Quantcast
[ 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.14441968 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>> No.14441979

Oh boy, a troll~

Can we keep him?

>> No.14441981

Ugh, should move the last frame up one. That's how I feel about THIRD edition

>> No.14441995

>>14441979
But son, you already have a sergal, keeping two trolls is a big responsibility.

>> No.14442005

>3e a respectful upgrade to 2e
FUCK

YOUR

SHIT

>> No.14442021

God, it's been forever since I've seen a This Just Happened comic.

>> No.14442040

Well, 4e DOES shit on 3.5. 3.5 is a horrible system that shouldn't have been released, and skewed what people think is a good RPG.

>> No.14442046

>>14441995
Aw gee whiz, Dad.

>> No.14442063

>>14442040
This would probably be more effective if you weren't a recognizable name/trip 4e apologist.

>4e impugned? KRIEGFAG TO THE RESCUE

>> No.14442065

FATAL is better than 4e. I'm not even joking.

>> No.14442106

Except for the part where 3E is basically the opposite of 2E in every way.

>> No.14442120

Oh boy, edition wars, it's like it's really 2009.

>> No.14442133

>>14442063
I need a cape or something awesome like that.

>> No.14442137

>>14442133
I saw the pic you posted. No, a cape would not help.

>> No.14442139

>>14442063
>calls 4e trolls on their shit
>"apologist"
lol
fag

>> No.14442145

>Implying 3.x is a sublime system
>Implying 4E isn't better than 3.x
>Implying 4E shits on 3.x, and not sucking up to it by releasing all the essentials shit

>> No.14442198

>>14442145
>conflating all of Essentials with the Essentials martial classes, which are perfectly good and serve a useful purpose for players who want minimal-resource-management, "point and click" style gameplay a la 3E barbarian or 2E Fighter.

>> No.14442212

>>14442137
Aw, come on man, a cape can help anythin'!

>> No.14442319

>Implying green text.

>> No.14442337

>implying 4e isn't an mmorpg based system.

>> No.14442351

>>14442337

>implying you have to play it like an mmo
>implying loot, loot everywhere
>implying no RP allowed

>> No.14442364

>>14442337
>D&D Online is an MMORPG based off of 3.5
>MMO based off of 4E isn't even out yet

>you don't even know what "mmorpg based" means
lol
The lengths 3aboos will go to to pretend that 3E isn't shit and that 4E is bad are AMAZING

It's closet gay TV preacher levels of cognitive dissonance.

>> No.14442380

>>14442364
well you're right they are both fuckin horrible

>> No.14442397

>>Implying that i won't anonymously repost this pic tomorrow.

Thanks for the new trollan material OP!

^______________________________^

>> No.14442435

>>14442397

>Implying you just got your fat ass reported

>> No.14442441

>>14442435

>implying that you bloo bloo bloo, a bloo bloo bloo

>> No.14442451

>>14442397
>I'm a shitposter.
If you don't want /tg/ to be good, why do you even come here?

>> No.14442452

>>14442435
I don't think he was implying that at all

>> No.14442458

>>14442435
>>Implying that reports mean anything if you aren't someone who is posting quality threads.

>>Implying that i am not the sexiest of /tg/'s tripfriends.

>> No.14442482

>>14442435

If you're going to use the greentext implying gag, at least use it right. What's being implied is the opposite of the truth, thus implying the truth. You should have typed

>implying I didn't just report your fat ass

And then I had to come and explain a basic fucking concept like Memes 101 or some bullshit. gg

>> No.14442491

The truth of the matter.

>> No.14442562

>>14442491
>implying PF isn't 4E.
But it clearly is.

>> No.14442587

>>14442562
Well, a really bad retelling of 4e, anyway.

>> No.14442590

>>14442587
>implying there is any difference beyond "DM prep time" and "casters have more powerful utility magic".

>> No.14442606

>>14442562
And you are basing that on three random ranger skills. Nice job Sherlock

>> No.14442609

>>14442590
Well, yeah, in 4e all classes are worth playing because they do stuff other than full attack.

>> No.14442613

>>14442606
Would you like me to show you the identical Rogue power for 4E and PF?

Or explain how 4E and PF solve the same problems with 3.x in the same ways?

>> No.14442615

>>14442562
in as much as they're both RPGs, yes.

>> No.14442625

>>14442609
Pathfinder classes do too, bro. PF has lists of powers just like 4E does--"Rogue talents", "Ranger tricks", "Barbarian rage powers", etc etc.

>> No.14442640

>>14442613
Actually no, because I don't give a fuck. I prefer PF and I accept that people prefer 4ed. It's a matter of taste.

The level of retardation that edition war threads achieve is beyond stupid. What the fuck guys, can't you just fucking PLAY instead of argue

>> No.14442641

lol @ people playing tabletop rpgs for the metagame

>> No.14442642

>>14442615
>in as much as they're identical in every meaningful way, down to giving classes identical cool powers for identical reasons.

>> No.14442652

>>14442640
>Actually no, because I don't give a fuck. I prefer PF and I accept that people prefer 4ed. It's a matter of taste.
My point is that they're fucking identical, numbnuts.

