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

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 148 KB, 500x654, 4dndphb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
23913910 No.23913910 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Hey guys. I'm just wondering what you guys think about 4 edition Dungeons and Dragons? I used to play the original 1st edition with my dad when I was younger.
Unfortunately I feel like wizards of the coast is ruining it.

Not saying that I have never had fun playing 4th edition, but really it feels like I'm playing World of Warcraft. It fucking sucks. Why the hell can't they make it simple for new players to understand but keep it with that old original feel?

Anyway, what do you think Wizards of the Coast could do to make D&D worth playing again? What do you miss about older versions? What do you like about 4th edition if anything? Discuss.

>> No.23913989

if your having fun, what does it matter what edition your playing?

>> No.23914060

Edition War trolling at it's worst. He even uses catchphrases in his first post.

>> No.23914072

>Not saying that I have never had fun playing 4th edition
Uh huh.
>but really it feels like I'm playing World of Warcraft. It fucking sucks.
>What do you like about 4th edition if anything?
Mm. Alright.

4e doesn't suck, you're just fishing for support and/or rage by using the tired '4e is just WoW on tabletop' argument, even though it's as flimsy as damp cardboard when you start actually asking people why 4e is meant to just be an MMO with more paper.

>> No.23914394

I own literally 95% of all published 4e materials. Not including modules because lol, modules. I've also ran three full-length campaigns (two ending in epic, one paragon) and a dozen or so one-shots in the system.

I say all this so that you know when I say that 4e sucks, I'm not a grognard or a 3.5 fanboy.

It's something I only figured out after I tried other game systems and really got to have some perspective on what 4e turned into by the end of its product cycle.

The combat, of course, is way the fuck too slow. That is the single worst flaw 4e has as a system, that 10 rounds (1 in-game minute) of combat can take 2-3 hours of real-world time. Where combat should feel thrilling and intense, it feels flat and like everything is moving in slow motion, or underwater.

Secondly, every character is Goku from DBZ. I don't mean in terms of powerlevel or moveset, but in terms of how fucking flashy and speashul they all come out to be. Each character has a dozen or so named attacks, all of which do fabulous, wonderful, magical or borderline-magical things. 4e is a flashy as hell game, and if you play it you essentially give up any hope of having a gritty or low-fantasy game. It's damn near impossible to have horror elements or tension in 4e without outright breaking the rules to make it work. At one point I introduced an insidious red mist that ate death saving throws in one of my dungeons just to keep the tension alive - a mechanic which literally nothing in 4e has.

In short, try 5e. Wizards fucked up 4e something horrible, but 5e is the apology letter they've been owing us for years.

>> No.23914460

Yeah this is the biggest problem I have with 4th edition. I haven't played 5 edition yet.
I just hate how every character feels like they are the chosen one.

>> No.23914686

>That is the single worst flaw 4e has as a system, that 10 rounds (1 in-game minute) of combat can take 2-3 hours of real-world time.

The fuck. Assuming 5 people+DM for 10 turns of combat to take 3 hours you'd need each player to take 3 minutes for their turn. That's about 3 times as much as I allow after the first session for a new player.

>the attacks have names, this means it's DBZ
>the game can't do what it was never meant to do without breaking it.

You are either an idiot or a liar, or possibly both.

>> No.23914820

But have you tried playing an Evil or morally ambiguous campaign? Its fucking difficult. And many of the named attacks and powers completely ruin some character types. Might I mention the rogue? You go from being a stealthy back stabber to being some flashy faggot who can open up portals. Its fucking lame.

>> No.23914864

It's all in the flavour, friend.

They're just guidelines, you want to make it low key, make it low key.

Ain't nobody at Hasbro pointing a gun at your character's head.

>> No.23914887

>no tension in 4E
This is always a problem with the DM. It's easy to make games tense pretty much regardless of the ruleset involved.

It's also a problem when the DM thinks that the only way to add tension to a game is through trying to kill the PCs. When the players are properly invested in their characters, failure at something important to them is not only just as tense, but more interesting.

>> No.23914902

>But have you tried playing an Evil or morally ambiguous campaign? Its fucking difficult.
What the fuck are you even TALKING about?

>> No.23914903

That's true. What kind of experience do you enjoy?

>> No.23914916

>The combat, of course, is way the fuck too slow. That is the single worst flaw 4e has as a system, that 10 rounds (1 in-game minute) of combat can take 2-3 hours of real-world time. Where combat should feel thrilling and intense, it feels flat and like everything is moving in slow motion, or underwater.

Did you use Monster Manual 3-era monsters?

If not, there's your problem.

>> No.23914954

How is it hard exactly to play an evil campaign? You can just switch out all radiant damage with necrotic (and there were some other conversion guides in Dragon too), if that's your problem... not that you couldn't just play essentials classes which have all the evil sounding stuff, and you don't like loadsapowers anyway.

>> No.23914975

Yeah but its hard to convert from 3rd edition to 4th.
Monsters all have some bullshit ability or whatever that makes it difficult to do anything different.

>> No.23914979

>You go from being a stealthy back stabber to being some flashy faggot who can open up portals.

... What are you talking about?

Rogues don't have any powers that let them teleport on their own, let alone open up portals.

>> No.23914988

It doesn't matter, he says 10 rounds take too long... which is not the monsters fault but the players taking too long to act.

>> No.23914997

To be honest, I quite like it when things are resolved in silly ways.

Like... this one time my wizard and the party's Barbarian managed to combine our turns into some major shenanagahns involving arcane gate on the ceiling and floor of a room, and a Barbarian with a ridiculous grab attack.

Basically, they ended up taking about 20d10 damage, but the barbarian had boots of featherfall or somesuch that negated everything over 20 foot.

Flaming skull who tried to stay out of melee range basically turned to dust.

That's the kind of experience I enjoy. Shenanaghns.

>> No.23915011

Haven't you looked towards the back of the rogues character abilities? You can open up portals and shit.

>> No.23915019

>Yeah but its hard to convert from 3rd edition to 4th.
What in the fuck are you talking about.

>> No.23915029

I have never seen this. Please refer me to these exploits and/or class features and/or paragon path features

>> No.23915045

I think he thought you were asking him to use monsters from 3rd edition.

Clearly he doesn't know that there is a third monster manual.

>> No.23915053

Please show me the rogue class powers that let rogues teleport on their own or open up portals.

Hint: There are none.

>> No.23915059

My dad made a Goliath warlord named Timmis. We would walk into bars and he would find the most beautiful woman in the place obviously with a man and hit on her.

Bar fights are fun, especially when they involve the town guard.

>> No.23915092

I read that wrong, I thought he meant 3rd edition monsters

>> No.23915104

I had a WotC DM at a con describe 5e as 'going back to 3.5 and trying again.' I played a bit and it's not bad. Definitely simpler than 3.5 but preserves the fun, unlike 4.

>> No.23915127

Haha, nice

>> No.23915132

Considering at level 25+ you're at the point of killing minor gods, I'm not shocked.

>> No.23915142

>Dat simple assumption

Goddamn, man, that's painful to read.

>> No.23915152

The only thing I can think of that you might be thinking of is the Dark Wanderer (I think it was) epic destiny but 1. epic destinies barely count because the point is you ultimately transcend mortal badassery because you are stupid good at whatever it is you do and 2. I think the flavor is supposed to be KNOWING every shortcut ever (including existing magical ones) and not CREATING magical short shortcuts via portals.

>> No.23915170

Please stop.

>> No.23915185

The ability to steal things like concepts is legit one of the funnest abilities that's ever been in D&D.

Wait, I forgot powers can only do X damage, shit, guess I misread that.

>> No.23915186

>Anyway, what do you think Wizards of the Coast could do to make D&D worth playing again?

I'll check out the next edition regardless of what they try. I literally spend WAY more time reading RPG books than actually playing RPGs.

>What do you miss about older versions?

Spelljammer, the emphasis placed on setting in general, 2nd Ed. had a lot of humor and weirdness built into it. Tinker Gnomes, Giffs, Modrons, etc.

>What do you like about 4th edition if anything?

Shockingly I like a lot of what they did with the setting. I love the 4e manual of the planes, I like 4e Dark Sun. I wish there was a more fleshed out 4e SpellJammer. and Technically its a different game but the version of Gamma World based on 4e sounds awesome.

>> No.23915197

It's not cool to hate on 4e to hate on it anymore.

>> No.23915221

Darksun is always the shit, and I actually liked the planes.

>> No.23915232

My first 4e character was a Paladin of Asmodeus looking to seize control of an older border settlement that we turned into the capital of a resurrected Nerath. He was LE.

>> No.23915242

>dat loaded question in the subject

Dat's a fallacy.

>> No.23915344

I agree. Darksun is probably tied for second after Spelljammer. (Tied with for second with Planescape aka "Dungeons and Dragons Xtreme 90's edition")

>> No.23916806

You know what, I have a magazine article from the release of 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons, where the reviewer is of strong negative opinion.

Do you know what he compared 3e to?


Clearly, Blizzard is the foremost predictor of what new D&D games will be just like. Perhaps the next edition will be "Just like the Lost Vikings".

>> No.23916835

You mean OD&D?

>> No.23917018

That's not really wrong, considering the ridiculous build-based nature of D2 and 3E, the magic item dependence, and a few other things. Then again, 3E had like 3 months to be influenced by D2, so it wasn't intentional.

>> No.23917300
File: 13 KB, 320x319, GTFO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

OP is an edition warring faggot.

>> No.23917321


> Rogues opening up portals in 4e

What the fuck are you playing?

>> No.23917372


wait, he could have been referring to Diablo 1.

Fuck guys.

the parallels between diablo 1 and 3.x are pretty crazy.

