[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 4e 2.jpg (1.31 MB, 2320x3000)
1.31 MB
1.31 MB JPG
It is good to see 4egs being popular with you guys!

>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
>What race or class from 4e do you want to see carried over into 5e and beyond?
>Say something nice about Essentials?

Do to popular demand:
>If you are DMing, remember...
>1. To strongly consider giving out at least one free "tax feat," like Expertise and pre-errata Melee Training.
>2. To use Monster Manual 3/Monster Vault/Monster Vault: Nentir Vale/Dark Sun Creature Catalog math. Avoid or manually update anything with Monster Manual 1 or 2 math.
>3. That skill challenges have always been scene-framing devices for the GM, that players should never be overtly told that they are in a skill challenge, and that the Rules Compendium has the most up-to-date skill DCs and skill challenge rules

Compendium with most of 4es rules:
>http://funin.space/
An old pastbin with some usefull stuff, no idea if the links work still.
>https://pastebin.com/asUdfELd

Last Thread:
>>60215355
>>
>>60302583
>What race or class from 4e do you want to see carried over into 5e and beyond?
none, they don't deserve it
>>
>>60302583
Here is the PDF of the Nentir Vale settings lore.

What are you fav race class combos to roleplay as?

I always liked the dragonborn druid/ward who was a total hippie.
>>
>>60302646
And here is the "fixed" monster math from Monster Manual 3

Also OP seems to have forgotten the Trove link: https://rpg.rem.uz/Dungeons%20%26%20Dragons/D%26D%204th%20Edition/
>>
File: 4e2.jpg (87 KB, 504x864)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>>60302583
>>What race or class from 4e do you want to see carried over into 5e and beyond?
Assassin for class. It's use of poisons are fucking great and Deva for race.
>>
>>60302646
>What are you fav race class combos to roleplay Tiefling warlock in 4e some of the most fiu I've ever had
>>
>>60302583
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
Murder-Suicide
>What race or class from 4e do you want to see carried over into 5e and beyond?
Warlord, Avenger, and Warden in that order.
>Say something nice about Essentials?
No.
>>
>>60302851
>Warlord
I want to see it too but i doubt it. They already have a gimped version of it in 5e.
>>
>>60302884
Warlord is one of those things I never knew I wanted until I had it and now I cannot live without it.
>>
>>60302953
>I never knew I wanted until I had it and now I cannot live without it.
That is pretty much how i feel about 4e in a nutshell.
>>
Following on from the last thread where someone mentioned changing the map from grid to hex based when a particular powerful magic user was bloodied. What are some interesting features you've included in battles?

As a player, what was a particularly enjoyable scenario and when did your DM construct something that was very engaging?

Prepping for a 2nd session next week and would love some inspiration.
>>
File: O'Connor - Ardent.jpg (424 KB, 640x1857)
424 KB
424 KB JPG
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?

It's probably not the biggest damning factor, but they cludgy math for monsters and skill challenges at release probably didn't help. Grogs are going to grog, but there were people receptive to 4E that ended up getting turned off of it because combat turned into a slog, and SCs went off the rails. 4E ended up positively thrumming a couple years into its existence, but it wasn't operating at the level that it needed to out of the gate as system sold as being numerically sound.

>Say something nice about Essentials?
Literally everything about the initial Essential's release was great except for the class rules themselves. The product design, the layout and formatting, the redundancy so that everyone isn't pawing through the same rulebook.

It's something you could only get away with in the market with a flagship product, and I wish the 4E's launch had gone with something similar (except with the actual launch classes - with some tweaks - instead of essentials classes).

The entire brand accordioned after that, but it still had a few good releases, particularly Heroes of the Feywild, Threats to the Nentir Vale, and Mordenkeinan's Mystical Emporium.
>>
>>60302583
>>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
I dont know but it sure seems like fate. and it makes me sad.
>>
>>60302583
>>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
I'd say Paizo and it's fags
>>What race or class from 4e do you want to see carried over into 5e and beyond?
5e doesn't deserve them, and the ones it did port it did badly
>>Say something nice about Essentials?
honestly, i didn't have a problem with them. by the time they came out 4e had been going for several years and there were a lot of books out (we were already up to PH3 and MM3, i think), and essentials felt like a way to "catch up" new people by saying "look, there's a lot of rules, so here's the basics so you can jump in and play." I honestly felt like 4e was going to keep going for a while, so Essentials felt like a good idea to me. it was only shortly after that 5e was announced that they'd felt to me like a saving throw.
>>
>>60302969
yeah, pretty much. we never knew how good 4e actually was until we lost it.
>>
File: 4e3.jpg (123 KB, 1058x801)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
>>60303688
>I'd say Paizo and it's fags
last thread other anons where talking about something i never thought about before. That game shop owners where not happy with having to stock a new edition of D&D so early and kinda pushed people to PF since they already had a fuckton of 3.5 and OGL books they could sell them. Thoughts lads?
>>
>>60302851
>Murder-Suicide
Did it really, though? I understand that the web tools were intended to be a huge part of the experience, but I can't help but feel that fan backlash had a much larger impact than the murder-suicide.
>>
>>60303801
i don't think it was the game store owners, i think it was more Paizo and online rpg retailers (though I suppose shop owners too) who were about to loose out huge due to the OGL going away. Since, what, 90% of paizo's main income was making OGL splats for 3.5, and since 4e was going to kill that, paizo and anyone making bank off paizo was set to loose out big. so they harnessed the grogs, pumped out 3.5 stuff with pathfinder and it's splats, and went to town against their biggest competition: 4e.
>>
>>60303801
I'm sure there were shop owners that felt that way, but if they did they were retarded. No smart shop owner is going to purposely torpedo his product stock just because of personal feelings. Product that doesn't sell is a lack of profit. Damning 4e just to be an elitist grog and push people towards 3.PF wouldn't have been good business sense.
>>
>>60303975
none of the shop owners i came across seemed to hate it. it was just a new product to stock. big book stores would just ship back what didn't sell after a while, and lgs stores would just discount it.
only folks who were going to really lose out at all were Paizo and people who depended more on paizo than they probably should have.
>>
>>60302583
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
Hasbro executives sticking their noses in and demanding profits that D&D simply couldn't provide on its own, not without tie-in merchandising like cartoons, a functioning online service, miniatures and the like.

Essentials probably didn't help much, as it alienated many of the hardcore fans that 4e had picked up.

>What race or class from 4e do you want to see carried over into 5e and beyond?
Really, I want ALL of the 4e races brought over, in the form of a Nentir Vale Gazetteer. But, exclusive to 4e? Shardminds, Wilden and Devas is, sadly, the only races unique to that edition.

Class-wise... well, they've screwed up so many awesome class-related materials from 4e already I'm doubtful they could do that, but I'd love the Swordmage, Avenger and Warden.