>> No.14442687

>>14442652
Why? Because of some fucking numbers that looks the same? Is THAT what defines a rpg?

What the fuck man, I tought it was the setting, the whole ruleset, the character creation, the feeling of the game while you play it. I must be wrong then, they are the fucking same. I should have know since I played both and they didn't feel the same, but hey.

On the subject: do you foresee a Great Roleplaying Game Unification in the near future?

>> No.14442692

Pathfinder? You mean that repackaged 3.5 SRD sold to gullible grognards?

>> No.14442716

>>14442692
>>SOLD

you must be new to the internet.

>> No.14442722

>>14442687
>Why? Because of some fucking numbers that looks the same? Is THAT what defines a rpg?
Uh, no. Because they're both outgrowths of 3.5, that solve the EXACT SAME issues, in the EXACT SAME ways.

>What the fuck man, I tought it was the setting, the whole ruleset, the character creation, the feeling of the game while you play it.
4E and PF have the EXACT same playstyle. They run the same types of games. They cover the same general range of characters. The settings are rules-independent--I've run Dark Sun using Pathfinder rules and Golarion using 4E rules.

>I played both and they didn't feel the same, but hey.
How did they feel different? Both can produce the same range of games. The ONLY real exception is that in PF characters use mostly spellcasting to solve out-of-combat problems while in 4E they use mostly skills+character action.

There's a reason that so many abilities for classes are IDENTICAL between the two. They're both doing the same things in the same ways, just using different base rules.

>> No.14442734

>>14442716

Well, they're doing all right in sales.

SOMEONE must be falling for it.

>> No.14442755

>>14442716
Nevermind the fact that there's a fuckhuge SRD of it, which means you don't even have to download anything.

>> No.14442769

>>14442722
And your point is? Why are you trying to prove that they are identical? What difference does it make? I, for one, welcome a world where there can be many different game (and I play lots of them, not just 3.5 derivatives), where I can choose whatever I want to play.

Also, how the fuck can you tell that MY games with PF and 4ed felt the same? They just didn't and no amount of your reasoning can prove otherwise.

>> No.14442784

>>14442769
Well, you're just lying.

>> No.14442786

>>14442722
While I agree they took similar paths to try and fix 3.5, the fact is, PF still has a lot of the problems 3.5 has, and 4e doesn't. Magic is still too strong, and Melee isn't give enough meanful combat/out of combat options.

>> No.14442789

>>14442769
>And your point is? Why are you trying to prove that they are identical?
Because they are. My point is the two games are SO incredibly similar that "4e vs PF" arguments are retarded on both sides, because both people are playing the same fucking game.

>Also, how the fuck can you tell that MY games with PF and 4ed felt the same? They just didn't and no amount of your reasoning can prove otherwise.
I'm asking you what felt different about them and why. Odds are great it was nothing more than your perception. "They just felt different" doesn't even MEAN anything substantial.

>> No.14442795

>>14442734
>>14442755

I wa referring to the fact that ALL of Pathfinder stuff can be downloaded all over the internet. AND THEY STILL MANAGED TO ALMOST OUTSOLD 4ED IN THE PAST.

Talk about a "shitty repackaging"

>> No.14442806

>>14442795
>implying that 4E cannot be downloaded

>> No.14442807

>>14442786
Except that melee characters DO have options.

They have them for the EXACT SAME REASON. They gave them lists of powers to pick from. And many of these even apply out-of-combat--the Rogue talents imitate 4E rogue utilities, for example X/day skill rerolls imitating the encounter skill rerolls.

The only real difference is the spells vs skills for solving problems, and each system has some of each even there.

>> No.14442819

>>14442807
>My Fighter can trip and has a slightly higher crit range!

>My rogue can do a point of constitution damage!

>> No.14442820

...

How in the fuck did this blatant troll thread turn into a discussion about Pathfinder and 4e being similar?

The fuck?

Christ, /tg/, you even ruin the troll threads.

>> No.14442830

>>14442819
>My rogue can do a point of constitution damage!
I know for a fact that PF has EXACT equivalents of the Knockout daily, as well as the one that redirects an enemy's attack into its ally. The APG added a lot of that stuff.

>> No.14442849

>>14442789
I don't give a shit about edition wars argument either. But not because I think the games the same, as you do, but because I think that both PF and 4ed have their own merits and, luckily enough, you have the freedom to choose which one you like. Heck, you could play both as I did for a while for all I care.

I'm still not convinced that they are "identical", and I really don't care if they are "technically identical", they felt different to me and I choose the one I liked the most, personal perception is important, so fuck off with this meaningless discussion.

>> No.14442850

>>14442820
Isn't ruining a troll thread effectively making it better?

