemies away from the fight to the corner and duels them alone, because he's stronger that way.

So the classes are constructed similarly, but there's diversity and flavor in there, at least most of the time.

>> No.10190341

3.5 is kinda difficult. is 4 easier for new guys, my group won't try it because they heard it sucks from someone else, and I think that's bullshit that we don't form opinions ourselves.

>> No.10190348

>> No.10190351

> I have never played in a 4e game

>> No.10190354

3. Literally no one on /tg/ discusses the PnP game.

>> No.10190369

The idea is that they all play differently, though. As long as each class plays differently, you don't need entirely new mechanics for each one. The problem is more your expectations than the system.

>> No.10190374

>> No.10190375

Yeah, I remember my ex-girlfriend told me she got into D&D with her new boyfriend, and I was like "Cool, what edition?" She said she didn't know. Then I said "Is it Fourth?" And he said "No, he says it is banned from the household."

So, I decided she's playing 3.5e.

>> No.10190395

Too many chars

>> No.10190403

>> No.10190405


I do not find it particularly unreasonable to expect magic to be mechanically different from hitting things with a sword.

>> No.10190425

>> No.10190434

Tell them that when an enemy tries to ignore a paladin, the bad guy literally can die for doing so.

Tell them the rogue can stab a guy in the back and send the guy skittering a good 5 yards over a cliff.

Tell them the wizard can also blow enemies over a cliff with a solid wall of sound.

Tell them a cleric can heal and not even slow down his beating a guy in the face.

Tell them they can do this from level 1.

>> No.10190444

A miserable pile of girls and bullets!

>> No.10190454

>> No.10190478

Wow, how... effective that seems.

>> No.10190488

>> No.10190495


Because this is 100% the most important part of roleplaying.

>> No.10190504

>> No.10190513

>> No.10190514

You can role play the same in both editions, but you can't do this and forgo balance in 3.5e.

>> No.10190519

... and it typically is.

But it actually isn't in 3.5 really. You can only cast a spell so many times per day? Well, how often can the Paladin Smite Evil? Can't cast spells in an AMF? Well, the Paladin can't smite either. Many spells require attack rolls and contested rolls, just like normal attacks and combat maneuvers like trip, disarm, etc. And magic can make normal attack rolls, combat maneuvers, etc.

Basically, Fighters work on mechanics A,B, and C. Spellcasters work on mechanics A, B, C, D, E, and F.

>> No.10190531


>> No.10190535

Not much of a dump, yet :(

>> No.10190539

Your character being able to accomplish something? Yeah, pretty important for roleplaying the Big Damn Hero.

>> No.10190619

Yea, but you are forgetting that you also /cant/ do those things without the power. Even if the DM is a cool guy and lets you you wont be able to as effectively. 3.5 on the other hand is consistent.

>> No.10190637

>> No.10190639



>> No.10190652

mm dimensional vagina

>> No.10190663

yay dimensional vagina

>> No.10190668

Well you shouldn't be able to do those things without training. If any player could stab an enemy in the back and send them running due to a spinal nerve spasm off a cliff, then the wizard could do it too, so you'd ruin the role play of that for the rogue.

Of course, you can do things without a power, but you can't do BIG things powers do without the power.


>> No.10190671


You can do these things in any other system, using creativity and logic rather than rules mechanics.

>> No.10190684

>> No.10190685

In 3.5e, develop a character (bonus points if rogue) who can stab someone in the back at level 1 and in so doing make them stumble 25 foot and off a cliff.


>> No.10190705

... consistent in that you CAN'T do any of those things.

All Paladins can do what I said they can do. ALL of them. It is a CLASS FEATURE. Same for the cleric.

How can a rogue shove a guy 20 feet in any direction he wants in 3.5? "Boo hoo, I need a power to do X", as compared to "Holy shit, I can do X if I choose this power to add to my character's fighting style?"

Trolls and idiots see the former, sane people see the latter. This is why the Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic, despite it's much-maligned fan-title, is still the greatest splat ever put out for 3.5

>> No.10190717

>> No.10190738

>> No.10190741


>> No.10190757

>> No.10190785

Okay, not develop one that DOESN'T break the rules to be made and also Pun-Pun can't make a target move 25 foot.