Both have casters being the best and easiest to play as, and had a kinda wonky third party adaption

>> No.23917412

both have no concept of in combat walking speed.
clearly the same fucking game

>> No.23917447


I have a feeling you have not played d1.

>> No.23917775

Rogues were master race in D1 Lern too Diablo Do-Tard

>> No.23917800

Builds were huge in D1 as well. not as big as D2 but still big. especially with the Rogue. Also the teleporting warrior.

>> No.23917809

Oh Shit guys. 5e is going to be Starcraft Edition.

>> No.23917810


not really.

Spamming magic attacks and having the highest life ever via mana shield was much better. anything you couldn't kill with fireball and chain lightning died to gollies and stone crush.

>> No.23917845

High-ish armor + Good magic + VERY fast Ranged Physical attack. make the rogue way more dangerous. Rogue was the first character I took all the way through all the difficulties.

>> No.23917860

I think we all agree that warrior is super weak tier though.

>> No.23917920


yup, you have to play the to hit vs. ac game, and have no good crowd control besides firewall.

and everyone else has a better firewall.

>> No.23917970

It was hard to get the warrior through Normal mode, Nightmare was... well a nightmare.

>> No.23918031

>actually being trolled by this stuff anymore

Seriously, guys, the fact that he doesn't give any of the actual flaws of the system, it's pretty obvious that it's a pointless troll.

>> No.23918159

Hey, we are talking about diablo now.

>> No.23918545

I feel like the big problem with 4E is that it's a sequel to 3E, but not to prior editions of D&D.

With 3E it's pretty clear that they took prior editions of AD&D and tried something new. They added feats, skills, an emphasis on mechanical character detail, and a more number-plentiful system. It had its goods and bads; 3E was something new and the system had its rough edges.

When they made 4th edition, they only looked at 3E, only kept elements of 3E, and didn't really seek guidance from traditional D&D. So it's less D&D now and more Feat n' Skill combat simulator. I guess it's better polished in that department, but that department was the worst part of 3E for me.

5E looks pretty promising personally. Sometime soon I hope to run a game with it.

>> No.23918902

I still find it odd that the loudest contingent of 3.x players are the ones who play it like 2e.

>> No.23919234

>and didn't really seek guidance from traditional D&D.
What the fuck are you talking about? The class and skill systems were blatantly inspired by AD&D, not 3E.

>> No.23919258

4E doesn't suck, it just becomes a crappy boardgame instead of an RPG (rules wise)

>> No.23919350

Well, at the same time, it lacked the sneaky-stealy dungeon crawler elements older D&Ds started with, and the late game mandatory land-gettin' politicin' game play. 4e (and 3.x for that matter) really focused on the "sweet spot" of AD&D, from what I'm told; levels 3-7 where the party had the ability to wander around, killing things, and generally move past dungeon adventures and be able to focus on fighting.

And with that, both editions embraced that fights happen, and that players like fights. So the games became focused around set-piece encounters, and not d6 goblins whenever you rolled poorly.

No one really plays past level 3, even now days. Most people see AD&D as this gritty dungeon crawler, even if that party of the game isn't that pronounced. So it's not going to seem like the same thing.

>> No.23919371

That'd be true, if it wasn't for all the traditional RPG rules up in there.

>> No.23919531

It just felt messy, like all D&D editions. They had some weird emphasis on miniature combat and buzzwords like controller/leader/dps/etc

I just don't think it actually did what it wanted to do and felt really bad.

I think they could have designed it a lot better and more creative than what they did.

>> No.23919572

I'm...not sure what's you're saying exactly except "I dun like it". I mean, 3.x had an emphasis on miniatures combat (or gridded combat with minis on top); just look at the combat chapter. And the roles weren't "buzzwords", since class protection was designed into the game. While I don't think 4e is the best designed game in the world or anything (it's pretty obvious it had to be rushed out), it definitely did what it set out to do.

>> No.23919644

None of those "traditional RPG rules" mesh well the the overall focus on card-based miniatures combat.

>> No.23919689

>3.x had an emphasis on miniatures combat

I dont see how people keep saying this. You could easily play 3.shit just like any other retro D&D without a map or minis at all. However, if you tried that to 4E you were literally destroying the only way to make most leaders and controllers work.

As for the buzzwords, roles and role protection was buzzwords. As is the entire keyword system that is the only thing that makes 90% of the powers any different from eachother.

>> No.23919718

Okay, so, there isn't cards involved in 4e, so I don't know if you're trolling or just really uninformed. But skill challenges worked as a catch all framework for non-combat challenges. Rituals provide tons of fancy effects that could be a big boon to the party like they were in 3.x. Quests allowed the DM to hand out XP for non-combat/non-skill challenge milestones or events, and know what was appropriate.

All these things allow a game focused on set-piece tactical fights to have interesting adventures to put them in, or vice-versa.

>> No.23919726

>You could easily play 3.shit just like any other retro D&D without a map or minis at all.

The fact that you *could* is not the same thing as whether you were *supposed* to or not. 3.x absolutely expected you to use a grid and minis. The fact that the combat was so shit-shallow and tactically bereft that you could avoid doing so doesn't mean it didn't have that emphasis.

>> No.23919742

Okay, admittedly I never played AD&D and I only read the book. That said, I am pretty sure AD&D didn't even have a skill system, so I'm really confused at your claim.

2E had a skill system... which was hardly a big part of it and anecdotally I find most groups never used it.

I don't see how you can't think 4E's skill system was not a refinement of the 3E skill system. The names of the skills are the same, it's a great example of exactly what I claimed... a polish on something in 3E that I didn't really care for.

For 4E to borrow from AD&D I would expect something kind of like the old stat roll-under system. I've long considered switching over to that in my games in fact.

And 'class system' again I have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Are they the same in the sense that you... pick a class?

>> No.23919779

Change squares to 5f segments in 4e. It works exactly how it would in 3.x. Pushing and pulling just becomes about getting things in-and-out of range, and that's really the only mechanics effected by it. But, yeah, 3.x wanted miniatures. Ranges are hard to calculate in your head; grids make that easier. Really focused movement rules (AoOs, squeezing, difficult terrain modifiers) are hard to use; grid makes that easier. So much of the system made simpler because of how intense the mechanics were.

Except for a vast majority of the powers doing different things, you'd be right.

>> No.23919824

::inhales through teeth::

I did not like the overall fluff or design philosophy. The writing was...uninspiring to say the least, of the various sourcebooks, only one or two (like Open Grave) really stuck out as being decent.

I say this as a huge fan of shit like Libris Mortis and Lords of Madness; those books really made 3.5 for me.

I was personally able to make a fun 4e game, but I only did it by ignoring a lot of 4e's design philosophy, and a huge chunk of printed material was just useless to me. the rules kind of force/channel you towards playing a certain kind of game, and I think that game'd be pretty lame. The way that tinkly-wee omnipresent magic was just fucking built in to so many classes and their most basic attacks just felt so...dumb. magic-saturated.

It was an issue of fluff and themes and writing. I just flat out DID NOT LIKE the vast majority of what eventually got printed. The class bloat and race bloat (oh gods, the race bloat. save me from the race bloat that infests D&D and its successors like the fucking clap).

I also felt that "balance" was too strictly enforced, and that prevented a lot of creativity. It felt too gamey; far too much like a video game, with all the tiny numbers that you have to add up. That sort of shit works great in a video game, where the computer automatically adds up all the numbers.

>> No.23919846

3.0 was written with basically no reference to minis, but 3.5 they did rewrite the combat chapter in a way that pushed them. Of course it still wasn't a mini system in the sense that 4E is.

It's weird when people talk about "3.X" because they're different systems, and people don't understand that.

>> No.23919849

Powers are cards that you memorize. And WotC even created Power Cords so you could slap down your cards while you screamed your attack names.

Ritual rules did not mesh well with skill check bonuses, with explorations rules with anything else, And none of that meshed with combat at all.

The ONLY thing in 3.5 that even implies minis are a norm are the combat illustrations.

The focus on tactical combat and the fact that so many powers had movement related effects breaks to shit when you take the grid out.

3rd-ed didn't have that break point. It had many others, but not hat one.

>> No.23919875

dnd in general is crap, play WoD.

Used to think it was for weirdo teenage cutters to act out their vampire power fantasies, but actually it's pretty awesome and not lame.

i am so glad i will never in my entire fucking life have to sit through another two hour long dnd combat.

>> No.23919879

Powers are the various attacks and abilities your character could use. Putting them on cards doesn't make it a card game, and you saying that just makes you look foolish.

>> No.23919901

I like 4E. It has its problems, certainly, but those can be solved (partially, at least) by good houserulings.

>> No.23919905
File: 326 KB, 1423x1390, beltsmotherfucker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Wizard's whole printing philosophy was also a bag of dicks that got me super-tired of the company. making Dragon smaller and shittier, and making Dungeon super-shittier, with truly crap adventures, was a huge dick move. There was also the way they just re-released a bunch of old settings with no additional support. I understand why they didnt release a bunch of additional books like last edition (I truly understand; it would have been an awful idea), but I think they would have scored some major points by making up a whole new setting or two; being experimental, since they knew that they'd really only have to print two new books for it.

Overall, I discovered that I do not play RPGs to sit through hours of detailed combat; I've since gone through other systems, and have decided that Warmahordes scratches my tactical combat itch, Dark Heresy scratches an entirely different, self-abusive itch, and that some obscure french low-fantasy gothic horror RPG gives me the sense of atmosphere that I crave. And if i want to sit down for some simple dice-rolling and murder-hoboing with some cool fluff attatched, my best bet is to play Pathfinder.

>> No.23919908

Funny, I say the exact same thing about 3rd edition.