>Say something nice about Essentials?
Heroes of Shadow, the Feywild and the Elemental Chaos actually had a lot of really solid stuff in them.
>>
So what was the 4e web tools suppose to be like? Dont say like 5es Beyond. Beyond is fucking trash.
>>
File: laughing_man.jpg (8 KB, 220x200)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>>60303801
>>60303688
>"muh paizofags killed 4e!"
Hahaha holy shit, this level of delusion. I suppose the Jews are the reason you don't have a job, too? Face it, your edition sucked. Not just a little, it sucked HARD. It's not a good game at all. There's a reason that Wizards of the Coast went back to the 3.5 structure with 5e, because people want what makes D&D, D&D. They don't want arbitrary video game bullshit like minions and "solos" (though those were ironically the only good parts of 4e, along with ascending AC). They don't want hp-bloated padded-sumo combat, boring linear character creation, dissociated mechanic fighter powers, or any of the like. Not that there isn't plenty of that stuff in 5e, but ... just come on. Look at the sales. Fifth edition has absolutely DESTROYED fourth in sales, in popularity, in market share. People actually want to play 5e, because it is simple, accessible, and easy to homebrew for. Not to mention the art is far better. Honestly, there is really no good reason to play 4e besides nostalgia at this point. Sorry, guys. And before you go whining about "muh martials being balanced in 4e" remember that this had nothing to do with the shitty dissociated pseudo-spell-casting that 4e fighters had, and everything to do with 4e chopping wizards' balls off. Which, judging by the fact that Pathfinder and 5e are both shitting on 4e's rotten corpse, goes to show that no one, except for a few sad triggered martialcucks, wanted that.
>>
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
I would say it was a mix of factors. Paizo didn't help, game/bookstores were not happy about needing to restructure RPG sections, online memes/echo chamber, the Essentials line, and a whole lot more.
>What race or class from 4e do you want to see carried over into 5e and beyond?
For a race, I'd love to see a return of the Shardmind. Class? Warlord and Swordmage, handily.
>Say something nice about Essentials?
Why?
>>
File: 09-trolley.w710.h473.jpg (27 KB, 468x307)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>60304576

>it's more popular therefore it's better!
>it's more financially successful [citation needed]
>LOL OWNED FAGGOTS
>I POST MEME IMAGES THEREFORE I WIN
>STAY MAD LOSERS YOU ALL LOST

ever heard of Danth's Law?
>>
>>60304576
Reminder to all to not feed the trolls
>>
>>60302583
>>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
OGL

D20 was a blight that suffocated the entire hobby for a decade with its endless shovelware. It imprisoned an entire generation of addicts who wouldn't think in terms of any other system.
>>
>>60304653
I posted a pic of a guy laughing to represent my reaction to your pathetic victim complex. Please explain in what ways 4e is better than 5e.
>[citation needed]
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/dungeons-dragons-biggest-sales-year-2017
>>
>>60304920
4e is d20 system. If OGL killed 4e, that's because 4e can't compete in an open market.
>It imprisoned an entire generation of addicts who wouldn't think in terms of any other system.
You are literally fucking insane. This is /x/-tier delusion. People didn't like 4e because they didn't like it. Sorry if you can't stand not everyone is as WOKE as you. You stand and shit on anything that isn't what 4e does because you have a hard-on for a shitty superheroes powerwank game. Then you claim that it was what D&D's identity should have been all along, despite it having zero relation to that. Sorry sweaty, you're wrong.
>>
>>60304921

Well first of all your link talks entirely about streamers and various internet people playing D&D and this leading to its general increase in sales.

So... how is this predicated to 5e being superior to 4e? If 4e came out when streaming and game nights were REALLY TAKING OFF wouldn't that have increased sales for D&D?

Also you're the one making the statement that 5e is objectively better than 4e based on popularity rather than... ya know, aspects of the game. So burden of proof, etc.
>>
>>60302583
Bloat killed it, but it also should have been titled D&D Tactics.
>>
File: 4e is not D&D.jpg (358 KB, 625x898)
358 KB
358 KB JPG
>>60305051
>D&D Tactics
Honestly, I am not sure that would have fixed anything other than giving the haters more reason to call it "Not REAL D&D"
>>
>>60304957
I grew up when there were a variety of systems and by the early 00's gaming stores had six fucking aisles of nothing but D20 heartbreakers with all near identical mechanics copy and pasted from each other.

I don't care how much you hate 4e, the OGL stagnation was real and it was going to kill anything new. If your favorite system came right after 3.X it would have died just the same.
>>
File: 1501852367777.jpg (508 KB, 1793x945)
508 KB
508 KB JPG
>>60304576
>get to our 3rd general thread
>shill finally shows up
WE ARE BREAKING THE CONDITIONING!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>60304653
>ever heard of Danth's Law?
i've actually not, and i thought i knew all the laws, what's this one?
>>
>>60305257
>the OGL stagnation was real and it was going to kill anything new.
i can kinda confirm this. sure, there were other games, but D20 was not just the standard, it was the majority. Honestly at the time there was the World of Darkness(?) larp game, and i think Five Rings, maybe ShadowRun and CyberPunk, and everything else was a D20 game virtually ripping off 3.5's mechanics. Sure, settings and classes might have changed, but mechanics were generally locked in to that. Hell, even going down to look at used RPG books, most of them fall into that category. And most of them seem pretty shit, partially because of it. Like there could be some cool concepts, but because they were slaved to that system they suffered for it.
Honestly, i love the variety of systems out now that evolved in part because 4e killed the OGL, which meant people actually had to come up with new systems for their games, so we've gotten all kinds of crazy stuff, and some of the games that were already there but got ignored because of the OGL have gotten more life into them because players saw something new in 4e (even if it wasn't always for them), realized that other kinds of ttgs existed, and tried them out.
>>
>>60305563

Basically it can be summed up in this quote:

"I'm thinking, a good rule of thumb might be that if someone goes and announces that they've won an internet forum discussion, they probably very much haven't."
>>
>>60305632
By the way,
>world of darkness
>Five Rings
>Call of Cthulhu
are among the many games who got a d20 version in the early 2000. It was d20 system all the way down.
>>
>>60302583
Hey OP, glad to see you're keeping up the good work, but - if we're going to get the old pasta back, can we at least take this line out?
>that players should never be overtly told that they are in a skill challenge
it's bullshit and it's harmful for those who are approaching the game.
Also, maybe we should add something about not picking up trolls? We managed two mostly clean generals, but I'm sure there's faggots out there who can't stand the thought of people liking something they don't like.

Now for the thread questions:
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
IMO it was mostly marketing, and the inability to read and manage the community. Whoever thought that adding booster packs of random bonuses was a good idea should have been shot on the spot. (everyone got fired anyway, but still).