>> No.10190786

Pun-Pun requires more than one level to accomplish. Sorry, try again.

>> No.10190790

>> No.10190791

I have to question the way Satori would rather commit incest than pseudo-semi-bestiality.

>> No.10190794

That. Also I just don't think you SHOULD be that much stronger than your average commoner at level 1 anyway. At that point you should barely be better than any jackass with a sword, and the game should be more about survival than conquest.

>> No.10190816

>> No.10190818

Plus, Pun-Pun only works in the Fuckbegotten Realms, so to get the proper feel of FR your /d/M should be jerking off into a gym sock while describing how Mystra and femme-Elminister swoop in to save the day.

>> No.10190822


See, you are thinking in rules-lawyer terms, which the latest D&D systems encourage a bit too much. Good systems make it easy for the GM to figure out solutions to problems like these, rather than simply spoon-feeding superpowers with rigidly-defined mechanics.

The proper solution to wanting to perform this action is this:

-How strong is the thief vs. the target?
-What kinds of advantages does he have in pulling this off?
-What disadvantages does the target have?
-Is the player pulling this off in a way that is plausible and/or AWESOME? If so, bonus...
-Figure out ballpark difficulty
-Roll relevant ability.

This is a superior alternative to "you can only do this if you have the Super Mega Rogue Push Power"

>> No.10190828

Then talk to your DM about making the encounters hard, not easy.

>> No.10190845

>> No.10190852

Yeah, I agree. That's why I like how in 4e, town guards are tougher than level 1-3 characters, war horses will have a lot more HP than them, and so forth.

>> No.10190858

No, I'm thinking in "Good luck getting your DM to let you homebrew something that seems outlandish for your edition when you can do it freely in 4E because the game introduces such combat innovation" terms. I'm not being a rules lawyer, I'm pointing out how in 3.5e, it's not about how you influence the battle, it's about doing damage not taking damage. It's about AC and +to your roll. That's really it.

>> No.10190865

I agree

>> No.10190873

>> No.10190875


Spending an hour figuring out how to resolve one basically trivial action is superior? Your games must be shit tier.

>> No.10190911

> not much better than a commoner
> game about people who's job description is "find things slightly less dangerous than us that *preferably* socially acceptable to kill and take their stuff"
> ignoring that a typical human guard actually is, one-on-one, not terrible less powerful than a level 1 fighter

>> No.10190914

>> No.10190926

Why do you niggers post in these threads

>> No.10190934

There's a variant of Pun-Pun that achieves godhood and infinite power at level 1.
Pun-Pun can punt you 25 feet. Or 250 feet. Or 2500 feet. Or into the sun, you pump up his strength high enough.
If you want it done with a rogue, just roll up a Troll rogue. +8 strength bonus, if memory serves. Should be more than enough to fling that puny humie 25 feet.

>> No.10190938

>> No.10190949

That's not really about how hard an encounter is so much as having abilities that aren't fitting a given bracket.
Anyway the closest thing you can do in 3.5 along the lines of having someone go 25 feet then off a cliff would involve grappling then dragging them, and ending with a bullrush when you get to the edge
At least without using magic, psionics, or weeaboo fightan magic

>> No.10190960

bullshit, 3.5 is much prettier

>> No.10190962

>> No.10190963

>The proper solution to wanting to perform this action is this:
Look at page 42
Decide what ability vs what defence
Assign a few +2/-2 modifiers depending on circumstance

It's in 4e. Don't complain if you obviously haven't played it.

>> No.10190972

Kids. I think we can all agree that porn is the best.

>> No.10190997

And you can't do anything like that in 4e why exactly?

Also, this almost never happens in 3.5; everyone just tries to kill things with basic attacks or spells. Only the spellcasters do crazy-awesome stuff like this, and most DMs get annoyed when rogues want to do anything besides a vanilla sneak attack.

>> No.10191008

>-How strong is the thief vs. the target?
Well I can't tell you that, that's meta-gaming. How could your thief know how strong they are? You'd be taking a shot in the dark.

>-What kinds of advantages does he have in pulling this off?
Uh... well let's see, we're standing on a hill, so we have to go through these steps to decide on what bonus a hill would confer.

>-What disadvantages does the target have?
They're mortal, daggers can hurt them. Can't tell you how mortal though, you can't know their AC.