>> No.23919919

U hot

>> No.23919939

I eventually came to the conclusion that 4e, while I could run a good game of it, made me feel...itchy. I felt that the TYPE of people who really, REALLY liked it were...not people with whom I wanted to interact. At All. And a 4e game run using wizard's printed materials and following their design philosophy would bore me to tears and wig me the fuck out.

>> No.23919951

and i say the exact same thing about pathfinder


>> No.23919974

I would say that 4e is fucking hard as all fuck to houserule or homebrew. Too many godsdamned numbers, and the balance is so finely tuned to prevent any one player from feeling that their personal speshul snowflake might not be as heroic and speshul as everyone else.

>> No.23919978


> The only thing in 3.5 that even implies minis are the norm are combat illustrations.

And you know the fact that in all the printed adventures it specifically tells you exactly which miniatures from the official WotC minis line you are supposed to use to represent creatures.

>> No.23919981

That...4e sucks while Pathfinder and 3.5 are gifts from Gygax?

>> No.23919989

>ITT Faggots who are ok with a 2e sucks thread but cry when truth is told
>Hur troll

>> No.23919991

>a 4e game run using wizard's printed materials and following their design philosophy
I keep reading this about how the setting and fluff and 'design philosophy' of 4E is bad, but seriously, doesn't any GM worth his salt ignore most of it anyway when he makes his own setting?

>> No.23920001

The real problem with 4e is it's numbers and balance mindset over flavour and theme

It was made for autists

>> No.23920005


I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Since when has there ever been a 2e sucks thread?

>> No.23920008

It's not. Really. Like, give it a try. God forbid you actually know anything about what you're talking about. I don't know what makes it hard to homebrew. I mean, look at the system , see what other classes are doing. All the numbers are similar, so you don't have to worry about that.

>> No.23920023

Funny, because I can say "Plays exactly as I want it to without house rules" to AD&D and BEMCI.

>> No.23920024

>mfw the first two complaints are entirely the fault of the group and DM and nothing to do with 4e.

How did this thread get any replies what so ever?

>> No.23920029


Yeah the ivory tower game design and ridiculous imbalance of 3e that made entire character archetypes (all non-casters) invalid was so much more flavourful and fun.

>> No.23920042

Only on skill challenges, which pretty much every GM I know never uses in the way WotC intended anyway.

>> No.23920043

Non-casters weren't invalid in 3.x. They could be made invalid, but many a game has had both and hasn't had that occur. The fact that the system has that potential doesn't mean that potential is realized.

>> No.23920049
File: 136 KB, 610x346, The king.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

3e was shit, PF does it good as well as AD&D

>> No.23920079

Not everyone feels the urge to make their own generic fantasy world # XXVI. I have a fininte ammount of time to write shit, and I value delivering a quality session over crafting my speshul snowflake fantasy novel.

I like to take an existing world/concept and explore it alongside the players, expanding with my own shit where necessary.

I actually did try to homebrew and houserule some 4e stuff. I found it hard to even figure out how many hit points the fucking monsters were supposed to have.

>> No.23920086

I can't blame you on the HP thing. Wizards fucked up monster HP too for a long time.

>> No.23920091

>I actually did try to homebrew and houserule some 4e stuff. I found it hard to even figure out how many hit points the fucking monsters were supposed to have.

Seriously? That's even mathed out FOR you. I could understand having to do some alchemy to get monster powers right, but their HP and saves were actually pretty rigidly defined, just like in 3e.

The only hard thing to homebrew in 4e is classes, because making enough powers without going full retard was a dickton of work.

>> No.23920092

Double damage, half HP for all non-boss monsters, make plentiful use of traps, and play off the high fantasy.


>> No.23920098

>implying 4e can ever be enjoyed.

>> No.23920110

The main thing I dislike about non-casters in 3.x is that they were downright boring to play. 4E attempts to fix that by giving them different limited-use attacks that have different effects like spells.

>> No.23920111

>MFW I'm literally playing Pathfinder as we speak, over Roll20, and i both play and like 4e too.

>> No.23920113


> Implying Pathfinderp isn't just 3e copy pasta with some house rules.

Is that what you tell yourself to justify buying the same books for the 3rd time?

>> No.23920121


>but many a game has had both and hasn't had that occur.

Contrarily. Many a game HAS happened where it has. Completely by accident.

>The fact that the system has that potential doesn't mean that potential is realized.

Then why is that potential even there?

No matter how you parse it down. Spells per day are literally "ignore the core conflict resolution mechanic x amount of times per day".

>> No.23920126

>Implying that you aren't lying.

>> No.23920130

Uh...really? The HP? You know there's a whole damn section of the DMG1 that tells you how to build a monster, right? Page 184? Easily findable? Easy to use? No?

>> No.23920132

>ivory tower game design

I get so tired of hearing this said by people that don't understand what it means.

4E is also an ivory tower game.

Fuck, pretty much all games we talk about on /tg/ would be ivory tower games.

Any game mechanically complex that there is meaningful nuance to your mechanical choices is an ivory tower game.

>> No.23920143

No, Ivory Tower design isn't having better options for some choices; it's purposefully designing trap options into the game.

>> No.23920152

Yeah, partway through, they changed all the monster numbers and HPs and such. And no book ever came out and actually SAID what the final numbers were. And there was no guide to convert over the old monsters, so everything made before MM3 was, and remained, off. you know, all the bread-and-butter shit?

>> No.23920165

>no guide

Halve HP, double damage. From there it's just sprinkling "fucking dickshit I goddamn hate this monster" powers onto it to-taste.

>> No.23920182

That seems...silly. That's, like, a HUGE discrepancy in the core rules. do the PHB original classes account for that massive change?

>> No.23920185

Because this time they took out the things 3e took from 2e without understanding (thus became implemented terribly) and put in balance

>> No.23920199

You realize they published lots of errata and fixes online, right?


The updated rules for making monsters are in there.

>> No.23920209

Its actually a pretty simple fix. At level 1 the average level 1 monster goes down in 2-3 normal attacks, or 1-2 encounter or daily attacks.

Don't forget to decrease the amount of XP the monsters are worth.

>> No.23920210

Dude, the week MM3 came out, we had new monster rules posted online, on the Wizard's website. And it wasn't long before the community hacked those into something better. Would it kill you to use google?

>> No.23920216

Hasbro's twisted definition of 'errata' is probably one of the worst things about 4E.

It's not a videogame. You can't patch it.

>> No.23920223
File: 673 KB, 960x544, 1361863796796.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

woops, forgot my pic.

>> No.23920229

>The ONLY thing in 3.5 that even implies minis are a norm are the combat illustrations.
Yeah.. all those grid measurements and the idea of being adjacent to enemies and provoking attacks of opportunity by moving through threatened squares...

Sure, you can play this esoteric, wishy-washy "Am I near the guy?" sort of game, but the rules were formulated strictly under the idea that players would have a grid and something to denote the placement of their characters. Whether that means they buy WotC approved graph paper and buy their minis or that the characters simply use notebook paper and loose change, the very core of the game required that shit.

So, yeah, stop talking out your ass.

>> No.23920230

Oh. Well, it's a bit late for that now, isn't it? I remember asking this same question back when I was actually running a 4e game, and no one could give me a straight answer.

the pre-written adventures still sucked, though.

>> No.23920256
File: 1.09 MB, 200x149, Stone-Cold.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Admitting you fucked up and attempting to fix your mistake is a bad thing
Oh god, you're serious.

>> No.23920272

>no one could give me a straight answer.
Your group (and you) are idiots.

>the pre-written adventures still sucked, though.
Pre-written adventures always suck.

>> No.23920290


Most pre-written D&D adventures are shit. I don't like how they try so hard to make everything PG 13.

>> No.23920297

Wait... tell me you're not serious. Because when a company DOESN'T patch their game with Eratta, you get shit like 40k where they pretend imbalance doesn't exist and you should just "play for fun and be happy with our shitty system!"

>> No.23920332

It's sad that you're almost right but hurt by the fact that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

3.5 used a new cover system which kind of required a combat map to implement as-written, and the size system sacrificed making sense for the sake of mini combat.

OTOH, what you listed was stupid. The idea of getting hit for running past someone is hardly new. Christ.

Errata is good. Fixing mistakes is good.

Changing your mind about the rules is not errata. Stop pretending that there aren't costs to rewriting your book over and over and pretending it's the same.

>> No.23920380

From the perspective of a consumer, what exactly is bad about them releasing updates/errata online? For free?

The only alternative I can see is that you have to buy new books all the time.

>> No.23920385

The Godsmouth Heresy

And Madness Followed.

Steel Shadows

Burnt Offerings

The Skinsaw Murders

The Haunting of Harrowstone

The Styes

The Weavers

Seven Days to the Grave

>> No.23920423

Yeah, but that sort of shit only makes sense when you know where everyone else is.

"I want to run away."
"You're going to take attacks of opportunity from all these bad guys."
"The fuck? I thought they were all near Barry. How am I getting attacked by those guys?"
"Wait, I thought Steve was by the cliff, what is he doing near the baddies I'm fighting?"
"Wait, there's a cliff?"

The cover system is hardly the star mechanic that enforced grid-and-mini combat. Point still stands that they didn't intend for you to use any of the game in a strictly narrative format.

>> No.23920528

>That said, I am pretty sure AD&D didn't even have a skill system, so I'm really confused at your claim.
It had three.

Thief skills, NWPs in the core books, and the Skills & Powers NWPs, which were a further refinement.

>> No.23920550

What are you talking about? 3E got errata all the time, too. It was also of massively less quality(see: ToB errata, which randomly got replaced by, what, Complete Mage errata halfway through?)

>> No.23920558

>Skills & Powers NWPs, which were a further refinement.