>What race or class from 4e do you want to see carried over into 5e and beyond?
IDGAF about 5e, and from what I've seen, anything they add is going to be gutted anyway. But in general, I liked primal classes which were melee fighters with a dash of transformation magic, I'd like to have those back.

>Say something nice about Essentials?
I like Essentials! The simpler structure of E-classes is good for players who are new and not into crunchy games. And the feat section is cleaner and more interesting than whatever had come before.
>>
>>60302978
I'm the same anon, the space wizard battle was a personal reworking of the last section of Thnderspire Labyrinth.
I had previously redone most of the maps, in particular the Well of Demons. Basically it's a temple where followers of Baphomet were tried for their strength, but the actual module translated it in "here's some fights".
I kept the blood pool room, then made two new ones. One was a puzzle fight where the players had to face their mirror versions (and dig into their backstories to find the trick to defeat them, which led to some great and unexpected roleplay); said room had an invisible maze that impeded movement but not line of effect.
The other room was taking place in two parallel planes (material world and spirit world), and they had to fight enemies on both sides, switching via room elements. Here the PCs missed the fact that the passageways weren't permanent, and I ended the session with half the party stuck in the spirit world with no planned way back. I cut it short by making them get back and hitting them with a curse for a couple of encounters.
The final room of this same dungeon I ran straight from the book; it's a huge complex of narrow spaces with a solo monster and loads of traps. The PCs were smart enough todisable some of the traps and regroup, but it was still a tough fight.
>>
>>60302583
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
A little of all sorts of things. Too late to go into detail sadly. Maybe tomorrow.

>What race or class from 4e do you want to see carried over into 5e and beyond?
Warlord, honestly. It was far more impacting for game narrative than people give it credit for. 'Shouts arm back on stump' memes aside, it was a class that basically said HP wasn't meat points and that thinking of it as such was stupid. If only we could've stayed the course with that line of thinking.

>Say something nice about Essentials?
I can say lots of nice things about Essentials; The Hunter was awesome, The Blackguard was fun, The Mage could get pretty strong, the Warpriest had some neat ideas, and the Skald gave regular Bards so many more neat tricks to make them competitive against other more solid leaders in the game.... There was just a mountain of shit bad to say about it for all the good it did, which is why it gets so much shit. Plus it killed the potential for a proper set of Shadow and Elemental classes.
>>
File: C1l0soWUoAAG7tZ.jpg (70 KB, 860x900)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>60302583
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
Hasbro executive meddling and their unrealistic expectations primarily.
>What race or class from 4e do you want to see carried over into 5e and beyond?
I want to see Assassin and it's shadow-based sneaking powers again.
>Say something nice about Essentials?
I like the supplementaries a lot, I think they were better fluff-wise than basic 4e's.
>>
>>60304483
Basically a combination of roll20 + the currently existing online and offline tools for 4e (except good).
>>
>>60306429
The offline Monster Builder had room for three or four more tools which never materialized, possibly an encounter builder, a map maker and who knows what else.
>>
File: 1521766924130.jpg (79 KB, 546x799)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
Anyone got any good tips on making combat go faster? I've heard that making every enemy that isn't a solo or a brute into a minion passed a certain round or to lower everything heal by half but double the damage on solos and bosses. Tips? Thoughts?
>>
>>60306828
How many rounds do your combats last? The bottleneck is usually player decisions, not how fast enemies actually die, assuming you use MM3+ math.
>>
>>60306828
I have been using the Escalation Die from 13th age in this game, and it works well - players feel good and past round 3 it's very hard to miss, I don't think I've had more than 3 or 4 fights reach round 5.
IME tho the biggest drag is players with analysis paralysis and/or who get confused by modifiers. I had a particularly bad night where one player kept interrupting others to ask questions and suggest actions, while other two players were tired (it was already pretty late) and could not think their round straight. That alone turned a routine encounter into a 90-minute slog. I had to rein them in and now we're doing hard encounters in half that time.
>>
File: 1522767498503.jpg (67 KB, 461x815)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>60306894
>Escalation Die from 13th age
thats +1 to hit at round 2 and +2 at round 3 and so on right? do enemies get the bonus to hit as well? Do they really need it? i imagine tie recharge to the die as well?
>>
>>60306926
Not him, but enemies should also get a bonus to hit. The idea is that as the fight goes on, it becomes more dangerous.
>>
>>60306926
>thats +1 to hit at round 2 and +2 at round 3 and so on right? do enemies get the bonus to hit as well? Do they really need it? i imagine tie recharge to the die as well

That's it yeah.
Only players get the bonus but I tied monster recharges to it and pilfered a few more things from 13th age (like some solos have an extra action mechanic, some elites get the bonus, fear effects block it) and when the die reaches 6 it becomes cleanup and normal monsters become minions.
It probably wasn't needed but I felt it was a nice fit for the game I had in mind and I like to experiment. Plus I don't like the idea of arbitrarily adding damage/lowering HPs to speed up things.
>>
>>60306935
In 13th age at least enemies don't unless they have a specific trait (which only dragons and few other creatures do), but seeing how hard monsters hit post MM3 I don't think you need to make them more dangerous.
>>
>>60306828
I think one thing 4e did quite differently from previous editions is that no fight should be in vain. IMHO random encounters and filler combat have no place in 4e. I even read once (angry DM?) of making this "useless" combat a type of Skill Challenge.
>>
>>60308015
>even read once (angry DM?) of making this "useless" combat a type of Skill Challenge

I do this regularly.
If you go by the DMG's guidelines, 6-8 combats per level are enough. More than that is window dressing and can be solved as such.
>>
>>60308138
I typically go for 4 combats per "day", 2 "days" per level. With some variation to spice things up from time to time

I also don't let players get a long rest just because they slept for 8 hours. Long rests in my games are rarer so i can have more control over how many encounters my players experience between each one
>>
>>60309787
>I also don't let players get a long rest just because they slept for 8 hours. Long rests in my games are rarer so i can have more control over how many encounters my players experience between each one

If it works for you, good, but I wouldn't take rest management out of the hands of players. OTOH my group never tried to game the system so I had no need to enforce stricter rules.
>>
>>60306296

Reading Thunderspire when it first came out, particularly the Trap gauntlet in the Well of Demons, is where 4e finally clicked for me. I’ll always have a soft spot for that klunky module. Might get a chance to run a fresh group through it in the next couple months, depending on the path they take in the campaign.

WRT thread questions, 4e got fucked by not having it’s own computer game, which just ties into the refrain of marketing problems, as well as fan backlash from players who’d never dealt with Edition change and Paizo capitalizing on that resentment.

5e is functional, but only barely. I wouldn’t trust them with to update any 4e things well.