>> No.14442868

>>14442819
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue#TOC-Rogue-Talents
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian#TOC-Rage-Powers-Ex-
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger#TOC-Skirmisher

>> No.14442869

Meh, I like 3.5, never tried pathfinder nor 4e. The reason being I don't want to buy the books. I bought 2nd ed, and held out as long as I could and then bought into 3.5 as soon as 2nd ed stuff was rare, and could only be found in car boot sales. Besides I heard 4e is over simplified

>> No.14442882

>>14442849
>I don't give a shit about edition wars argument either. But not because I think the games the same, as you do, but because I think that both PF and 4ed have their own merits
And what are those?
HINT: both games are equally good at just about everything except 1) low magic and 2) all-magic games. Also, 4E has less DM prep time.

>I'm still not convinced that they are "identical", and I really don't care if they are "technically identical", they felt different to me
But you can't manage to express how. So, yeah, it's just perception, i.e. you being too retarded to notice.

>> No.14442888

>>14442868
I'm not seeing anything that really is a viable combat option.

>> No.14442892

>>14442849
>make vague claims about "each game having its own merits" and "feeling different"
>never back those up because you know you're wrong
Losing the argument bro.

>> No.14442908

>>14441981
>>14442005
This was pretty much the end of it for me.

AD&D brofists up in this place of residence.

>> No.14442909

>>14442888
>I didn't even bother reading those over and noticing all the good stuff and all the stuff that's identical to 4E
>I'm just like ignorant PF trolls who claim 4E is WoW, only on the 4E side
Just fucking kill yourself, breeder.

>> No.14442911

You people arguing that PF ripped off 4E or vice-versa do realize that alternate class abilities and skill tricks were in 3.5, right? And that both PF and 4E, as they are both built from 3.5, would BOTH naturally incorporate those? PF and 4E are drawing from the same well, not fucking copying each other.

>> No.14442924

>>14442911
>You people arguing that PF ripped off 4E or vice-versa
Nobody is arguing either one, just that they're basically identical.

And it's not the idea of "alternate class abilities", it's the fact that many classes have THE EXACT SAME alternate class abilities.

>> No.14442930

>>14442892
>>14442882

How the fuck could I back an argument that is not based on logic, but PERSONAL PREFERENCE?

You grognards ask too much from this simple being. Or maybe you just don't have feelings, the fuck do I know.

>> No.14442938

>>14442930
>How the fuck could I back an argument that is not based on logic, but PERSONAL PREFERENCE?
By DESCRIBING *HOW* THEY FELT DIFFERENTLY.

By saying WHAT each of the games is good at.


This isn't "I like one better arbitrarily", like with food.

This is you making CONCRETE FUCKING CLAIMS, and then being too much of a FUCKSHIT to back them up. Just fucking get off of /tg/, christ.

>> No.14442939

>Nobody is arguing either one, just that they're basically identical.

Here's a difference for you:

PF is a fucking terrible rehash of 3.5 aimed at bilking nostalgiafags out of money they could be spending on actual good books they don't already have.

>> No.14442941

>>14442930
You could actually answer his questions, instead of constantly dodging them.

>> No.14442955

>>14442938
>>This isn't "I like one better arbitrarily", like with food.

Except to me is kind of like that. Sorry if this doesn't fit in your Grand Scheme of Things.

>> No.14442963

>>14442955
>Except to me is kind of like that.
But you claimed they felt different, and that they were good at different things. I claim they're not.

And you CAN'T EXPLAIN what these things are, or HOW they felt different. I can tell you I like Coke because it's less sweet than Pepsi.

>> No.14442971

>>14442924
Not the guy you're replying to, but isn't that somewhat to be expected? Both WotC and Paizo saw what was wrong with 3.X and took the necessary approach to fix it. The main difference is basically that Paizo wanted to make an improved 3.5 but WotC decided to just skip a couple of rungs on the evolutionary ladder.

>> No.14442977

>>14442955
Then why did you make concrete claims about the two games, if you don't ACTUALLY think they're different?

>> No.14442988

>>14442909
I've notice the stuff that's like 4e. Mind you, it's really limited, or available at 10+ for, like, a 3rd level at will. Fine, this is what I mean by "viable option".

Dazing Strike, Level 1 Rogue Encounter- 1W+ dex and target is dazed until end of your next turn.
Go for the Eyes Level 5 Rogue Daily- 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and the target is blinded and can’t shift until the end of your next turn.

Aftereffect: Until the end of the encounter, whenever you damage the target, it takes a −2 penalty to attack rolls and can’t shift until the end of your next turn.

Riposte Strike, Rogue At-Will: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage. If the target attacks you before the start of your next turn, you make your riposte against the target as an immediate interrupt: a Strength vs. AC attack that deals 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.

Can I see PF powers like that, please?

>> No.14442999

>>14442971
Literally the only difference is the "chassis" the game runs on. It's like 4E took an electric car and added the ability to run on gas, and PF took a gas car and made it into a hybrid, and they ended up the same shape, with the same horsepower, and painted the same color.

>> No.14443016

OP's image makes no sense. 1e to 4e are RULES RULES RULES RULES RULES RULES RULES RULES RULES RULES RULES

There really is no spirit to betray in DnD.