>-Is the player pulling this off in a way that is plausible and/or AWESOME? If so, bonus...
Matter of opinion, he could just stab them to death and that would also be awesome.

>-Figure out ballpark difficulty
Well you don't explain HOW to figure it out. Okay, the ballpark is... eh... around DC20. You rolled a 18? Oh... is that in the ballpark?

>-Roll relevant ability.
Pushing an enemy seems like it'd take Strength, so roll strength. Oh... you're a rogue, right, you use dexterity and int and charisma, too, so your strength isn't that good. You fail the roll. Shoulda just used a normal sneak attack! Anything your class features don't list you can do, you can't do, silly!

>> No.10191023


There is absolutely no combat innovation in 4E. The system was ripped almost completely from every real-time based computer RPG ever.

No comment on 3rd edition, I don't care much for that system either.

Good systems give the GM both the tools and the latitude to resolve complex actions. 4E's gigantic list of powers are a substitution for creativity.

>> No.10191031

Show us how to do it at level 1 without breaking the rules. Go.

>> No.10191038

>> No.10191049


Nice job demonstrating what a shit GM would do.

>> No.10191053

Example of such rips?

>> No.10191064

>> No.10191072

> There's a variant of Pun-Pun that achieves godhood and infinite power at level 1.
> needs infinite power to emulate 4e rogue
> Troll rogue. +8 strength bonus, if memory serves. Should be more than enough to fling that puny humie 25 feet.
> racial HD + LA
> Level 1 Rogue
So... the only way for a 3.5 rogue to match a 4e one is to bea RAW-abusing god who trivializes the game, or a large-sized monster with an effective level in the teens?

>> No.10191075

You're right, a good DM would give the rogue powers his class doesn't have and piss off the other players who may actually have something closer to that but haven't actually done it.

>> No.10191077

So people say, yet there's no RPGs that play like 4e, and I can think of quite a few RPGs based off prior editions of D&D (almost all of them, in fact).

3e in particular gets around, even Warcraft 3 and HOMM 5 was heavily patterned off of it.

>> No.10191096

And that's more because of timing than the game itself.

>> No.10191100

>> No.10191114


>> No.10191121

>> No.10191128


>> No.10191129

>> No.10191143

So the character should just succeed, because awesome?

Son, what kind of fantasy-fulfillment, wish-list game are you running? If the rogue ain't strong enough to push over an ogre, the ogre's staying put.

>> No.10191161

So they ripped real life, physics, and biology, by having your body die if receiving enough damage, and by giving a living, sentient entity the ability to do things to hurt other entities.

>> No.10191166

>> No.10191167

>> No.10191178


and yet in 4e your rogue has no problem whatsoever with sending said Ogre running off cliffs? The nonsense goes both ways.

>> No.10191193

You mean like a CIRCUMSTANCE bonus?

>> No.10191195

>> No.10191196

Yeah but the ogre can do it twice as bad back at you. So arguing "Do it because it's awesome," means simply arguing 4e's point of view.

>> No.10191204

>> No.10191215

A circumstance bonus is +2 or +4, if you would read up you'd see we are not talking about those.

Good try, though. By good I mean terrible.

>> No.10191217

Someone aught to edit this picture so that the power hotbar has 1 block for "attack" and rename it 3emechanics.

Alternatively, for a spellcaster, a hotbar that covers half the screen and opens a tutorial program on whichever one you click.

>> No.10191218

Oh, right, because stabbing someone should cause them to suddenly slide 25 feet for inadequately explained reasons.
Sounds perfectly reasonable, yeah.

>> No.10191226

>> No.10191239

>> No.10191255


wait, so you're arguing that when you try to do something in 3.5 "because it's awesome" you're being ridiculous and unrealistic, yet it's perfectly fine for 4e to be based entirely around the concept of "because it's awesome"

I'm a little confused as to what point you're trying to make.

>> No.10191273

>> No.10191281

Explanation: You got a knife lodged in your back. Holy shit, run from the thing that put a knife in your back.

>> No.10191293


>> No.10191295

That's exactly what I'm saying. To be awesome in 3.5 you need to break the poorly done, constricting rules. In 4E, the game is packaged WITH awesome.

>> No.10191314

>> No.10191315

You stab him in the back of the knee and give him a good shove.