Essentials gave us the Hexblade, so it had it’s merits.
>>
>>60306467
damn, those would have been really nice. the ability to build a monster list, custom map, etc, would have really made being a dm a lot easier.
>>
>>60309958
I do let them choose to force a long rest if they want, but doing so always costs something. Usually letting the BBEG get something s/he wants
>>
>>60306843
>The bottleneck is usually player decisions
yeah, once players start sitting around and talking over much about what they "should" do is when it bogs down. if they're rapidly throwing dice i don't think it happened as much

worst case lower the "encounter rating" so you have few things for them to fight on occasion, and leave longer fights for important stuff, maybe.
>>
>>60309996
>Essentials gave us the Hexblade, so it had it’s merits.
yeah, hexblade was pretty damn fun to play.
>>
File: 1381030573167.gif (675 KB, 350x250)
675 KB
675 KB GIF
>>60302583
I think the reason that 4e "failed" is because the market had been so saturated with uninformed hate and opinions-spouted-as-facts that the system was put into a no-win situation. Fans of the old game disliked, for whatever reason, the new one and were very loud in protest. New players were thus inundated with these loud protestations and so tried the games which the protesters liked and liked those games well enough. There have been a few articles and quotes brought up over the years about how 4e was doing some of DnD's best sales up to that point but a large portion of the growing market share was going to Paizo for it's 3.5 expansion. Talking heads then must've decided, like talking heads do, that it would be a good idea to try to collect as much of this expanding market by doing what Paizo was already doing just with the brand-name which the talking heads possessed. 5e was then borne from an effort to redirect the growing market back to DnD specifically, rather than it's bastard child by Paizo. I don't really think that 4e died, it just had its new iteration come out sooner than people thought, a cycle which occurs incredibly regularly in the free market.

I would love to see just about anything carried over faithfully from 4e to 5e but I think the systems themselves are too incompatible to do so and still maintain their creative directives. To recreate any 4e "martial" class in 5e would be to acknowledge that casters and martials are equals but 5e has already shown that it doesn't believe this to be true. I just think the two games are largely incompatible, not because you can't do what 4e does in the style of 5e's text or structure but because 5e assumes casters and the creators and shapers of the universe while martials are mundane bodybuilders and Olympian athletes constrained by weird rules for the "mundane."

Essentials had a lot of good ideas and the classes are truly fun in Heroic but also had some poor implementations.
>>
Where are THE GAMES charles?
>>
>>60302583
>What killed 4e in your eyes?
Mike Mearls.
He was extremely bitter that his "brilliant ideas" did not get him top spot in the team, and from the start wad doing the most off-putting "advertising" one could imagine. As a former 3.5 fan, Mike was the main reason I stayed out of 4e during the first year(before I finally tried it and enjoyed it).
He engaged in non-stop office backstabing until he finally got put in charge and gave us the utter shit that was Essentials and such gems as "We should stop designing for balance"
Not satisfied with merely rebooting an edition, especially since everybody hated him, he decided to do his best to kill the current one so he could finally do an edition of his own.

Ironically, even 5ers seem to hate Mearls for some reason.
>>
>>60306828
Cut Mon HP baselines by 2 at all levels. It doesn't really do much for low level mobs, but you see the effect in Elites/Solos and higher level standard mons.

I also use >>60306894 as well.
>>
>>60302583
Everyone talks about Warlord or Swordmage btu you know what i want?
The Dragonfear alternate racial. I like the theme of it and it was actually very useufll compared to lame ass breath attacks.
>>
>>60309958
An alternative I've used to discourage "nova-strikes":
1.Players can long-rest whenever they wish
2.BUT their available daily attack powers are unlocked with Milestones.

This also prevents situations where one player has all of their dailies remaining while the rest of the group is bled dry.
>>
>>60312076
The breath attack got better support and over took it by the end though. Some Dragonborn archetypes are built around making the breath weapon so spammable that they hardly ever use their class powers. I don't think I'd ever seen a Dragonfear build. Not that I wouldn't of minded more support for it though.
>>
What are some unexpectedly degenerate striker builds in 4e? I'm looking for the most explicitly powergamey combinations. Also, on an entirely unrelated note, do you guys think a hybrid artificer/conjuration wizard could work? Flavor wise I love the idea of some pompous guy who's above fighting his own battles, but it falls apart of the battles don't actually get fought either
>>
>>60312799
Hybrid fighter/ranger, master of the fist multiclass into monk, tempest technique hybrid talent, improved unarmed strike feat. Then just take the usual high damage dual wield powers
>>
>>60312207
dragonfear is great for marking and stuff like that.
Also i just prefer it theme wise.
I never realy liked the DRAGON aspect of the dragonborn beeing that prominent.

But i do like the idea of one masozoic looking fucker just having this air of primeval terror.
>>
>>60312060
I keep seeing this advice and I have to assume it is by people who have never actually played.

Monster HP is low enough already - most monsters(except the ones in MM1 that ignore recomended stats by level) melt in 1-2 attacks by player characters, never accomplishing anything of note.
>>
>>60305005
Your dead general is the only proof I need.
Everyone is playing 5e.
No one is playing 4e.
What is your explanation for this?
>>
>>60302583
>>3. That skill challenges have always been scene-framing devices for the GM, that players should never be overtly told that they are in a skill challenge, and that the Rules Compendium has the most up-to-date skill DCs and skill challenge rules

Do not agree.

I have played under several different GMs, and the best way I have seen skill challenges handled mad it very clear it was one.
>>
>>60312799
Monk.
Just normal monk, but with some degree of optimization. At low levels you will mostly jump around and spread some damage and control effects, but by the low Paragon tier monk do so many attack on so many targets that their +dmg modifiers snowball into an avalanche of death.
>>
>>60312991
Neckbeards would rather sit round jacking off about role playing then actually playing a game.
>>
>>60313028
Amateur

>>60312799
>I'm looking for the most explicitly powergamey combinations.

Rebreather and sub-zero fighting are the top tier of 4e cheese
>>
>>60312991

>Everyone is playing 5e.
>No one is playing 4e.

Proooove it.
>>
>>60312991
generals are a sign people would rather talk about a game rather than play it
>>
>>60302583
>>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
To start with, the initial design and management team set it up to at least nominally fail by giving Hasbro some insane expectations for the time.
Plus by end I think there were too many things fracturing how people engaged with the game, in part because it didn't have an SRD or free Basic resource to help serve as an anchor. The overambitious release schedule and the long-term importance of DDI content were cool for people who love 4e, but alienating for everyone else.

Essentials could've helped, as it was meant to be a sort of Basic/digest version of 4e's core rules, but it came too late and when it did they didn't do a good job communicating the point of it to current or prospective fans, or even to store owners.