Yeah, no. you have lost all right to have an opinion on anything ever

>> No.23920570

nice, a list of 9 unplaybly bad adventure modules

>> No.23920584


Nope, accidentally objectively best options is ITD as well. And 4E has that.

>> No.23920605

There was nothing wrong with the NWPs in Skills & Powers. It was basically the same thing but with some extra stuff.

The chargen rules were the problem.

>> No.23920610

No, but it kills a game to require the player to.

>> No.23920614

>Played DnD 3.5
>Tried building my fighter.
>Get told by every experienced player that my build is complete shit because half the choices go no where.
>Amazing Game!

>Play 4th Edition.
>Build my fighter.
>Concise rules make power and feat selection clear.
>Even if I make a few bad choices, every level I have the opportunity to fix them as I level up.
>Character feels like it's contributing at all levels.
>Badwrong game, should be hated.

4th Edition doesn't have that retarded experience barrier to be an effective player. I shouldn't have to use online guides are use 5 separate books to make an effective character.

>> No.23920622

You wait a couple years, learn from your mistakes, and release a new version of the system which fixes the problems.

RPGs have always worked this way. Yes, RPGs aften have broken shit in them and weird quirks. Who cares? They're RPGs, not cometetive card games.

The scenario you're describing existed in 2E as well. The concept of threatened squares was just an attempt to more formally define "in combat" and what it means to run "past" someone.

If the DM doesn't know where the players are, then you're gonna get that kind of confusion in ANY system. Your scenario has very little to do with 3E.

The ILLUSTRATIONS all used minis, and I suspect that's where the beef is really coming from on AoOs.

3E errata was *ERRATA*. It wasn't rules changes, it was typos, and clarifications.

The only rule change they ever dropped was polymorph, and they didn't pretend it was errata, and made the decision with gravity.

>> No.23920628

The NWP list, just like the optional one in the 2E PHB was a steaming pile of shit with way too big to be of any use. And it added a level of asinine granularity that did nothing to better the game. Use secondary skills and just play the damn game.

>> No.23920629

...No, it's not. Having best options isn't ITD; that's life. That's just how choices work. ITD is only when you set out to reward people for gaming a system really hard, by putting in things that look really good, but are in fact terrible.

>> No.23920637

Okay, now you're just doing the typical /tg/ "insist everything is awful, no matter what it is" shtick. It's not funny.

There's no fucking way you've actually read all those adventures; if you did, you'd have a higher opinion of at least one of them. That's a decent sampling of the most interesting pre-made adventures made for 3.X, and they're at least equal to the usual drek pumped out by DMs on a weekly basis; if they weren't, they wouldn't have been published.

>> No.23920638

Have you actually played any of those?

>> No.23920655

The player doesn't have to. The GM (you know, the guy required to put in actual work to make the game fun for everyone else) DOES.

>> No.23920672

They can't all be unplayably bad, because I've personally run three of them. Fuck, I ran Steel Shadows twice, for different groups. the 2nd time, I had to port it over to 4e, but it was still a cool adventure.

Point is, the players played them, and enjoyed them. So they weren't unplayable.

>> No.23920679

>If the DM doesn't know where the players are
So the DM should keep notes on where the players are? Draw it out on a map, maybe, because that's much easier to edit on the fly? The same map that's in front of ALL the players in 4E which you seem to hate so much?

>> No.23920684

you seem to misunderstand.

Putting option in a book where there is no reason to never take them (such as pre errata Orcus Slayer or Locate City Nuke) is ITD no matter if you planned it or not.

>> No.23920693

I think its hilarious, and I have played them all. RPGA motherfucker.

>> No.23920694

But now you're describing something which isn't ITD as Monte was describing it.

I'm just gonna bring up Toughness because it's pretty much *the* trap option everyone talks about.

>Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it’s not the best choice of feat

It's situational. It's *usually* not optimal. It wasn't put in to be bad, and bad was hardly a design goal.

>> No.23920701

I'm presently running Carrion Crown for the third different group. Definitely not perfect, but pretty good overall.

>> No.23920703

Players are required to know the rules of the game, too, dipshit.

>> No.23920719

>Completely changing argument.

I'll bow out at this point.

>> No.23920739

True, but I'll excuse them for not looking up every little errata ever made that could possibly impact how the game works. It's not their job to know all the rules perfectly.

>> No.23920762

For fuck's sake dude..

3.5 in particular, specifically the way the rules are written and presented, call for miniatures and grids. Yeah, you can call bullshit by claiming that other games had similar mechanics, but 3.5 is not like other D&D games. In fact, that's 90% of its problems right there. It's not like 2nd, or AD&D, or Chainmail. It's a horrendous chimera of terrible ideas that just happen to use similar terminology and concepts.

Trying to play it RAW is bound to be a frustrating mess to begin with, but if you decide to just throw shit out the window and claim that the game is still playable when you have removed entire chapters, because, for whatever reason, you think you don't need a grid or so much as some scribbles on a sheet of paper, don't try to fucking claim that the game is totally not intended to be played the way it was written.

For fuck's sake, the DMG comes with a battle grid and cone templates.

>> No.23920767

Just going to bring up something from my experience with 4e here...

ToTM does work. You don't need a grid. Maybe a basic map to show the area, but tokens are completely optional. And no, this doesn't screw over controllers. Sometimes you have to BS a bit and powers affect more (or less) enemies than they should, but things like "adjacent" aren't actually hard to keep track of. No harder than in 3.x, at least.

>> No.23920775

Good. All you've been doing is blathering like an idiot this whole time and trying to argue for the sake of arguing with every post in this thread.

>> No.23920779

Carrion Crown had the first 4 adventures be pretty good; they were at least interesting. But it suffered from being on the move, and once more AGAIN having the BBEG pop up out of nowhere. I also thought that the actual evil plan was kind of lame and nonsensical. Really, to me, it was just an excuse for HAUNTED HOUSE, FRANKENSTEIN, WEREWOLVES, and LOVECRAFT.

>> No.23920802

What's your point?

I am advocating that 3.5 was written for miniatures. I'm just sayin chuckefuck's examples (yours?) are bad ones.

Also, 3.5's miniature rules here needs a bit of context. It's clearly pushing mini rules, but it's not in the same league as 4E.

>> No.23920818

>It's not their job to know all the rules perfectly.

It is, tho. D&D Encounters guidelines state that Veteran players are expected to be as well versed in the rules as any registered DM so they can help new players along just like DMs are.

>> No.23920840

Yeah, I found it was best to change it so that the BBEG was present (or at least mentioned) a lot earlier and more frequently. The evil plan itself I didn't have a problem with, but there was the issue that the effect of the PCs getting the mace was never described. Definitely the case that you had to read through and modify things where appropriate.

>> No.23920849

Not everyone is a veteran player, though. The only one who HAS to know the rules really well is the GM. If other players know them too, that's fine.

>> No.23920871

I remember a suggestion to have him present at the funeral, and also to leave some polite taunty letters here and there

"Given that you've already gotten this far, I have no doubt that you will find this message. Of course, by the time you do, it will be far to late to prevent the imminent apotheosis. Good show, though. You're making this whole business rather less boring."

Shit like that.

>> No.23920900

You're even shitty at agreeing with people. God damn.

>> No.23920901

Actually, this reminds me of something. I think I stole it from Zero Punctuation, but whatever;

The Watercooler Effect.

There's something wonderful about a game where people can chat around the watercooler (or whatever) and discuss their slightly different experiences.

But there's something fucking awful about someone who won't shut the fuck up about his 12th level paladin and the, like, 5 dark lords that he slew.

Adventure Paths create a pretty sweet Watercooler effect that D&D doesn't normally get because, you know, sperglords.

>> No.23920910

That is not at all how the game is written, however. D&D and 4E in particular, expects everyone to have memorized, copied notes or highlighted everything relevant to their character just to function at all.

>> No.23920928

And this, right here, is why combat is so goddamn slow. If everyone just made nice little notecards or something, but noooooo....

>> No.23920941

I think every game expect you to know how to play it for your character to function.

>> No.23920977

Players should know how to attack/deal damage/take damage/what the varius status effects do. Yeah, they're required to know the RULES of the game.

Claiming they have to know EXACTLY HOW HARD that goblin hits or HOW MUCH HP it has is probably taking the piss a little bit. It doesn't hurt for players to know monsters of X level usually have around Y defences and Z HP, but knowing EXACTLY what those values are is irrelevant and arguably metagamey.

This has been my experience with 4e as well. It's very easy to build a 'competent' character; you might not pick ALL the gold-rated powers and feats and items, but you'll do your job, and do it solidly. Conversely, it is VERY DIFFICULT to make an horribly over- or under-powered character, especially the latter.

Example: our rogue has some really, really suboptimal choices in his feats, items, and even ability score increases. Not even for fluff reasons (like linguist, mounted combat, weapon proficiency, etc); things that make my inner twink want to shake him by the shoulders screaming WHY MAN, WHY, YOU COULD DO SO MUCH BETTER.

He's still a kickass striker. Same with our avenger.

You have to really, REALLY work against the system to build something that can't contribute to solving the party's problems. Lord knows our druid player did it once, but you pretty much have to WANT it.

>> No.23920984

Every game I have ever played expects you to know how your shit works.

Have you been playing some kind of European Not-Game or something?

>> No.23920995


This so fucking much. I started running a campaign recently, and I've made minor adjustments to make combat a little bit more deadly (on both sides).

But good fucking god, I'm fairly fucking sure that my players don't look at the book at all except for when we're in sessions. We're four sessions in and I'm about to tear my head off from how many times I've heard "Let me write down my powers from the book real quick."