Remember, this is D&D. Absolute realism isn't a virtue in a game meant to reproduce the action sequences of fantasy books and action movies.

>> No.10191321

A circumstance bonus is as many instances of +/-n as the DM deems necessary. Troll harder.

>> No.10191327

>> No.10191358

>> No.10191373

Unlike 3.5, the default assumption in 4e is that you are awesome.

Kinda like Feng Shui, actualy.

>> No.10191374

Yeah, but they're a bad DM if they say +4 for this, -2 for this, +2 for this, -6 for this, +4 for this. Cus that's just +2.

Or just say based on circumstances you deserve +2.

They're both bonuses/penalties towards circumstances, but one isn't stupid. You're DMing wrong, or your DM is.

>> No.10191394

>> No.10191398


If by "awesome" you mean "needless, constricting rules rigidly defining everything your character can accomplish", than yes.

>> No.10191408

So in other words, the DM has total fiat over whether the player's actions succeed or fail?


>> No.10191420

>> No.10191425


3.5E: Your rogue did something elaborate and effective. You get +2 to your roll.

4E: Your rogue did something elaborate and effective. You deal 1d8+2, and the target moves 4 squares and is knocked prone. Your team then swamps around them and sucks up the OA delights when they try to get up from prone.

>> No.10191426


Okay. I can accept that actually. But that just shows a drastic change in design doctrine, and perfectly illustrates the fact that 3.5 and 4e are two completely different games for entirely different styles of play.

>> No.10191432


Hate to break it to you, but the GM of a game has total fiat over every single aspect of the game.

It's called being GM.

>> No.10191436

There's nothing constricting a non caster in 4e, quite the opposite. Do whatever you like, improvise however you like and it will probably pay off.

If you prefer 3e casters, you're PROBABLY a sadomasochist.

>> No.10191443

> If by "awesome" you mean "rules defining everything your character can accomplish without having to kowtow to the DM for leniency and fiat", than yes

>> No.10191454

>> No.10191461

Then he should write a novel, not a game.

>> No.10191472


Right. Because the GM is your opponent.

>> No.10191476

No, not really. You're still rping a fantasy character in a fantasy world. You just stab people in the back with different rules, but you still stab them in the back using the same dice and concepts of attack/defense.

A level 1 rogue in 3.5e with a dagger backstabs with no strength mod for 1d4+1d6 dmg, and gets a +2 bonus for flanking.

A level 1 rogue in 4e with a dagger backstabs with no strength mod for 1d4+1d6+dex mod and gets a +2 bonus for flanking. Not much has changed.

>> No.10191499

>> No.10191501

Getting up from prone doesn't provoke OAs.

>> No.10191503

Except getting up from prone no longer provokes OAs.

>> No.10191507

How long have you been on /tg/, son?

>> No.10191529

>Right, because hounding your DM repeatedly to let you break the rules so you can do things your class isn't defined as being able to do, when you were in agreement to play this game/class in the first place, in my opinion doesn't make you the enemy of your DM, but I'm a sarcastic witty anon.

>> No.10191535

>> No.10191541


This is you, regarding every single aspect of roleplaying.

>> No.10191545

Standing up is a move action. Aka an action that provokes.
Thats why equipment exists to make it a minor action or a free action as soon as it happens.

>> No.10191550

My bad, then they waste their move action doing so unless they have Acrobat's Boots.

>> No.10191565

Long enough to know a DM should be friendly, but not a Monty Haul-spewing pushover.

>> No.10191567

>> No.10191594

>> No.10191636

>> No.10191644

This thread is making me want to get the 4E books and play it.

>> No.10191672

PHB, 292. No OA.

>> No.10191682

>> No.10191722


See this is my problem with D&D. A post like this perfectly demonstrates what so many people think RPGs are about. Specifically:

1. Killing things
2. Loot

You can do this shit on the xbox. Tabletop is about story.

>> No.10191728

Threads like this are why I started playing it in teh first place.

Not because it sounded good, mind, but just to piss off the whiny 3aboos. I figured, if we're having these edition wars, might as well know what we're fighting about. Turns out, 4e is fun and awesome. 3.5 will forever hold a special place in my heart, though, and I'll play a 3.5/PF game in a heartbeat if it's with bros and I've got the day off.