>>60302851
>>60303914
I'm pretty sure the digital tools were already doomed, because they were reportedly being designed to piggyback off of the resources of Gleemax, Hasbro's attempt at a tabletop gaming social networking and media hub. Even if none of the grisly shit happened I doubt we would've had much more than the character builder.
>>
>>60306967
Solos, elites, and leaders giving it to their minions seems about right.
>>
>>60304957
Honestly when it first came out I didn't like it purely because it wasn't 3.5, the one that I'd read all the books for.
>>
>>60306828
>>60312060
>>60312971
>Monster HP is low enough already - most monsters(except the ones in MM1 that ignore recomended stats by level)
MM1 non-solo monsters do have the same hit points as later ones. The problem was that the damage math wasn't finalized, and damage was sometimes too low. This lead to people using higher level monsters for challenge, which caused HP and defenses to be inflated in relation to players.

Good advice for faster combat is making sure you don't have too much HP and too difficult to hit monsters in the combat. If things aren't challenging enough, consider for example environmental factors, which could also deal damage to PCs and opponents both.
>>
>>60312971
When you consider number of mobs, this is where it comes into play. I use it mostly for Elites and Solos more than regulars, but you can should you need to. Also >>60313245

Plus, if your monsters are not accomplishing anything in the two turns they're active, you're not using them well, so the issue is less about HP and more about encounter synergy.
>>
>>60313075
Can we please avoid picking up every bait that gets thrown in here? We cannot make them not post but at least we can avoid replying.

>>60313081
Judging by the last few generals, there's a bunch of us still playing. And even then, we have generals for other 10+ years old games, so I don't see an issue.
>>
>>60313137
>To start with, the initial design and management team set it up to at least nominally fail by giving Hasbro some insane expectations for the time.
There wasn't much else they could do really. Hasbro was expecting it to pull Magic the Gathering numbers, something no edition of D&D had ever done.
>>
>>60312991
>Your dead general is the only proof I need.
given we're on our third rather comfy general, i fail to see how it's "dead."
>>
>>60305632
This.
>>
Planning out a Dark Sun campaign set in Nibenay with the characters starting as associates of the veiled alliance, with the characters having to avoid the brutal patrols of Nibeneys shadow brides and do what they can to prevent the Alliance from being eradicated in Nibeney.
The characters would be going on fetch quests to start out with, breaking into a Nobles Mansion to receive an arcane Item or committing minor acts of terrorism, as well as the occasional excursion outside the city for some more classic dungeon runs.
I am planning on using 4e and just wanted to check here if it the system would be able to handle it and also perhaps fish for some suggestions on low level enemies ( I have some encounters planned out but I always like to hear new ideas as the city based constraints of the campaign mean that most wilderness enemies would be unsuitable and the Templars of Nibenay are a bit high level to send at a low level party and I would rather not diminish the impact and scare factor of encountering one)

Btw, I am looking for players if anyone is interested, but the game would only be starting in august so there will be a bit of a wait time.
>>
>>60314899
I might be down, my schedule is kinda up in the air right now, but should be known well before august so we'll have plenty of time to see if it'll work out for me or not

Got a discord or something?
>>
Sure, here is a link:
https://discord.gg/9V6fYv
Time Zone would be European
>>
>>60312207
Well, that's because Dragonfear was a variant racial trait in Dragon Magazine that was never made an official trait - if they'd actually published some kind of race splat gathering up the variant races from Dragon, it might have gotten more support.

But, with no official alternative besides the breath weapon, of course the feats focused on the breath weapon; it was the most iconic trait that dragonborn in 4e have.
>>
>>60312076

Dragonfear is fun cause it’s a callback from DragonLance (Yes, yes, I know, it’s my baby I don’t fucking care) I can why the idea of being so majestic and terrifying would appeal to players, it appeals to me as a GM and I love that Dragons have it by default in this edition.
>>
You can realy twink out your dragon breath too. Especially with the Ancient Soul feat that lets you use it like every damn turn.
>>
How does an Eladrin Warlord built around spiked chain feats sound? I got the idea from seeing that the spiked chain is a duelist weapon in some eladrin courts but I dont know how it would play out in the actual game.
>>
>>60316107
Get the daily utility stance that lets you make opportunity attacks with your reach and then the feat that lets you use Direct the Strike as an opportunity attack
>>
There's also this: http://funin.space/compendium/paragonpath/Chainbinder.html
>>
>>60316203
That feat requires you to use a one handed spear... or at least that's the intent I think.
>>
>>60316300
You're almost certainly right, as I was just going off the top of my head and have only considered both those feats for two separate characters
>>
>>60313011
I agree. From my experiences as a player, I've always liked it when I've known it was a skill challenge. Causes the party to switch gears and pay attention to everything that's happening. When they haven't been signposted I've seen players not pay 100% attention and leave it to the rest of the party to complete.
>>
File: 1527553394827.jpg (20 KB, 236x338)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>60302583
I still contend that the OP should include
http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=15210
>>
>>60304957
>sorry sweaty
>>
>>60318123
Hadn't seen this before. It's really useful. Thanks for posting it. I agree that it'd be worth including in the new OP along with the history of the netir vale compilation linked early in the thread.
>>
>>60318580
You're welcome. It's always something I go back to when I need to double check things. It may not be super specific but it does reference where you can get the specifics (as best it can at least)
>>
Is it possible to recruit for a 4e game and get people who care more about characterization and narrative than builds and munchkin-ing? I enjoy that the system is well-made, but I also die inside every time someone describes their character using their build.
>>
File: cleric of erathis.jpg (116 KB, 640x941)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
>>60319682
I'd be down for it. I like to build characters that are fun, not "I want to do X and will look up guides online on how to do it by taken Y race, Z class and these feats/weapons/etc."
>>
>>60313081
In that case 5e has been dead since launch and Pathfinder is little more than dust.
>>
>>60319831
I don't agree with his unspoken insinuation (which is the incorrect suggestion that 4e is not hugely discussed because everyone is busy playing it) but he is somewhat correct in that there are a lot of armchair DMs and players in those threads. Having been running RPGs for 18 years it's pretty transparent which people are offering up opinions as fact or pretending they have experience to back up their claims.
>>
>>60319890
>Having been running RPGs for 18 years it's pretty transparent which people are offering up opinions as fact or pretending they have experience to back up their claims.
Like you?
>>
>>60319899
Ha, I guess you don't got it though. You need to recalibrate your sensors. Been playing since I was 11, first year of Junior High. They had an entire shelf of FR and DL novels, and then I found a battered PHB at a second-hand book shop. It was imbued with the mighty powers of DMs past and compelled me to start and keep run RPGs ,for nearly two decades now.
>>
Seeing as I've gone on hiatus, and will be working to make my next campaign better through rigirous prep work; I must ask, do you guys have any tips on making a Megadungeon in 4E? Me and my buddies want to get back to basics, like the campaigns we did during middleschool lunch (albeit with some better habits and ideas under our belt) So I was wondering if there are some pitfalls to avoid and ways to spice up a massive dungeon romp for campaign play in 4e. Also would it be prudent to try and make logical room layouts and frame work, or should I stop over thinking it and go full funhouse mode?
>>
File: prince of frost.jpg (182 KB, 459x885)
182 KB
182 KB JPG
Anyone ever run a game where the Prince of Frost was the main villain?
>>
File: space furries.jpg (60 KB, 600x620)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
hey, is anyone else exited for new space wolves codex in warhammer 40k? just askin'
>>
oh shit, I messed up, that was supposed to be it's own thread, sry
>>
File: 1520210785312.png (352 KB, 593x712)
352 KB
352 KB PNG
Yo, /4eg/. Some friends and I who've been playing pf for years want to get into 4e. Is there an easy way to skim through content and options? I see the compendium in the op, but it doesn't feel like it'll be very useful if I'm trying to learn the system. Should I just be looking for a torrent with all of the books?
>>
>>60322651
Go here
>https://rpg.rem.uz/Dungeons%20%26%20Dragons/D%26D%204th%20Edition/
>>
>>60322692
>Go here
>>https://rpg.rem.uz/Dungeons%20%26%20Dragons/D%26D%204th%20Edition/