>> No.14443040

>>14442941
Ok, how about this:

4ed experience
"This feels easy, it's kind of different from 3.5. I feel much more powerful, therefore less responsible for my action. Game surely got easier, more flow. Combat is a bit akward though, no improvement here. Do all the classes feel the same? That's bad, I liked the 3.5 way, they felt much different. Not bad, but not conviced".

PF
"Game feels somewhat more eroic, don't know way. I like that they kept the class more diversified. They also got rid of some of the crap of 3.5, but still feels very similar. Combat's still shit. No balance either, but fuck that, never really cared about class balance. Having grown up with 3.5, it's natural that I find this sistem more familiar, that's why I prefer it".

There, you liked it? Was that interesting? Of course not, why would this shit be relevant. That's why I didn't post it. Did I cite a single rule? Of course not, rules are just tools to let the roleplay experience happen, the less I hear about them the better, EXCEPT THIS SEEMS THE ONLY THING YOU FA/TG/UYS MASTURBATE ON.

Now you see why "backing my argument" why my subjective and flawed perception was useless?

>> No.14443050

>>14443016
AD&D - classic fantasy races and classes based on literary archetypes.

4.x - races and classes based on more modern sources that can't yet be considered archetypes.

Making no judgments about if that's good or bad, but it's certainly in the "spirit" category and not just "rulesrulesrules".

There have been many more changes in the same vein.

>> No.14443057

>>14443050
Sorry I should add - I do agree that OPs pic is utter rubbish, but just not for the same reasons.

>> No.14443066

>>14442988
>Dazing Strike, Level 1 Rogue Encounter- 1W+ dex and target is dazed until end of your next turn.
Dazing Assault in PF lets you take a -5 to hit to daze with all of your attacks.

None of those abilities are EXACTLY replicated, for various reasons. I could rattle off a list of PF abilities that aren't exactly replicated in 4E. But they do get daily, X/day, and at-will-attack-enhancing cool abilities.

And a number of the abilities ARE identical.

Stab and Grab (Ex): At 3rd level, as a full-round action, a cutpurse can make an attack and also make a Sleight of Hand check to steal something from the target of the attack. If the attack deals sneak attack damage, the rogue can use Sleight of Hand to take an Item from the creature during combat; otherwise this ability can only be used in a surprise round before the target has acted. If the attack is successful, the target takes a –5 penalty on the Perception check to notice the theft.

This is exactly a 4E power.

>> No.14443087

>>14443040
>all the classes feel the same
But similar classes play far more differently from each other in 4E than in PF. Once again, this is unfounded perception. A Ranger and Rogue, for example, play more differently in 4E than in PF.

>Game easier
This depends entirely on your DM
The rest isn't even related to anything.

>didn't cite rules

But rules are what MAKES the game have a certain feel.

I notice you STILL can't name what PF is good at vs what 4E is good at. I guess they're good at the same things, or you'd have mentioned SOMETHING in the last FIVE POSTS.

So, uh, maybe you shouldn't make statements of fact about the games if you're not actually familiar with their rules and haven't played them extensively??

>> No.14443097

>>14443040
>Now you see why "backing my argument" why my subjective and flawed perception was useless?
If you know your perception is subjective and flawed, why did you claim that the two games are meaningfully different, or that one is good at things the other isn't good at?

>> No.14443118

>>14443087
>>statements of fact

fuck this, I'm out, damn me for ever expressing an opinion in this blasted board

>> No.14443153

>>14442999
I agree with you to a certain extent, but I would say that 4e tried to skip from gas power to nuclear, flubbed the design and the release and as a result and the car just kind of limps along. Pathfinder, on the other hand, just stuck in an electric engine, waxed it and called it a day.

>> No.14443171

>>14443118
You need to learn the difference between OPINION and FACT.

For example, "there is a difference between the tax codes of Canada and the United States" is a fact.

"I like Coke better than Pepsi" is an opinion.

The former is objective. The latter is subjective. You can have reasons for the latter, or it can just be "dunno, tastes better."

But if you try to say something like "Coke is healthier than Pepsi", you need to back it up. If you say "PF and 4E are good at different things", you need to back it up. that's a statement of fact, NOT preference.

"PF and 4E are good at different things" - statement of FACT.
"I prefer 4E to PF" - statement of OPINION.

Understand?

>> No.14443180

>>14443087
>Claims unfounded perception
> Immediately makes an observation without providing evidence.
We have a rogue and a ranger in my current pathfinder group. About all they have in common is that they both use stealth an awful lot

>> No.14443185

>>14443153
>but I would say that 4e tried to skip from gas power to nuclear, flubbed the design and the release and as a result and the car just kind of limps along.
Except that 4E runs perfectly smoothly.

>> No.14443193

>>14443180
Unless one is melee and one is range, they both try to TWF full attack.

>> No.14443207

>>14443180
How so?

>> No.14443222

>>14443193
Doesn't that entirely depend on character concept?
This may be a strange concept to you, but some people like to play characters first and think about builds second.
The rogue actually used throwing knives mainly. Sure it was not a particularly optimal build, but it was an fun to play alongside.