>> No.10191733

>> No.10191763


But that's leaving out alot of what makes the games different, and what makes people get so angry with one or the other.

4e tells you exactly what you can do, and doesn't let you do anything else. 3.5 tells you what you can do, and then gives a bunch of special attacks and rules that allow the DM to decide if the result of a player's creativity is doable or not.

4e ended up having much more dynamic combat, with a focus on moving pieces around the field, 3.5 ended up going in a much more flexible direction, at the expense of clarity and simplicity.

>> No.10191766

Butthurt touhoufag spams images because his butthurt prevents him from enjoying /tg/ as normal.

>> No.10191787

>> No.10191856

Uh dude, you realize sage DOES bump right?

>> No.10191889


>> No.10191899

4e is the present, 4.5 is the future.

>> No.10191907


>> No.10191918

> and then gives a bunch of special attacks and rules that allow the DM to decide if the result of a player's creativity is doable or not.
Whuh? When, aside from spells, which are powers, does 3.5 do this?

>> No.10191927

Seriously not every D&D game is a monty haul campaign, if I wanted to play an emo vampire I'd play something int the WoD, if I wanted to play a muffin I'd play GURPS, if I want to play a sword and board fighter I play D&D, simple as that, and if I want to play a shitty sci-fi setting I play DH/RT.

>> No.10191937

> 4e tells you exactly what you can do, and doesn't let you do anything else

>> No.10191975

Any time you're not a fighter...or barbarian...or ranger before you get spells...or paladin who's run out of smites.

>> No.10191991


>> No.10191994


40k isn't a shitty scifi seting, it's a shitty fiction setting that happens to have replaced oceanic travel whit interplanetary travel.

>> No.10192021

Feats. Some feats, that is.

>> No.10192030


True, but nearly every D&D game revolves around killing things and taking their stuff, and I'm sick of that bullshit upstaging a good plot.

>> No.10192041


What? I'm just saying it does nothing... aside from make you a sagefag.

>> No.10192105


So shitty it's not even in the genre it's supposed to be in.


As I said if I want hard roleplay that gives me absolutely no satisfaction because I will never get anywhere I'll just play oWoD TYVM. If I just want to be told a story I'll read, if I want to affect that story I'll write, simple as that.

>> No.10192159

It CAN revolve around that. And D&D admittedly started as a wargame (chainmail). It can be played as a story-focused, combat-averse game, but it certainly wasn't designed as one. No surprise.

Frankly, I like combat, and combat can be a strong part of an ongoing story. Too each their own.

>> No.10192163


All of the special attacks listed in the combat section of the PHB. Feint, disarm, overrun, Sunder, Trip, that sort of thing.

>> No.10192234


Ah, okay, you're just another shitty roll-player. Gotcha.

You probably wouldn't like anything I run. Too much visceral action and tense adventure, and not enough 10 x 10 corridors and +1 swords.

>> No.10192314

> 10 x 10 corridors
Someone's never been in one of my D&D games before :3

Protip; Gelatinous Cubes take up 10 X 10.
They can't follow you into a 2-foot wide crack.
A 2-foot wide crack can be infested with chokers.
Ever read the penalties for fighting while squeezing?

>> No.10192387


Nah I roleplay just fine but in a fantasy medieval world I expect SOME combat, even if it's just a few fucking bandits.

>> No.10192405

Plus I'd like an example of the visceral action and tense adventure.

>> No.10192451

I like not being able to push a man 25 feet of fa cliff at level 1 because I like having a game in which you can play at levels of reasonable power (i.e. 1-6 in 3.5; see: e6 system).

that being said, I'd convert to 4th if the books, splat and core, didn't have 1/10th the content of other books and splitting up normally "core" content between multiple books to get more money (given the fast release of PHB2 compared to d20's PHB2 release).

The fact last time I checked they didn't even have stats for a PC pixie (or faerie or nixie or whatever tiny flying semi-human shaped creature you prefer) really ticked me off.

The seperation of monsters and PCs really hurt the game in my opinion. One of my favorite things to do as a GM is to make builds I could never use effectively as a player. Either because they were too "one-shot" (i.e. only do one thing), had too high an LA or used some broken template that any group would ban.