>> No.23920997

Every game does, but not every game has the amount of minutiae that D&D 4E has for even the most simple characters. Even the babby's first classes books have way more fiddly shit than you ever should expect a first time player to track.

>> No.23921029

What? No. Most of your math remains fairly static on a 4e character. Conditions are the only thing which are an issue to track (and can be avoided by not using persistent effects).

>> No.23921030

Do it for them, then.

>> No.23921040

odd that edition-warriors whined and moaned about the "power cards" and standardized layout for spells/powers/effects/tricks/whatever 4e implemented to streamline and reduce the need for someone to be flipping through a few chapters to get the exact detail for something.

>minimal experience but the books even seem more readable, actually designed to impart information not tricks.

>> No.23921060

Its not the math. Math is fucking easy.
Its the constantly referencing powers, the limitations on skills, the special things your equipment does and the triggers for those, etc.

>> No.23921079


If I can't use my DDI charbuilder, I screenshot or scan the powers from my PDFs/books and jot the maths doen beside them in a word document. I offer to do this for my players if they can't or won't.


Biggest gripe with 4e BY FAR is players who don't or won't learn how to add up their attack modifiers. Sweet merciful fuck the original charsheets even had the little boxes to put down all the numbers, and characters only ever use 1-3 ability scores for these things.
(admittedly this might not be a 4e thing so much as a player thing)

>> No.23921091

All things you should know if you picked them. There's not a huge list of hidden options for each little widget. I have a fire sword. I can choose to deal fire damage and occasionally blow it up with extra dice of damage from a power. Shit is not hard.

>limitations on skills
Ha ha, what?

I'm convinced you are ADD or something.

>> No.23921104

I know what you mean. One of the players in my group has a D&DI-account and he's made printed character sheets for everyone which saves SO much fucking time, goddamn.

He also lets me use the monster builder, which is pretty cool.

>> No.23921137

>nice little notecards

I recently found my character sheet for a 4E D&D character. I think he was 11th level. He wasn't designed to be complicated or anything.

Two fucking pages for his powers. They were written to be succinct too. My characters for 3E take less than half a page.

I understand a D&D caster needs a lot of page space to describe his powers too, but that's EVERY character in 4E.

>> No.23921159

Firstly: Why are you so dumb that you can't remember how your powers work after two or three times of using them?

Second: Big character sheets have nothing to do with a game being complex. WoD can have fucking huge character sheets too, and that is not a fiddly game at all.

>> No.23921175

4e averaged it out.

3e Fighter? Half a page. 4e Fighter? 2 pages.
3e Wizard? 13 pages. 4e Wizard? 2 1/2 pages.

>> No.23921182

Yup. 4e powers take up a lot of space.

But I say it's worth having more to read if it makes the game balanced.

>> No.23921186

>Firstly: Why are you so dumb that you can't remember how your powers work after two or three times of using them?
Not the guy you replied to, but at level 11 you have about 12 completely unique abilities. You forget shit because you're human.

>> No.23921188

>Comparing 4e to WoW
Troll subtler.

>> No.23921197

At worst you may have to reference it the very first time in a session, but everyone in my group knew their powers within the session they got them and didn't have to relearn shit until they got new ones.

>> No.23921203

You aren't writing them succinct. I have gotten my entire 21st level character on one.

>> No.23921207

This. Probably more than 12, with any extra things you can do because feats, class features, race, theme, etc.

You want no long list of powers? That's what Essentials is for.

>> No.23921212

Just like any RPG out there.
If you don't know what your character can do, write it down. If you don't write it down, you have no-one to blame but your own, deficient self.

>> No.23921290


You know what, I really feel like I shouldn't have to, but I think I very well might. It's one of the two things that's really slowing down shit for us.

The other issue is their total bonuses. It's really not hard once you've read the book, or even glanced at the official character sheet. I think I'm just gonna print off sheets for everyone. If that doesn't solve it, I'm gonna whip up a cheat sheet that tells them exactly what goes into it in a short, simple form.

If these don't work, I'm going into maximum table flip mode.

>> No.23921306

Oh, I totally agree. I once made a cleric in 3E in a mid-level game. Fucking hated it.

But here's the thing... I didn't have to play a cleric. I pretty much stay away from Wizard/Cleric nowadays. Similarly, other guys totally get off on that shit.

I figure, magic-casters get big spell list. Martial characters get mathcraft. Munchkins get both, and the guy that's there to just make jokes and get the party in trouble doesn't worry about neither.

Seriously some guys like complicated characters. Fucking weirdos.

>> No.23921331

Excuse me if I don't like doing the same thing over and over again, or I don't want to have to memorize every table or paragraph from the exploration and interaction chapters so that I can "improvise" without breaking out the book.

>> No.23921354

>I didn't have to play a cleric.
After mid levels, and if the DM refused to coddle you and you wanted to play a melee?

Yes you fucking did.

>> No.23921376

Pretty much, yep.

>> No.23921384

I have a *lot* more than 12, but a lot of these are just conditional modifiers like...

>Astral Majesty (race): +1 bonus to all defenses against attacks made by bloodied creatures.

Shit like that needs to be written down. It's not just about the number of powers, it's about all of the special abilities and defenses and triggers and shit. No human can remember this (and frankly it's a pain to keep track of written down too).

Here's the character if anyone cares. It was years ago and I don't pretend he's optimal or correct really.

>> No.23921396

Yeah, nah. That's fairly standard and easy to remember. You just got brain problems.

>> No.23921449

By itself it's easy. But six of those, all keyed off of different things on the enemies, changing from round to round and different against each foe. THAT'S a bitch to keep track of.

I even like 4e.

>> No.23921456

You should try doing things like linking all your channel divinity powers, resistances, at-will/encounter-daily/utility, or even standard/minor/reactions together, that might help in terms of organisation. Shit son, I'd have trouble with remembering all my powers laid out like that.

Look at the MM creatures and see how they're organised into action types; it's easy enough that a DM can have 3-4 different monster types on the field at once and not have too much trouble.

>> No.23921474

Sorry I'm too stupid to play your game.

I never went into that situation. High-level D&D looks stupid to me and noone's forcing me to play it. I know of a group that did for a LONG time and they seemed to have a pretty healthy melee/magic balance though.

And honestly? I don't mind being less effective necessarily. I've played mechanically useless characters before, it's a problem common to all RPGs. The thing is your character's personality and choices without mechanics have a huge bearing on the game. I played a gnome... something once, I honestly don't remember his class at all. But I do remember him chumming up with the prince and getting a random lucky 20 in the arena tournament and unfortunately choosing not to save the world by jumping in the big dangerous mystery rift.

>> No.23921655

> Sorry I'm too stupid to play your game.
Wait, I thought 4e was the "dumbed down casual kiddy" game.

The world doesn't make sense anymore!

>> No.23921817

>expects everyone to have memorized, copied notes or highlighted everything relevant to their character just to function at all.
Fucking character sheet, bro, ever heard of it? If you are caster, print list of spells, and voilà, you have everything you need.

And I do not really understand why people speak about miniatures here as of a really bad thing?
Minis makes tactics more interesting, you can use terrains, cover, positioning, range, AOE spells, you fucking can buy 2$ Reaper mini and paint it yourself to fully represent your character, like character portrait. You can go freaking beyound that and get yourself bunch of 1'' cubes go full 3D on your players.
Sure, minis limit you to indoor environment, but you can use tokens, small coins and etc. We even used small acorns and pine cones when we were out in the woods hiking one cold rainy morning. We stayed inside tent and played till sunset.

>> No.23921852

4e does some things well, like class balance, making DMing easier, and making it hard to make a shitty character, but there are lot of things I think it does poorly, and it keeps me from enjoying the game. Multiclassing feels kind of like it was an afterthought and it lacks the depth of multiclassing in other systems, making overpowered characters with +25 to hit and five million damage per turn is easy, especially since most of the feats are boring and you might as well choose a number buff.

My biggest complaint is that the Powers system makes the game play like a card game or a strategy game instead of like a roleplaying game. They put a neat little box around what you can do, and powers encompass even mundane things like "throw dirt" and "bash him with my shield." Things like that should never have been powers to begin with, but rather things a character might be capable of at any time. Their presence in the Powers list makes players stop thinking outside of the box and finding creative ways to play their characters, and instead forces them to choose from a narrow list of maneuvers dictated by their Powers. If even Throw Dirt is a Power, it implies that other players shouldn't be trying to throw dirt in an enemy's eyes, because if *everyone* can attempt to do such a thing, there's no reason for the Power to exist. The only opportunity players get to roleplay during combat encounters is coming up with half-baked justifications for why their character used X Power, or descriptions for how X Power was executed. No thanks, I'll stick to a roleplaying system that wasn't designed by people who wish they were working on MtG and miniatures games.

Oh, and the Power system also makes very little sense when it comes to martial fighters, and it doesn't make much more sense for mages unless you like to suck Jack Vance's dick. An RPG is always going to have mechanical abstraction, but in 4e it's actually noticeable and gets in the way.

>> No.23921861

It's a board game with roleplaying elements.

>> No.23921888

>Things like that should never have been powers to begin with, but rather things a character might be capable of at any time.
The only difference is that 4E actually gave some of those things numbers rather than having it handwaved by the GM. You can still do unexpected shit, my group does it nearly every encounter.

>> No.23921979

>you an still do unexpected shit

So my Fighter can Throw Dirt as per the power? Shouldn't he need to multiclass Rogue to do that? And can the Rogue Throw Dirt in a pristine manor that is kept spotlessly clean? Does he keep some sand in his pocket like Dale Gribble?

The Power system almost makes sense for various magic because "Hurr Durr It's Magic!", but it's retarded for everyone else.