>> No.14443231

In a possibly vain attempt to get some discussion
on this group, I will now come out of the closet
publicly and say I think that Advanced Dungeons
and Dragons is a very poor excuse for a game.
Gary Gygax has no conception of how books are
actually used in a play situation, and a very
poor ability to understand hand-to-hand combat.
Further, the magic system is totally counter-
intuitive. Finally, the importance of magic
items (as well as the ideas of class and level)
depersonalizes characters, leading to a "rogue"-
type environment. (Oh yes, the description of
gods in terms of hit dice, etc., is totally
useless to the DM, and the unarmed combat system
is an atrocity; sorry to have forgotten these.)
The only reason that AD&D is the most popular
FRP game around is that it has a major lead on
the others--unfortunately, TSR has not used
this time to improve the rules, only to lengthen
them.

The only game I know of that's worse than AD&D,
aside from basic D&D, is Tunnels and Trolls.
Both RuneQuest and The Fantasy Trip provide much
better alternatives, and I am told that SPI's
DragonQuest (now owned by TSR) is hard to learn
but very smooth once one learns it. I strongly
recommend that any AD&D player buy RuneQuest
and play a few games before further glorifying
their rather primitive game.

I suppose I should be afraid to sign my name,
Tim Maroney (unc!tim)

Edition War from 1982.

>> No.14443249

>>14443222
OK, so the rogue was ranged. So the rogue spammed thrown knives from range, while the ranger spammed attacks in melee.

How different are they really?

>> No.14443252

>>14443185
it might, but do the customers know that? All it takes is a couple of "experts" going bonkers about "Y ARE U PUTTING RADIATION IN CARS THAT IS DANGEROUS AND IT FRIGHTENS AND CONFUSES US THAT YOU HAVEN'T STUCK TO THE PREVIOUS DESIGN" and it causes a massive wave of backlash/butthurt from the uninformed. There are a few people that drive them anyway because 1) it's new 2)it's easy 3)they like to keep up with current trends 4)they realize that the people yelling about this the loudest are usually the worst-informed.

>> No.14443260

>>14443249
oh boy, semantics!

>> No.14443274

>>14443249
woh, for real?

>> No.14443289

>>14443249
this shit makes me wonder how sad your games must be.

>>captcha: ridiculed rvedge

Indeed my friend

>> No.14443294

>>14443260
That's... not semantics.

my point is, a full attack is a full attck.

>> No.14443295

>>14443249
The rogue kept repositioning so as to get an advantage from sneak attack.
The ranger was also ranged character, we had other classes covering melee, who used a variety of different arrows depending on whether the foe was a favoured enemy or not. (Barbed for favoured, standard otherwise)

>> No.14443310

>>14443295
>The rogue kept repositioning so as to get an advantage from sneak attack.
>The ranger was also ranged character
OK, so the rogue moves and shoots while the ranger shoots some more.

That's very different for reals bro

>> No.14443314

>>14443231
Those aren't editions of the same game.

>> No.14443329

>>14443310
>Ignores sneak attack
>Ignores favoured enemy

>> No.14443334

>>14443294
By this reasoning, you could argue that 4ed and PF are identical because they use they use the same terminology. Or that 4ed and PF are identical to WHFRPG, because you are an hero in a fantasy world. Or that the previous games are identical to Vampire, because they are all rpg. And that Vampire is identical to WH40K, because they both use dice. Fuck it, that all games are identical because you are trying to win.

Is this what the 4ed=PFfag was talking about?

>> No.14443342

>>14443329
Sneak attack is what makes the rogue move and shoot instead of just shoot.
Favored Enemy is meaningless, it's just +dmg vs some people.

>> No.14443345

>>14443231
>Runequest better than AD&D
This angry grognard speaks the truth

>> No.14443362

>>14443342
>>RULES ARE IMPORTANT
>>pff that's meaningless, it's just a rule

Consistency, what's that?

>> No.14443368

>>14443342
So the class features are clearly meaningless and therefore they play the same?
The fact that the ranger player also like to stalk foes after purposefully wounding them and giving them a head start?
The fact that the rogue managed to break into nearly everything when we stopped paying attention?
Classes are not fully defined by their combat prowess.
By your argument, a melee fighter is identical to a melee ranger and a melee rogue as well.

>> No.14443369

>>14443334
>By this reasoning
None of that is "by that reasoning". It's "total strawman".

How is ranged full attack so different from melee full attacK/

>> No.14443378

Pfft 4e sucks because it wont let you play evil characters

>> No.14443386

>>14443369
well if you look at the NUMBERS, they totally are.

Do you play to have the biggest NUMBERS, pal? How big are your current NUMBERS, may I ask?

>> No.14443391

Everyone is aware of the troll, but still more than willing to spring into a thoroughly retarded argument?

Oh /tg/, you'll never change. <3

>> No.14443401

>>14443391
But this is amusing.
And on the off chance it isn't a troll, someone somewhere is feeling butthurt

>> No.14443404

>>14443334
>Fuck it, that all games are identical because you are trying to win.
Good job missing the point of RPGs...