Thank you /4eg/. I will treasure this link for always.
>>
File: 4e Link.jpg (1.8 MB, 2540x3165)
1.8 MB
1.8 MB JPG
>>60322891
Love you too, anon
>>
>>60322917
amazing
>>
>>60319682
Yes, you have to just find players that already want to do the characterization stuff first. Doesn't matter what system they play when that's what they wanna do.
>>
File: nicefuggenpost.gif (1.37 MB, 200x254)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB GIF
>>60321091
Go full funhouse. I did a megadungeon where every floor had a theme and the players liked it well enough. They usually ran through 1 floor per night so it was different stuff every time they came to the table.
>>
>>60323300
This
>>
>>60319682
Players have to be educated. Harshly, if needed.
>>
>>60321091
The first thing that comes to my mind is to break out of the mindset that dungeons are done 1 room at a time. As I said upthread, you don't need that many combat encounters to make a level, but that doesn't mean that the dungeon can't be huge. Plan for encounters that span multiple rooms, monsters that know how to use doors are always fun.
Also, make use of all the tools at your disposal. Complex traps and skill challenges, plus some good old challenging of the players' skills, can make for a fun romp. Also plan to have occasional safe spots for resting.
>>
File: Post-Apocalyptic City.jpg (265 KB, 900x675)
265 KB
265 KB JPG
>>60321091

I take my cues from the DMG. No dungeon happens in a void. Whether it's a broken down town, a stronghold, or a lost temple, every dungeon has a story. Whether players figure out or not is up to you (Or even if they get all the pieces)

The way I go about it when I'm dicking around doing random gen for fun is generate, then find the story the dungeon wants to tell.

For a couple 4e megadungeon examples of varying quality, H3 Pyramid of Shadows definiely has the slapped together feel, and the seams show in places. On the other end, Halls of Undermountain has the randomness, but sells it due to being the underside of city that was carved and shaped by a mad wizard and his apprentices for the gods know how long.

In the end, choose a place to start, either make the dungeon first, or come up with a story first. Once you have that base, generating becomes easier.

For seeds, I'd recommend one of the following.

>The gate of an old Arkhosian city is exposed by a rockslide

>A dwarven stronghold delved deep enough to connect to the Underdark proper. The dungeon is the abandoned lower levels/DMZ vs. the drow/goblins/trogs that came from below.
>A Nerathi stronghold was crushed by an invading hobgoblin force, who became enslaved by a beholder that manifested in the wizard's tower. The subsequent war-torn fort, town, and undercity comprise the dungeon.
>The party must infiltrate an Archlich's artificial land in the Astral Sea to locate a powerful artifact or it's phylactery. 1st adventure is establishing a beachhead and going from there.
>The party is tasked with stopping a feywild incursion and finds that a interplanar verge crossing into a primordial Fey Jungle.
>>
File: Bard Combat.gif (1.7 MB, 445x340)
1.7 MB
1.7 MB GIF
>>60319682

Easily. The good thing about 4e is that most players don't feel hidebound to optimize all the time (Though there's usually one in every group, most I've played with aren't spergy about it) and they'll still make a viable charavter while bringing flavor. The powers system allows and encourages players to reskin their powers to suit their character.

Maybe the mage tinges all their spells a distinctive color. The bard commands a spectral orchestra. Your mobile dex fighter is wirey and does flippy shit. Or your rogue is Garett from Thief and appears from the shadows to blackjack monsters.

When recruiting, if you want people to build for flavor, don't be afraid to vet. Ask for characters and bios prior to accepting. Better to find out whether or not the player's what you're looking pre-game rather than breaking something 3-4 sessions in. It's all right to be assertive and know what you want in the game anon, you're entitled to fun as the DM too.
>>
>>60312991
hell, in 2017, DnD 4E has fallen below "other" in player numbers by almost a third.
Meanwhile, 3.5 STILL is in the top 3 after 5E and PF.
>>
>>60324426
I've run my players through twisting halls -> reavers -> thunderspire and planning to go to gardmore next, and there is an emerging theme of ancient minotaur temples that got corrupted by demon worship that tied the dungeons together with no planning on my part (and without seeing a real minotaur until now). And seeing the penchant minotaurs have for mazes, it's not hard to imagine a megadungeon in the Nentir Vale - even just by fleshing out the Thunderspire Labyrinth which is mostly abstracted in the module of the same name.
>>
>>60324648
Yes, and?
>>
>>60302583
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
They tried to sell something that people did not want.
They tried to do that by slapping a beloved brand name onto their thing which soured the community atmosphere
Then the fans started screaming about how people are assholes for not sharing their taste.

It's basically the Ghostbusters(2017) of RPGs, except instead of feminism you have gamification and meta-rules dictating narratives without any attempt to justify them.
>>
We went 3 threads without significant troll activity. Don't start feeding them now.
>>
>>60304576
Nice copy pasta bro
>>
>>60324717
If you think any explanation for the failure of 4E that isn't "Dem evul Paizo/OGL took or jerbs" is trolling you should seriously get psychiatric help.
>>
>>60306213
>Whoever thought that adding booster packs of random bonuses was a good idea should have been shot on the spot. (everyone got fired anyway, but still).
Say what?
>>
>>60324689

>muh feminism memes

>muh nobody wanted it meme

Go to bed Billy, the grown ups are talking.