And why not just make a big page full of shit you can do if you're tired of handwaving? Why aren't maneuvers like Throw Dirt and Shield Bash on the same page as Melee Basic Attack, Charge, Bull Rush, and Grapple? How about Disarming, Crippling, Tripping, and everything else you can think of? Whether your character is capable of these things shouldn't be based on a Power, it should be based on whether or not your character is the type of guy who would do it and whether it's appropriate for the situation... and it shouldn't be limited to Once Per Encounter arbitrarily, but that's another issue entirely.

I'm not saying ALL spell like abilities and special maneuvers need to die, but 4e goes WAY overboard with them and manages to make them boring and restrictive. A crippling attack doesn't need to be a power, but it might make sense that a huge, flashy stunt that requires tremendous exertion can only be used every once in a while...

>> No.23922104

I see where you're coming from, I really do, but some of the suggestions you make just... aren't balanced anymore in 4E. You would not believe how useful tripping a guy up and knocking him prone AT WILL would be if you have, like, two feats devoted to it. Seriously. Same with disarming. I can't see why you wouldn't want to do this ALL THE TIME if any character could do it any time he wanted to.

And no, fighters would not be able to use the "Sand in the Eyes" power as it is written, because it's not as simple as you make it sound. It's a power that requires a light blade, and it also does weapon damage. It's not just "I pick up a handful of sand and throw it in the guy's face", you're also doing an attack IN THE SAME ACTION. If a fighter wanted to try to blind the opponent by tossing sand from the ground in his eyes, that's something the GM can always houserule in just like before.

>> No.23922177

Monks in 5th edition reach "perfection" at 20th level, where every stat below 20 goes up to 20.


>> No.23922445

A common misconception about 4e is that you NEED a power in order to do something that isn't a basic attack. Powers are moves, tactics, spells, etc. that *always work as written*, requiring no mother-may-i from the DM. Performing the same basic action that is written on a power card's flavor text is technically legal, but restricted by circumstance; is there even dirt to throw in the target's eyes? Does the target HAVE eyes? The Fighter will have to improvise, but the Rogue thanks to Power abstraction either always manage to find something eye-irritating, or will know how in general to blind an otherwise eyeless opponent that actually isn't straight-up immune to blindness.

>> No.23922507

The fact that this still needs to be explained baffles me.

>> No.23922542

Bliss is a hell of a drug.

>> No.23922576

>Nerd rage is a hell of a drug

>> No.23922618

I just don't like how there is no pitfall for someone to build a character into. It should be much easier to create a character who builds the wrong things and ends up not being nearly as useful as the rest of his team.

4e is just pandering to individuals who wanted plain old fighters to be useful after level 15 (I used to play 2e, high-level fighters are worthless at high levels).

Pathfinder has pitfalls for character building with the way their level-points work when you buy levels in different classes. It's much better to just level one class than to build up two different classes. Again, 2e was more viable in this sense because you didn't have level-points to spend in classes, you just trained each class. Dual-classing took much longer to level up in than just focusing on a single class.

Honestly, I hope 5e doesn't go the way it's looking now. I'd rather have it allow more feats or skills instead of just handing you Deadly Strike dice at higher levels. That way you can build a rounded character with some role-playing elements (feats for just RPing purposes) without spending 1/8 of your feats for something that doesn't even affect combat in any way.

I don't want crutches to become a snowflake, I want to be able to create a character who I want to Role-Play as.
>Pathfinder, poor multi-classing, but good diversity of skills for assisting role-playing encounters
>4e, good multi-classing for discovering what you like, but filled with restrictions that made everyone into Goku
>5e, fewer restrictions, but fewer options outside of "here, you get this at Xth level," and everyone turns into a snowflake at high level, see >>23922177 for the example

Just give me a fucking tabletop RPG where I can build a fun spellsword or druid/ranger who likes to keep an eye on his home forest, all without making the character completely worthless in the game. Worthless in high-level combat? Maybe, magic items can fix that. Worthless for role-playing? Fuck no!

>> No.23922622


tl;drI want to feel like I'm playing a game with friends, not reading the Book of Law with some guys who I meet with every week.

>> No.23922645

>Just give me a fucking tabletop RPG where I can build a fun spellsword or druid/ranger who likes to keep an eye on his home forest, all without making the character completely worthless in the game.
They did that. It's called 4e.

>> No.23922649

>I just don't like how there is no pitfall for someone to build a character into.
What the fuck.

You are the problem.

>> No.23922652

If it's a "common misconception," that's because the rules blatantly make it sound like you aren't really supposed to do anything that's not in a little Green/Red/Black box laid out for you. If they wanted everyone to be capable of blinding attacks like Sand in the Eyes, but for the Rogue to be good at it, they would have put blinding attacks in a general section of the rulebook and then given rogues a bonus to it. Instead, they put it in one particular power box at one particular level in one particular class. Stay deluded if you want to, but 4e didn't intend for fighters to even ATTEMPT a maneuver like that. If your group uses Rule 0 heavily and twists 4e into an enjoyable roleplaying game rather than a miniatures combat strategy game, then that's all well and good, but I've played 4e with lots of new players and they simply aren't getting how supposedly open and flexible 4e is as an RPG. If, from what you say, 4e isn't a an inflexible system, then its core books are certainly written VERY badly.

>> No.23922668

> If it's a "common misconception," that's because the rules blatantly make it sound like you aren't really supposed to do anything that's not in a little Green/Red/Black box laid out for you.

Page 42 of the DMG.

So... no.

>> No.23922687

Did they change the multi-classing? I stopped while you still had to take feats in multi-classing.

So wanting a game where building a character doesn't make them insanely overpowered, but not building one could leave you mildly underpowered is a problem?

>> No.23922719

Making an overpowered character should be hard. You need to carefully look at the many, MANY options you have and select the best one for the build you're going for.

Making an underpowered character should also be hard because not everyone WANTS to be a min-maxing grognard who spends hours going through forums on the internet and rulebooks. They just want to have fun whilst playing D&D and not care so much about the feats they're going to take 6 levels from now when they're still level 1.

The way 4E is balanced, both players can still contribute to encounters in a meaningful way at high level. Sure, one of them is going to be a lot better at it than the other one, but the non min-maxed guy isn't going to be stuck with a useless joke of a character.

>> No.23922732

Point the first; hybrid classes.

Point the second; define "insanely overpowered". Because very few things in 4e are overpowered, and they often require jumping through some pretty crazy hoops to achieve. Assuming you're not an idiot and use MM3 or later monsters, PCs are not, by any definition, overpowered in comparison to appropriate threats.

>> No.23922733

>Rule 0
>... in the fucking DMG

4e doesn't even come close to leaving players with the impression that they can do anything they want. Stay deluded.

>> No.23922744

Multiclassing still works with feats. It's pretty much never worth it, but you can still do it. And you'll still be able to contribute to the party in combat because 4e makes it nigh-impossible to have a character who is that goddamn useless unless you're doing it on purpose.

>> No.23922762

Did you even read the page he just linked to? It flat-out gives you some basic guidelines on how to handle shit that isn't in the core books, like throwing sand or swinging on a chandelier and knocking an enemy into a burning brazier or some shit. It's all there, and it outright ENCOURAGES you to use them.

If your players aren't doing stuff that isn't explicitly described in the rulebooks, you're not doing your job as a GM right.

>> No.23922768

> DMs never ever explaining this simple concept to their players
> DMs apparently never reading their DMGs
What the fucking whatwhat?

>> No.23922781

As a DM running 4E for the first time, with a group of players who have played other RPGs with us, but new to "traditional" dnd as well, here's my thoughts. I like it for what it is. It's a more or less simple enough system that our one friend who just doesn't get things, like how you always roll a D20 for things, can grasp the basics of. It makes it accessible. I'm alright with that. It makes DMing accessible, as I have looked at some of the 3.5 books and just gone "what the fuck am I reading?" As to complaints it's too much like wow? That is simply what you and your group make of it. Get your players to actually role play, and it won't feel like that. Bloo hoo, my three paragraphs of flavor text describing my magic missile are gone. If you want to describe your abilities and what they look like, nobody is stopping you. Certainly I won't. Hell, I ask for descriptions to better paint the picture of what's going on. Is 4e a perfect system? No. But I can bet for damn sure none of the others were.

>> No.23922782

To use an old meme, sure it's 2008 in here.
Really, why the fuck are we still having edition wars? It's clear that half of the people in this thread have never even glanced at the actual 4e rules and are going by the common hater memes.

Next is behind the corner and it's clearly aimed at you, anon who hates 4e. Go play the playtest, so that the game ends up like what you really want. Put an end to this bullshit.

>> No.23922843

Just replying to both since it's about maxing out a character.

I understand that magic in 2e can allow mages (more specifically a cleric/mage dual class) to become disgusting when they know about a large number of spells and can enchant these spells on items. They just stack these spells on multiple items and you have someone who is never surprised, always has initiative, hits for max damage (doesn't roll die, just assumes all die rolled are max), has permanent true sight, knows all alignments of those they see, moves 10x faster than normal, casts twice as many spells as they normally could, can't be scryed, has maxed out stats using the Wish spell (max is 25 in 2e), and so on, adding on extra classes with Arch Magic and maxing out Hit Die so there is literally no downside to there character aside from the exp needed.

That's what I view as insanely overpowered.

I'd like for someone's character to be underpowered if no thought is put into it at all. A moderate amount of thought (I want to build to X feat by level 7 or Y feat by 10) should create a decent character who gets by in fights, but will by no means totally slaughter large opponents by saying "I'm using my daily 4-extra-die Deadly Strike that was spoonfed to me at level 12." Stuff like that should be harder to attain.