>> No.14443409

>>14443391
Smug little shitposts like this help somehow? go eat a bag of dicks you smarmy idiot.

>> No.14443410

>>14443362
Rules are important because they change how you play. Favored Enemy doesn't do that. Sneak Attack, in this case, does. It's what makes the rogue move and shoot instead of shoot and shoot.

>>14443368
>The fact that the ranger player also like to stalk foes after purposefully wounding them and giving them a head start?
This is a personality trait. The rogue could do this just as easily.
>The fact that the rogue managed to break into nearly everything when we stopped paying attention?
The ranger could do this almost as easily. That's entertaining RP, but you can do that with any class.

>By your argument, a melee fighter is identical to a melee ranger and a melee rogue as well.
If they just full attack? Yes. Fortunately, in PF they can play kinda differently from each other. In 4E, even moreso.

>> No.14443417

>>14443378
It discourages it on account of most people being incapable of playing Evil as anything other than "derp i must murder everyone forever derp."

But other than that it doesn't not let you play Evil characters.

>> No.14443418

>>14443386
>well if you look at the NUMBERS, they totally are.
Huh? No.

>> No.14443419

>>14443401
>> someone is feeling butthurt
>>14443409
we have a winner!

>> No.14443430

>>14443410
But can't the ranger also cast or use tricks if they are a skirmisher?
Doesn't the fighter get a good deal more feats and so will have different options in combat?

>> No.14443444

>>14443410
>>Favored enemy doesn't change your style of play
>>Sneak attack does

Based on extensive statistics that I just made up

>> No.14443446

>>14443391
We're PCs. Killing trolls is what we do.

>> No.14443460

>>14443430
>But can't the ranger also cast or use tricks if they are a skirmisher?
The ranger's spells aren't going to be cast mid-combat 90% of the time.

The skirmisher's tricks DO help to make him play a little different--at least, some of them do. The combat ones are quite minor, unfortunately, and they have limited use, but yeah.

>> No.14443476

What, did all the janitors quit for the day?

>> No.14443477

>>14443444
>>Favored enemy doesn't change your style of play
>>Sneak attack does
>Based on extensive statistics that I just made up
Dude, are you fucking retarded?

Favored enemy literally does NOTHING except give you a flat +dmg when fighting those types of enemies. That doesn't change ANYTHING you do.

Sneak attack makes you set it up. A rogue would rather move into position to sneak attack than get a full attack in.

>> No.14443509

>>14443477

Favored enemy will change your playstyle. You will more actively seek out those enemies you are most effective against in the same way a rogue goes after openings for a sneak attack.

>> No.14443516

>>14443477
>> basically describing a tactical minis game

sorry, I spaced out, I didn't realize we are talking about Warhammer now

>> No.14443526

>>14443509
Full attacking dude A is no different from full attacking dude B. Also, the bonus is too minor for that.

>>14443516
...are you retarded or something?
If you don't care whether or not characters all do the same thing in combat, why are you even in this discussion?

>> No.14443539

>>14443516
>I was wrong and have been made a fool of
FTFY, bro.

>> No.14443547

>>14443526

I guess that's a fair assessment.

>> No.14443555

>>14443526
>Full attacking dude A is no different from full attacking dude B. Also, the bonus is too minor for that.
>Also, the bonus is too minor for that.
>bonus
>no different

notsureifserious.jpg

>> No.14443565

>>14443555
Are you HONESTLY arguing that a full attack is meaningfully different from a full attack that does 2-5 more dmg per hit?

>> No.14443570

>>14443526
As a matter of fact, no, I don't care if the characters do the same thing in combat, which is the least interesting part of any RPG, or if they do something different, which most likely they do in my opinion.

I'm in this discussion because I'm trying to figure out just how much piss are you taking when talking about this subject, and using this as a method to determine how boring and unimaginative must be playing with you.

>> No.14443597

>>14443565
yes. If you land, say, 12 hits over the course of a fight and deal an additional five points of damage per hit, that accrues fairly quickly.

>> No.14443598

>>14443570
>He cares about whether or not playing a Ranger feels any different from playing a Rogue in combat, which is a decent chunk of D&D
>Therefore he must be boring!!
I'm a fantastic roleplayer, and I prefer games like FATE-based DFRPG or SotC. But there's no reason combat can't be fun (and can't help you express your character).
When the wily trickster Rogue fights in one way, while the woodswise Ranger fights in another, that helps roleplaying, not hurts it.

>> No.14443617

>>14443570
In other words, you're trolling by pretending to be a retard, or you're an actual retard. Got it.

>>14443597
"A little more dmg" isn't "meaningfully different", bro. You're still doing the same thing, you're just doing it a tiny bit better.

>> No.14443621

>>14443598
>>I'm a fantastic roleplayer

Who, in their right mind, makes a statement like this? On this board, no less?

>> No.14443630

>>14443621
Shrug. I consistently portray interesting characters, and entertain myself and my fellow players and DM.

>> No.14443631

>>14443598
>>fantastic roleplayer

yeah, that proved your point alright

>> No.14443633

>Play 2e like a boss
>Ignore edition wars

>> No.14443642

>>14443633

You guys had your day.