>>60324654

Yah, Thunderspire works. Get them bitches minotaur labyrinths. Bitches love minotaur labyrinths. Especially with dope ass treasures and gnoll/bull turf wars to pick through (maybe have dopplegangers or mindflayers be manipulating that shit for their own ends)
>>
>>60324792
This was a thing, there's even a background for it. Fatedancer. http://funin.space/compendium/theme/Fatedancer.html
>>
>>60324792
Fortune Cards. Booster packs of randomized and rarity-sorted boosts you could get your character for, I think, encouter-long buffs. They pushed it for a couple of seasons of their organized play thing, and showed up in a couple of Dragon mags.
They were basically nothing, no impact on anybody's game, no sales. But imagine how well a community already on fire took the news of a desperate cash grab like that.
>>
>>60324792

Regrettably, one of the accessories during the latter 3rd of the line were ccg style cards players could use for extra powers or advantages.

This was rightly seen as attempting to bring some mtg style cash grabbing into D&D (probably at Hasbro’s insistence) and flopped like a dead fish.

Could’ve been fun if they’d done some Gamma World style fixed packs to do different effects, like the Deck of Many Things, but when your go to move is the grandaddy I’d pay to win....
>>
>>60324845
I think the idea had merit to it, but how they did it like it was a tcg with card rarity and shit was horrible. It should've been a whole set per pack of one instead.
>>
>>60324810
>muh nobody wanted it meme
Are you honestly arguing that people actually wanted 4E or something?
Are all the numbers and history a lie?
What are you even trying to argue?
If people had wanted it, people would have bought more and the system would have been more successful, that's how capitalism works.
Note that this does not say anything about quality, but sales definitely show demand or lack of demand.

>muh feminism memes
It was an analogy, obviously 4E didn't have feminism specifically but rather tried too coast by on features that were much less popular than expected instead of providing more of the features people actually want from that specific franchise.
>>
>>60302583
The Digital support system that first fell behind and then dumbed down.
>>
>>60303706
It's by far the better Game.
D&D Tactics Advance.
I'd have put it outside the main series continuum though, like Fallout Tactics.
>>
Don't Retort, Hide and Report.
>>
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
Mostly a lack of secondary material pushing people into trying RPGs. 3.X not only came in on revitalized interest in D&D from Baldur's Gate 1, but had games like BG2 and NWN coming out and selling loads(for the genre) for its entire lifespan. 4E's only games were trash like Daggerdale, Neverwinter, and a Facebook game of all things, none of which actually played like 4E, and a legal battle with Atari that stopped any of the real D&D licenses from being used didn't help matters.
>>
>>60324854
>>60324890
I've played a bit of Gamma World, and while I didn't hate the cards there, they too had additional rarity-sorted booster packs down the line. But they also had the idea of selling them as PoD on Drivethrucards.
I don't hate cards in RPGs. I regularly print out my magic items, and I love what they did with the Despair Deck in Shadowfell. But the Fortune Cards were ill-conceived from the start, and WotC didn't even try to salvage them midway through, they just dropped them.
It's one more addition to the list of marketing fails of the 4e era.
>>
>>60325052
The two facebook games were great tho. The first one was a little text-based thing that you played with frieds and was a fun time killer. Then there was the turn-based encounter builder where you could also design your own levels and send your friends through, which was a neat idea but with a suboptimal execution.
>>
>>60304007
The guy who runs my legs bought into the wow-edition memes and actively disparages 4e to customers if it comes up.

He's a crotchety old bastard in general, really.>>60304164
>>
>>60325113
Recently I was at a small local con, with LGS booths, and two different fuckers first tried to dissuade me from buying those few 4e books they've had stuck on the shelves since back in the day, then asked the full cover price for them.
It's like they don't want money.
>>
>>60325087
The second one showed that a 4e cRPG was possible.
>>
>>60325052
>none of which actually played like 4E
Which was utter bullshit, of all systems 4E 'mmo edition' should have been the easiest to port!
>>
>>60326322
Nah. Too much off turn action. A direct 4e port would be slow as shit.
>>
>>60326322
>>60326352
The days of turn based games are over, unfortunately.
>>
>>60326352
A direct port yes, but not like the other D&D games were direct ports. They were close, but not direct.

>>60326468
I'm playing Slay the Spire and Into the Breach right now.
>>
>>60326468
Playing Chroma Squad and Battletech.
>>
>>60326468
I still play them, anon.
>>
>>60327086
Which is fitting, in a 4e thread.
>>
>>60326352
A lot of things just trigger and go off, how often have you seen someone not retaliate to a broken mark? A pretty close, but not 100%, port would have been a very playable D&D Tactics.
Think how easy modding powers and adding classes and PPs would have been!
>>
File: Roll20 Q4 2016.png (356 KB, 506x694)
356 KB
356 KB PNG
>>60313075
>>
>>60327602
I amnot a fan of 4ed and I find some post in this thread absolutely pathetic and delusional - "it's paizuzus fault!".
But I am not sure that roll20 is necessarily representative of the whole population.
>>
>>60302583
I just wanted a fixed 3.5.
We could discuss hours about 4ed mechanics and I am sure most 4ed fans will love them because they are not 3.5 mechanics and I am fine with that.
But what wotc did was essentially this:
Imagine you go to the restaurant, you ask for a soup and they bring you one cold and with not enough salt.
You protest, and the waiter comes back with purée. Is not what I asked, I don't care if is well executed or not.
Then they advertise it as if the second coming of jesus and shit on all things that I considered plusses in the game, even fluff wise.
Then it turns out that some of the powers and mechanics were weird to explain in game.
No, thanks. Some people switched to PF but many just stayed to 3.5, at least among my friends.
>>
>>60302583
Is there a pasta that explains the key differences between 3.5/4/5 for a new GM? I remember everyone being upset about 4e but now that 5 is out people seem to be more forgiving.
>>
>>60328032
I'm still waiting for a 3aboo to produce these supposed "shitting-on-your-game" adverts that were so bad they're still butthurt 10 years and one edition later.
>>
>>60328077
The way they wrote the preview books.
But is something that was a general concept in 4th.
This about the fighter in 4th lacking ranged attacks.
PF gave deadly aim, 4th edition decided that fighters need no archery.
>>
The fact we never got a proper 4e game on the PC or even a console is yet another failure to heap at WotC’s feet, as it would have easily driven more people to the system.

For those who think out of turn actions would ruin, I’d contend the omniscience of a Computer GM would make tracking those easier and that it would only add an extra button click for each action provoked. It wouldn’t be seamless play, it would still be light years faster than table play.
>>
>>60328077
You are the one butthurt here my dude.
The delusion in this thread is incredible.
>>60302851
>Murder-Suicide
>>60303688
>I'd say Paizo and it's fags
>>60303970
> i think it was more Paizo and online rpg retailers
This is insanity, especially the Paizo part. The gleemax thing could be debated as a contributing factor, albeit minor.
>>
File: 3rd ed encounter.jpg (61 KB, 431x431)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>60328072
>>
>>60328094
>PF gave deadly aim, 4th edition decided that fighters need no archery.