Characters with no thought, or no foresight for any feat build paths at all, should be underpowered in battles and speeches. I can understand that if they rolled good stats, the character will stay viable until level 10+, but at that point, if no thought has been put into it, you should have a pretty weak character.

Is this asking for more weight to be put onto feats and skills?

>> No.23922854

When you set a bunch of people down, give them a bunch of 'cards' that have possibilities written on them, and then add in "but you can do whatever the fuck you want," it doesn't sink in. The game is structured such that your first instinct is always to look for a power and then use it. The table is in the DMG so that DM's can prepare for when a creative RPG player says "I swing on the fucking chandalier and then plung my sword into his skull," and you need a little help. But NOTHING in the PHB and nothing in the structure of the game does ANYTHING AT ALL to leave a new player with this impression. The entire focus of the game is on AEDU, and creative and fun RPG play comes as a total afterthought. Having been a player (but not the DM, which is an important point since you think I'm an idiot who can't read) in groups that played 4e over extended periods of time, the new players seldom did anything outside the box defined by their powers, even when they were led by example. This isn't a coincidence. It's poor design for an RPG (but GREAT for a boardgame!)

>> No.23922872

>rolled good stats
4e advises you use Point Buy, which is something I always enforce in my games because rolling for your stats is bullshit.

>> No.23922886

Anecdotal at best. My players attempt crazy off-the-cuff shit all the time, including the newbies.

>> No.23922898

>When you set a bunch of people down, give them a bunch of 'cards' that have possibilities written on them, and then add in "but you can do whatever the fuck you want," it doesn't sink in. The game is structured such that your first instinct is always to look for a power and then use it. The table is in the DMG so that DM's can prepare for when a creative RPG player says "I swing on the fucking chandalier and then plung my sword into his skull," and you need a little help. But NOTHING in the PHB and nothing in the structure of the game does ANYTHING AT ALL to leave a new player with this impression. The entire focus of the game is on AEDU, and creative and fun RPG play comes as a total afterthought. Having been a player (but not the DM, which is an important point since you think I'm an idiot who can't read) in groups that played 4e over extended periods of time, the new players seldom did anything outside the box defined by their powers, even when they were led by example. This isn't a coincidence. It's poor design for an RPG (but GREAT for a boardgame!)

No, this is bullshit. Your job as a DM is to ask "What do you do?". If you are good at your job, the response to that question comes organically, and you have plenty of instruments to adjudicate that.
If your players can't go beyond their "cards", it's your fault.

>> No.23922908

That's... pretty much the difference between a poorly thought out and well thought out 4e character. Saying "hurr durr 4W damage is OP" is silly; by far the best, most powerful powers in 4e either mesh well with other powers into "combos" of sorts, or deliver debilitating status effects/forced movement/action restrictions. Someone with poorly allotted ability scores, nonsensical feat choices, and who only chooses powers with the "biggest" damage will, in fact, be underpowered compared to a well-made character.

I mean, seriously? Your complaint is that players can get high-damage powers? That's stupid. You're stupid.

>> No.23922910

Stats could be raised in 2e. Is it not possible to raise them in 4e?
That possibility made it easy to make people roll because if someone rolled for shit, but chose classes well, they'd be able to make up for the gap and buy a Ring of Wishes to get their stats up (up to 16, stats need 1 wish, past 16, they need 10).

>> No.23922922

Not that they get high-damage powers. Just that those powers are handed to them as a safety net of "just in case your character is kinda shitty." Those abilities should be the choice of the player, not a handout of the system.

>> No.23922928

Sure, you can raise your stats every couple of levels, as well as some collective bonuses at 11th and 21st level. But nowhere near enough to be useful if you're a fighter and roll, like, a 10 for your strength at first level.

>> No.23922946

You do realize that the monsters have powers to, right? Often rather nasty ones. PCs need those powers TO STAY COMPETITIVE WITH THE FACE-EATING MONSTERS.

>> No.23922957

There were also minimum skill requirements for certain classes. I think a fighter needed at least 15 strength and 14 constitution, a wizard needed 16 intelligence. A fighter-mage needed 15 strength and 16 intelligence.

So even while rolling, if you didn't make those prerequisites, that character wouldn't be allowed unless the GM said so (which happened for me quite often, so I had to play really clever).

>> No.23922977

Haha no. Fighters had hilariously low requirements. Only Paladins had requisites that high.

>> No.23922983

Nope. 4e places absolutely no stat-requirements on classes because it doesn't assume you'll be rolling for your stats.

You can play a fighter with 8 strength in 4e, if you want to. You'll be dreadful at hitting things, but you can do it if you really want to.

>> No.23923002

Even then, there are exceptions though. Slayer or Knight Fighter Half-Elves, level 11 and above, for example.

>> No.23923008

A pile of crap. A warlock in my group kicked a table at a group of enemies, swung on chandeliers and stabbed enemies in the eyes. A storm sorcerer flies and TPs all over the place and likes scaring people shitless in combat. A bard is just being a shouty murdermachine.
Page 42 is useful and used.

>> No.23923024

Yeah, probably. I don't know the Essentials classes all that well, because I've never really used them.

>> No.23923040

They largely use MBAs, so a Half-Elf using a Constitution-based Eldritch Strike as their Dilettante power can effectively skip using Strength and use that instead. Only works paragon or above, naturally.

>> No.23923064

Not really. There are feats that allow you to switch your basic attacks to other attributes. Like stabbing with your DEX or WIS.

>> No.23923078

Well yeah, but only Essentials classes really ever use their basic attacks on a regular basis.

>> No.23923224

Point buy just adds more pitfalls really.

>> No.23923245

What the fuck are you talking about?

>> No.23923271


>> No.23923317

Simply because they forgot (in whatever order) that D&D was a genre, a role-playing game, something that is beyond hack and slash to become a pop-culture reference.

D&D is a role-playing game, was always a role-playing game, even since the first edition that had his root deeply into wargames. You played characters, not only miniatures. Children, the characters where kind of ridiculous, with stupid sounding names, actions which didn't make sense, and plenty of random moments. Adult, your characters are backstory-driven with deep or meaningful flaws.

That was forgotten. 4E, by trying to come to its root of miniature wargame, focus almost exclusively to the wargame play. That doesn't mean you can't role-play in 4E, that just mean it wasn't thought to do it.

More, D&D is a genre, the more successful role-playing game since its creation. That mean it has plenty of history weight, of things that were always, because they literally define D&D. Vancian spellcasting. Saving throws. A certain pretension to be gritty, even when the numbers and the rules make you play a demi-god.

That was forgotten. 4E put in the trash bin what made D&D until now, making up a totally new system. This system in itself is not so bad, but why is it called D&D? It's not. 30 years of history say that it's not.

And finally, that mean that 4E is simply wrong. Deeply wrong. It feels wrong to long term D&D rpg fan because it isn't really a D&D nor a rpg. That doesn't mean new players can't like it as an okay game in itself (and generally the 4E supporters are new players).

>> No.23923394
File: 103 KB, 960x544, 1361864900571.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>That doesn't mean you can't role-play in 4E, that just mean it wasn't thought to do it.
Honestly, I can't even put into words how completely and utterly wrong you are. It's obvious you don't know shit about 4E or even about D&D in general.

>> No.23923407

if you roll a fucking 10 you're not playing a fighter.

Rolled Stats are not about coming up with a character and massaging the numbers to fit them. Rolled Stats, and arguably the whole genre of D&D, is about taking a random nobody and transforming them into a hero worthy of song and story.

>> No.23923408

>I know absolutely nothing on this topic and will now show it to everyone present

>> No.23923409

Dude, I started playing D&D when it had an A in its name, and 4e is my favourite edition. You know why? Because for the first time, it know what to do and strives to do that instead of trying to be everything and failing (d20 I'm looking at you).
There are over 9000 RPGs out there. I learned a long time ago that for everything I want to run, there's a perfect fit. So, instead of getting angry at D&D for being only able to do fantasy action-adventure, I only run it when I want some fantasy action-adventure.

>> No.23923410

>D&D is a genre
Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.

>> No.23923412

For everything else, there's Mastercard.

>> No.23923413
File: 413 KB, 1024x1598, 1195841569991.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Rolled Stats, and arguably the whole genre of D&D, is about taking a random nobody and transforming them into a hero worthy of song and story.
Please keep posting. I need a good laugh.

>> No.23923420
File: 262 KB, 1280x720, not this shitagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.23923424

I don't like war games. D&D 4e feels like a wargame to me

>giving design advice to hasbro in 2013


>> No.23923428

My niece and her friends found my the book kit of 4E that I got when it first dropped, to support the license you know. Her and her friends taught themselves how to play using only the core 4E books. I told them about some critical errata and how the mosnters were just stupidly bloated full of HP. So they tweaked things here and there and played for nearly a year before I was called in to chaperon their game night.

A game full of girls.
A game full of girls who became friends over writing fanfiction.

They played it like a fucking game of Heroquest.

I asked about the RP aspect of it and they were like "oh we can do that with this? I mean the books mention it a little bit, but there's really nothing there".

And then I handed her a copy of Savage Worlds and they've been much happier.

>> No.23923429

>players shouldnt pick a class they want to play
>they should roll some random dice and let those decide what their character is going to be
yeah, no

>> No.23923431

Do you even play D&D? Its not about the destined hero on his 16th birthday embarking on a glorious linear rpg experience. And you fucking know it.

>> No.23923434

Yes, exactly.

You want to build a character you have in mind before you come to the table play GURPS. D&D is not about creating your special snowflake mary sue. Its an actually good game.

>> No.23923441

You don't play with them?