Also, I like noncombative actions with stats. Because half the people I play with will ignore you unless your rolling a piece of plastic on the table.

>> No.10192553

I love tense adventure both in and out of combat. Give me a good 15-45 minutes of haggling with merchants and artificers and my level 5 courtier will have enough slaves and/or hirelings and catapults to turn what our DM thought was going to be a dungeon crawl into half-mini-Siege (without compromising his plans; note: most of our DMs play 80% on the fly since we derail).

>> No.10192583

Circumstance bonuses to bluff range from +10 to +20 depending on what the player says...

>> No.10192632


>The fact last time I checked they didn't even have stats for a PC pixie (or faerie or nixie or whatever tiny flying semi-human shaped creature you prefer) really ticked me off.

>> No.10192667

HEY GUYS!!! OH HAI, I'm just enjoying 4e edition with its simplicity and shit. Making up storys for my party to enjoy, letting them do creative shit, letting my 2 new players have ease of access for figuring out what they can do.

OH GUESS WHAT, you can totally still improvise if you fucking want in 4E edition too, there are just a default set of moves you know how to do already. Why the hell is everyone so angsty about 3.5 vs 4e?

>> No.10192668

If you think 3e is low powered and 4e is high powered, you should compare a 3e and a 4e character to guards, to orcs, to goblins, to ogres, to guards, to skeletons, to horses, and to zombies. On every account you will find the 3e char stronger.

4e characters are supposedly powerful, but only from the viewpoint that power = lots of options.

>> No.10192718

Because of the internet, though a lot is just rehashed 2e vs 3e edition warring with a little 3.0 vs 3.5 thrown in.

>> No.10192756

> I like not being able to push a man 25 feet of fa cliff at level 1 because I like having a game in which you can play at levels of reasonable power
Enemies on 4e can do many, if not all, the same shenanigans players can do. This includes knocking them bodily off cliffs. Nothing low-level 4e characters do is unreasonable, because monsters are actually nastier in a way.
> 1/10th the content of other books and splitting up normally "core"
Err, aside from the spell section's bloat in the 3.5 PHB, the 4e PHB1 actually contained nearly as much content as the 3.5 PHB. 3 fewer classes, but I'd argue that removing the monk, paladin, and fighter from the 3.5 PHB wouldn't have hurt it much. The 4e MM1 contains far more monsters than the 3.5 MM1.
> didn't even have stats for a PC pixie
... the most broken possible monster-as-PC from the MM1?
> One of my favorite things to do as a GM is to make builds I could never use effectively as a player.
... you can still do this in 4e. they're just simplified versions of their PC equivalents... because they are one-shot and do only one thing.
> Also, I like noncombative actions with stats.
AGAIN, you can do this in 4e. Skills still exist. Hell, about the only ones that AREN'T consolidations of existing skills are the social ones like Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Insight...

tl;dr idiot or troll, you is

>> No.10192809

There are no tiny winged fey that are playable, even with LA, in MM1.

Pixies are size small... they are halfling sized.

>> No.10192818


Fair enough.

Current plot:

During a lull in the ongoing fighting between the PCs' criminal organization and the other power interests in the city they call home, the PCs decide to try and hunt down a sorcerer who is currently holding her family as slaves. The PCs decided to strike during a carnival set in a standard elven tree-city, fought through a pack of the sorcerer's servants, but not before one of the party got knocked off of the city and plummeted to the forest floor. The next session is set up so that the players need to quickly decide whether to pursue the sorcerer and rescue the one PC's family, or go after the PC who fell (and is in danger of being eaten by horrible beasts on the forest floor). Or split up.

>> No.10192831

>> No.10192894


>Enemies on 4e can do many, if not all, the same shenanigans players can do
>Err, aside from the spell section's bloat in the 3.5 PHB, the 4e PHB1 actually contained nearly as much content as the 3.5 PHB.
>... you can still do this in 4e. they're just simplified versions of their PC equivalents...

I suggest reading comprehension.

>> No.10192922

Hey sounds neat.

... still not something 4e can't do.

>> No.10193632

OP here, started this as a troll thread.

>> No.10194361

Agreed on the sounds neat, and not anything that ANY edition of D&D can't do.

>> No.10194525

> not anything that ANY edition of D&D can't do
True dat yo bitch foo... shizzle...

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.