>> No.14443647

>>14443631
>I have no more points to make, having been soundly thrashed on every contention of fact or logic.
>I will resort to petty insults, because this is 4chan.

>>14443633
2E ruined AD&D. 1E 4 LYFE.

>> No.14443650

>>14443633
this stopped being and edition war thread long ago, now IT'S PERSONAL

>> No.14443660

>>14443650
>I don't like that some guy pointed out that rules can change how classes feel and play
>I mad

>> No.14443670

>> No.14443681

>Edition wars obvious roll
>245 posts and 67 images omitted. Click Reply to view

Never change /tg/

>> No.14443693

>>14443681
>143 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
What thread are YOU looking at?

>> No.14443697

>>14443681
>claim that PF and 4E have so much in common they're basically the same game and therefore edition wars are dumb
>get called an "edition wars obvious troll"

>> No.14443721

>this thread

>> No.14443722

>>14443697

He is talking about the thread itself, dumbass. The thread whose OP is an image of stickmen shitting on D&D as a demonstration of the artist's opinion on the changes 4e introduced.

>> No.14443747

>>14443722
because, you know, that was what the thread was about, before you threadjacked it into your ridicolous claims

>> No.14443762

>>14443747
>two offshoots of the same game
>same playstyle, good at the same things, same flaws, same ways of addressing the same flaws in the original game, same abilities
>"ridiculous claims"
lol

fag

>> No.14443765

>>14443747

If you look at the thread you might note that its still what it is about, and the whole thread is a really crappy troll thread.

>> No.14443804

D&D up to 3e consisted of evolution. Some might say that the fitness function being optimized was mostly selling books and not gameplay but still it was an evolution.

4e was a new game system entirely, not evolution but revolution ... they shitted on their existing player base to get a more clear cut tank and spank type of game with less derailing player abilities (this is why we call it MMORPG inspired BTW). I hope they go bankrupt for doing it ...

>> No.14443821

>>14443804
yeaaaaaaah.jpg

>> No.14443827

>>14443804
>D&D up to 3e consisted of evolution. Some might say that the fitness function being optimized was mostly selling books and not gameplay but still it was an evolution.
Except that 3E is the opposite of AD&D in like every single way.

>3E all-noncaster game
>ZERO plot derailing abilities
looks like 3E is the real MMO

>> No.14443847

>>14443827
you tell him bro!
because it worked so well 3 years ago.

>> No.14443849

>>14443827
4E has more in common with late-era 3E than 3E does with 2E.

>> No.14443902

http://challengerating25.blogspot.com/2011/04/brief-essay-on-sad-state-of-wizards-of.html

>> No.14443941

>>14443902
>not even bothering to copypasting
>just linking shitty rants
Why not learn to troll properly cockfag

>> No.14443967

>>14443847
The satisfaction is not in rehashing the debate, or refuting or making points, but pissing off everyone a little more and lowering the common level of conversation.

>> No.14443977

>>14443941

It is not only a shitty rant, but a shitty rant on a usually low-rant blog that suddenly went full retard... until you realize that it is April 1st, the International Day of Trolling.

>> No.14444014

>>14443977
but, but... what if he's RIGHT?

>> No.14444185

>>Yet another thread of 4e trolling
It is a good game. Plays very close to computer RPGs. People says it is because they want to make computer adaptations easier, but I disagree. They made the game easier to be played, easier to make a character, easier to survive from bad decisions. I think they are aiming to make the game more dynamic like Marvel Universe was (at least in my 3.5 games, every turn was followed by a half an hour discussion regarding all rules that would, would not, could, could not apply and all variant interpretations if anyone tried anything fancier than swinging a sword).

>> No.14444209

>>14444185

I agree. I like both 3.5 and 4e to this day, I just like them for different styles of campaigns.

>> No.14444230

Time for some traditional games.

>> No.14444354

It’s basically the PS2 version of D&D instead of the game I know, embrace, and loved.

The 4th Edition D&D is absolutely WORTHLESS.

>> No.14444367

>>14444354
This doesn't make a lick of sense.

>> No.14444378

>>14444367
D&D was coming a long way in its mechanics (I’m wearing my GM hat now). For example Basic had classes that were a race. “I’m a 4th level elf”!. Advanced fixed some problems, 2nd ed fixed more problems (eg proficiencies aka skills existed). 3rd ed even made it better. All of it was an improvement.

4th ed is not. The idea someone can multiclass is gone. Skills outside that of basic adventuring – gone. The ability to tailore a character through circumstances etc – gone.

>> No.14444401

EVERY POST IN THIS THREAD IS EITHER TRIPS OR QUADS

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

>> No.14444417

>>14444378
>The idea someone can multiclass is gone.

Wrong.

>Skills outside that of basic adventuring – gone.

Wrong.

>The ability to tailore a character through circumstances etc – gone.

Wrong.