>> No.23923455

>The adventure is the heart of the D&D game. It’s like a fantasy movie or novel, except the characters that you and your friends create are the stars of the story. The DM sets the scene, but no one knows what’s going to happen until the characters do something— and then anything can happen! You might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a lost temple deep in
a jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. You solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle all kinds of fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and treasure.
>D&D is a cooperative game in which you and your friends work together to complete each adventure and have fun. It’s a storytelling game where the only limit is your imagination.

This is a quote from page 6 of the 4E Players Handbook 1. The entire segment is full of examples along these lines.

I'm not saying your niece and her friends were 'wrong' in any way for playing the game like Heroquest. The most important thing is that they were having fun with it. But don't blame 4E for a bunch of teenagers (I'm assuming) not reading what the book says in the damn introduction.

>> No.23923461

So you're saying any kind of character background and personality that you come up with before the game starts is a bad thing, against the 'Spirit of D&D'?

>> No.23923470

>good game

>> No.23923471

Not yet, there's been talks of moving game day to Sundays so I can run a game for them. But they want to finish their story before making any big changes. We also need to set up some neutral ground for playing, too. I mean, I am gay as all get out, but I still don't want to hurt any of the girls by spurring rumors.

>> No.23923476

Read further into the book. And reread his post. The books mention it but there is nothing of substance to really prove its about the story.

>> No.23923482

All mentions of roleplaying in 4E Core is simple lipservice provided as an excuse to get to the kewl speshul powerz and all that dead cow.

>> No.23923491

And by "nothing of substance to really prove its about the story" you evidently mean "there are no mismatched self-contained subsystems that are put into the book because you obviously need a new mechanic for every little shit"

>> No.23923492

>all that dead cow
4E, Change for change's sake.

Not a single change made was well thought out, simply "Lets change shit, it'll be fun! Everyone will love it!"

>> No.23923500

>nothing of substance
Okay, let me put it like this because I can pick lines from the book all day.

What do you think is missing from the book that would place emphasis on story? What do you feel they should've added to the PHB to hammer home that D&D is a story-driven experience at its core?

>> No.23923506

Excuse me, but no. The girls fell in love with Savage Worlds, and it has only one die mechanic for the entire thing.

The thing it does differently than 4E, and why 4E fails as a modern RPG, is that it has mechanics that give player agency.

4E is abysmally shit as an RPG because it is a retro RPG that desperately tries to look like a modern RPG without doing anything that makes modern RPGs any good.

>> No.23923508

>What do you feel they should've added to the PHB to hammer home that D&D is a story-driven experience at its core?
Verisimilitude. Two gallons of it.

>> No.23923511

>D&D is abysmally shit as an RPG because it is a retro RPG
Seriously, why the hell do you compare any D&D to SW?

>> No.23923515

Because that is the game I gave my niece when I saw how little RPing they were doing with 4E and they genuinely like it more.

SW walks that like of retro and modern that 4E is trying to trick you into thinking it is doing. And does it pretty damn good.

>> No.23923542

You don't get to have an opinion on this any longer.

>> No.23923561

Read the second sentence. It's sarcasm.

>> No.23923587

I've always been bad at sarcasm.

Given that I'm on the internet, it's kind of annoying.

>> No.23923617

You do realize D&D's entire existence was derived from a wargame right?

>> No.23923627

Aww I got here late.
But, you know. I like it and stuff. Not sure if I'd rather be playing Shadowrun or something a little less dungeon runny, but I have fun with it.

>> No.23923630

And in fact it was a small scale wargame at EGG's and Arneson's tables. No roleplay.

>> No.23923648

Problem with D&Ds since AD&D, they're not particularly good at dungeoncrawling. 4E is, in fact, terrible at it (dungeoncrawling is super boring, Dragonlance-like epic romps work much smoother)

>> No.23923665

>Problem *past* D&Ds since AD&D

>> No.23923667

You know, they invented the Roleplaying Game because skirmish warfare wasn't good enough for them.

Wargaming with little to no roleplay support was wasn't good enough for nerds in 1971, why are you so weak that you let it be good enough for you in 2013?

>> No.23923669

I'm terrible
>Problem with D&Ds *past* AD&D

>> No.23923683

I have GURPS or MHR or WoD (though it's shit as a system) if I want to roleplay.
Or Universalis if I want some awesome storytelling.

>> No.23923699

You can roleplay in anything. Hell, I could roleplay the shit out of monopoly if I had the urge to. Roleplay comes from the players and group, not the game.

>> No.23923715

>Run a 4E game
>Pretty much all roleplaying because my players manage to bullshit their way out of everything
>Haven't had a single encounter in the past three sessions
>Nobody complains

You can run 4E as a tabletop wargame. You can run 3.X as a tabletop wargame. You can run damn near anything as a tabletop wargame. What matters is what you DO with it.

4E's core rules are combat-heavy because that's what the designers chose to focus on, and I can sort of see why they chose that route. Does that mean the roleplaying aspect of it is underdeveloped? I personally don't think so. You have plenty of opportunity to inject your own stuff into the game, and non-combat situations tend to get solved by the entire party cooperating rather than a wizard having spells that can do everything. It works, but you have to want to make it work. Just like pretty much every other system, really.

>> No.23923724

What? That's ridiculous, why the hell would they do that?

Fucking shit sake.

>> No.23923745

Some games make it easier. 4rry does not.

>> No.23923750

its a placeholdr mechanic. we are still more than a year out from final draft.

>> No.23923756

>4E is a Roleplaying game because we don't use any of the rules.

>> No.23923783

>You can run 4E as a tabletop wargame. You can run 3.X as a tabletop wargame.
>But 4E is specifically made to be run as a tabletop wargame.
>Does it mean that 4E is specifically made to be run as a tabletop wargame?
>I personally don't think so.
>4E is not made to be played as a roleplaying game.
>But it works.
>But you will need to make it works.

That's the single most ridiculous incoherent sentence I've ever heard on /tg/ that month.

You're basically saying that 4E is focused on the wargame aspect, but in fact no, because even though it is focused on the wargame aspect, it isn't, because it's not.

>> No.23923787

That would not involve breaking the rules. There should be a bunch of ways to end combat without slaying everyone.

That just tends to be the more efficient way of doing it.

>> No.23923824

ITT: People who've never played 4e or ever seen it played or read the rules rehash the same old completely-run-into-the-ground lies they read on the internet four years ago.

Either educate yourself or get over it, WotC is already desperately trying to sooth your damaged ass and reject the money of people who want to actually buy the product they sell to chase after the angry nerds who decided to hate their new game because it wasn't their old game.

>> No.23923826

It's because you think
>4E's core rules are combat-heavy because that's what the designers chose to focus on
>But 4E is specifically made to be run as a tabletop wargame.
which is not at all what I'm saying. Read it again.

>> No.23923838

>Intimidate them into surrendering
>Use diplomacy to make them surrender
>Knock them out with non-lethal damage
>Run away
>Surrender yourself
Plenty of options in 4E, all of which are covered by the rulebooks.

>> No.23923846

I can't see a single complaint in there that 3.5 didn't do worse.

I think the problem is, 3.5 had to have rules for absolutely everything, whether it was skills, feats, classes, class features, or just some convoluted system to do something that usually punished you unless you overspecialised in it, and presume that if there aren't rules for something, you can't do it. How can you be a baker in 4e when it doesn't have Profession: Baker?!

>> No.23923873

Secondary skills where pretty cool an didnt afraid of anything. Your character has cooking. he can cook. what can he cook? anything he fucking wants. a character without cooking might be able to cook some bunk ass rabbit meat or a shitty stew. but a guy with cooking is making fucking wedding cakes left and right like a god damned boss.

>> No.23925168

About that... D&D suffered from power bloat early on which pretty much ruined the balance. In 2e, you could say that past 12th level, fighters could never outclass wizards. but they released Combat and Tactics, which had fighter weapon Grand Mastery, which made fighters the single most effective killer of monsters with a lot of hp. An optimzed 2e fighter could do at least 50dmg per round, and that is a low minimum. in my 2e days, a friend had a fighter that could attack 4x per round (grand mastery, 2 weapons) for approx 15-30 damage per hit, with about +10 to hit and a THAC0 of 5 (plus crit 16+), assuming 1 crit per round, that is 60-130 damage per round. Math is approximate. Meanwhile, an unoptimized fighter deals 1-8 damage per round, 2 attacks, at the same experience level. So yeah... that was a problem...

>> No.23925185

Rolling stats is bullshit when the difference between good rolls and bad rolls is characters with CRs of difference between them. So yeah... in 3e and 4e, point-buy is the way to go.

>> No.23925215

AD&D was shit and you know it!

>> No.23925226

Slightly off-topic, but given it uses the rules for 2E (as I understand) I figure I might as well ask.

I bought Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition and I'm playing a Cavalier. Pretty good stats I guess, I whored the dice reroll till I saw something I liked. I took the Cavalier for relative buff it receives at the fairly minimal loss of missile weapons.

But I honestly don't know what I'm doing. I don't think I've leveled up yet, but it's going to happen. I've played 4th Edition, I know how to work those rules, but 2E has an abstract element to it that feels awkward.

Any old dudes wanna give some tips to a guy who has to learn the elements of the rules for a vidya?

>> No.23925786

Actually in BG (as in AD&D) you don't have too much to worry, character development is more or less set. IIRC the only choices you have are weapon proficiencies and spell if you are a wizard.

>> No.23926177

The fact that they even put it in with any hint of being serious is what bugs me.

>> No.23928332

If you are playing a fighter kit all you need to worry about is equipment and proficiencies. Choose a weapon type and put all pr proficiencies in that weapon.

On a side note: Missle weapons are not trivial in BG. I mean you can certainly play the game as a sword swinging bad ass but combined fire with 3 or 4 archers/slingers is pretty devastating in that game.

>> No.23929008

Sounds like a problem with your group.

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