>> No.14444432

>>14444401
Look again :P

>> No.14444438

1/10
at least you put some effort in

>> No.14444440

44444444 GET

>> No.14444525

>>14444417
The combat leaves me cold. The change in ‘squares’ instead of ‘feet’ crps me off big time. It’s basically embracing the idea of the tabletop environment for combat. 99% of games I’ve played we didn’t use figs. Now … well … it seems a given.

>> No.14444539

>>14444432
Welp.

>> No.14444556

>>14444525
Try using figs.

I used them before 4e and it helped the players to think and describe their combat actions and make things less boring.

>> No.14444589

>>14444525
It's fairly trivial to use FATE-style Zones instead of squares for 4E; the guy who wrote DFRPG and SotC has a thing about it on his blog.

That aside, why do you have an opinion about 4E when you're so clearly ignorant about it?

>> No.14444628

ITT: >implying

>> No.14444641

so far ITT

>> No.14444644

I would be incredibly happy if every fucking retarded troll in this thread was permabanned.

This stupid "4E is an MMO/video game!" shit was old on fucking release. It's been three years.

>> No.14444701

>>14444644
>4E is an MMO/video game

No, it's closer to and inspired heavily by modern MMOs, not standalone video games, with its heavy focus on class/role synergies.

3.x is more single player video game inspired, with its focus on the individual character build metagame.

>> No.14444724

>>14444230

So many bingos....

>> No.14444725

>>14444525
>>14444556
>>14444589
They’ve designed the game around the idea you have to pay US$10 a month to access new rules. I bet that’s where we see Monk and Druid come up.

I’m all for streamlining and simplicity in combat. But they’ve made it far more complex with all the powers this and that that can be used. Vancian magic is effectively adios despite the fact that it has been accepted and embraced by many since inception.

No rolling for your own saves? That’s a core part of table fun. That’s gone. And the backwards compatability issue is exceptionally tragic. Basic – AD&D – 2nd Ed – to 3rd ed. It was still basically the same game.

>> No.14444738

4e is like the 3e house, with a massive sandbox (for your idiots), and all the furniture is nailed down tight and covered with plastic. You could remove stuff from 3e, with a bit of work (some of the furniture was quite large and heavy), but in 4e, I can’t see how you’d remove most of it at all.

>> No.14444751

>>14444440
Nnnnnoooooppppeee

failget is fail

>> No.14444765

>>14444725
>I bet that’s where we see Monk and Druid come up.

WAITER, THIS COPYPASTA IS STALE!

>> No.14444766

4e is unredeemable shit, and I hope this thread stays bumped just to remind the cocksuckers what they wound up supporting.

>> No.14444776

>>14444725
>And the backwards compatability issue is exceptionally tragic. Basic – AD&D – 2nd Ed – to 3rd ed. It was still basically the same game.

The compatibility thing was one of the biggest issues for AD&D players when 3e came out. I'll admit, 3.xyz to 4.abc is a HUGE leap, but 3e still pretty well shat on backwards compatibility beyond low levels.

>> No.14444777

It’s a World of Warcraft-inspired tactical combat game, but very unlike (and incompatible with) previous editions of D&D.

>> No.14444784

>>14444765
>>Implying that i am copy-pasting rather than stating my own honest opinions

Reported.

>> No.14444789

>>14444525
>Durr hurr me too dumb to use multiples of 5

>> No.14444806

>>14444784
If your post wasn't some copy pasta then you like most people who bitch about 4e are terribly misinformed.

>> No.14444820

How about you all stop bitching and just use open source shit to see if you truely like something or not.

I mean fuck, we're on the internet, we pirate shit all the time.

>> No.14444837

>>14444789
4e is the first time I thought of D&D “Whoa – this isn’t going in the right direction.”

>> No.14444862

>>14444837
And 3.x was the first D&D you ever played

>> No.14444885

>>14444862
What makes this new game D&D, besides the branding? If another company released this under a different name, it would get reviews on RPG.net about being a “fantasy heartbreaker” with “better than average production values” and that would be it.

>> No.14444927

>>14444885
The D&D flavor's been mostly gone since 3.whatever. They finally just got rid of the mechanical similarities too.

>> No.14444949

>>194 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
Victory dance tiem! ^-^

XD <(' '<)^( ' ' )^(>' ')> XD

>> No.14444957

>>14444927
With Third Edition, D&D took a brave step into empowering their community and sharing the core of the game by picking up the open source concept of open licensing. Product flowed, companies sprung up. The best stories since the classic 1e modules came from companies like Paizo Publishing and Green Ronin.

Now, Wizards has decided to say a big “screw you” to that. Not only are they not using any more open licensing, but they are requiring companies who are 4e licensees to agree not to publish materials under the old open license. After a big stink, this restriction was “clarified” to only apply to products in the same product line, but that’s a difference only in the magnitude and not the nature of the hostility towards openness here.

>> No.14444981

>>14444957
so wizards are trying to become the Games Workshop of RPGs? Fuck Wizard's and Fuck 4e!

>> No.14445038

>>14444981
BINGO

>> No.14445047

my bad, DOUBLE BINGO. I forgot that the OGL came up.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action