And this is insulting to you... how?

>>60328115
And yet you're here. Go back to your general and leave us to ours, please.
>>
>>60328130
Is this the album cover to "Scream Bloody Gore"?
>>
File: 4th ed encounter.jpg (67 KB, 431x431)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>60328130
>>
>>60328152
>And this is insulting to you... how?
You are functionally illiterate.
>The way they wrote the preview books.
Is the answer.
4th edition previews stated between the line how the game was supposed to be played and those who were able to read it already got that something was wrong.
Then the books came out and we were right.
The fighter is just an example of what's wrong with 4ed. The fact that throws the baby with the bathwater.
>>
>>60328164
What in God's name
>>
>>60328130
>>60328164
Except that these were always used to state the opposite.
And of course they were. The way characters influence the world in the small and large scale is not even comparable between the editions.
>>
>>60328181
So is 5e a step up from the perspective of a 3.5 boi?
>>
>>60328152
>And yet you're here. Go back to your general and leave us to ours, please.
The OP asked for reason why it failed.
I could also add: it was tailored for screeching autists like you that made the forums unbearable and chased away people.
Of course a game tailored on autists did not ring with normal people.
>>
>>60328181
Go cry in /pfg/ then. This is /4eg/.
Also the game has been out for over 10 years. And you still complain about it? Get a hold on your life man.
>>
>>60328203
Sure thing boyo
>>
>>60328208
I don't know it enough to judge desu.
For the few things I know
3.X > 5ed > 4ed
With the caveat that 4ed got A LOT of things right.
[w], warlord as a concept, auto-scaling of powers, modular build of the class (with a failure but I cannot blame the designers for that, I can elaborate if you wish).
And so on.
I find 5ed with the heart on the right place but less flashy than 3rd. I like the action economy and the new "full attack" on the move (but it should be modified on a detail) and the way magic items are handled is genius.
>>
>>60328229
>gets eternally butthurt
>Go cry
every time
>>
File: 1367586809537.png (48 KB, 920x721)
48 KB
48 KB PNG
>>60328072
>Is there a pasta that explains the key differences between 3.5/4/5 for a new GM?

It's too old to have 5e, but judging from my experience, 5e would be the DM asleep on the chair behind the screen.
>>
>>60328307

I DM'd every edition, DMing 5th is a snorefeast
>>
>>60328181
I love the 4e fighter, what the hell is wrong with the 4e fighter?
>>
>>60328386
In b4 someone says "Fighters are casters now!"
>>
>>60328386
There is a lot of right but not necessarily what people wanted.
Is great that has his own features, the marking (albeit some at the first sight did not get why it was good) and so on.
But as an example lacks ranged attacks at least in the core book. Because is not SUPPOSED to fight ranged.
In PF, just with deadly aim (1 feat) and your BAB you can decently do damage with a composite, as a backup.
Now I could list a laundry list of reasons why 3.5 fighters that wanted to go ranged needed many feats, were still focused and that was wrong.
But in the upcoming 4th edition people that were 3.5 fans wanted THAT fixed (autoscaling feats and powers like 4ed did, as an example, and not buying weapon spec 2 times) .
4th designers just said "fuck that, fighters don't do that".
In other words, instead of fixing the game and giving us a better way to implement this concept with better feats and scaling, they just gave us something we could not recognize so we did not buy the edition.
>b-but is awesome
I don't care. Is not what I asked. And even that is debatable. I remember when the books came my players were already "lol what" looking at the list of the weapons. Gone were those spectacular crits and crit ranges, as an example.
>>
All right lads, new question, what’s your favorite 4e module you’ve run? Your favorite you played in?

For me, I loved running Madness at Gardmore Abbey. Weaving several stories in one adventuring, and using the Deck of Many Things to help generate the adventure and tie things together was some superb crafting.

Playwise, my friend took Castle Ravenloft and transplanted it to our Eberron game as “Vol’s Moving Castle”, a fortress that crawled along on writhing undead mass. Our Silver Flame hit squad had fun wrecking the shit out of that place.
>>
>>60328032
Have you checked out True20 or Fantasy Craft? They both do some interesting things with the fantasy RPG formula.
>>
>>60328536
The hell are you on about? Just use a heavy thrown weapon and take the deft hurler feat, now your fighter has a ranged backup attack that he can use while in melee with someone else

Of course, this only applies to using ranged attacks as a backup, rather than as a main focus, but the "ranged fighter" that you see in 3.5 isn't in the "fighter" class in 4e, it's in the ranger class
>>
>>60328540
Twisting Halls (from the DM box) it's a perfect lvl 1 module for newcomers. It's small, has a classic but appealing hook and some bits thhat can be expanded in following adventures, and has one of each kind of encounter (social challenge, puzzle rooms, environment effects). It never failed to work with new groups.

Reavers of Harkenwold was surprisingly good because you can run the first part in a sandboxy sort of way, and even the secon part has different approaches. It's what I want from a premade module, a bunch of interesting things I can play around with. I admit that the elf part was a bit weak and I had to expand it a bit, but in general I appreciated it.

I'm putting my hands in Madness right now and it looks very promising. The party has been holding a card from day one (it was in the box in Twisting Halls) and the buildup has been great so far.
>>
>>60328594
You are completely missing the point but is ok. This is the 4ed mindset.
But be not surprised if the game failed its expectation.
>>
>>60328594
>just use a heavy thrown weapon
That's not a bow or a crossbow.
>>
>>60328536

>gone were crits and crit ranges

Whew lad, now you’re gonna make me (you) when I didn’t want to.
First off, Crits were a joke in 3.5. Roll to confirm was awful. I already a 20, I shouldn’t need another to do cool shit.

Second, weapons still contributed to crits, what with them deal max damage and weapons as well as implements dealing extra dice of damage on a crit. Is it double or quad damage? Not usually (in the case of not strikers, it could easily do that), but it still adds a mighty punch and feels good. Combined with other effects, crits definitely have meaning in still.

As to crit range, that existed in various powers and classes (bowlord [there’s your precious bow fighter btw] and that one avenger paragon path) that had you create specific opportunities to make your opponent vulnerable and thus exposed to greater crit threat, rather than mix-maxing whatever weapon gave you the cheesiest range.

The things you like lived on in 4e, you just had to look rather than buy into the hate.
>>
>>60328633
So, youre saying you wanted the fighter to do ranged. 4e split the fighter in two, one for ranged/two-weapon and one for melee only. You looked at the melee only one because it said "fighter" and went "There's no range! This sucks!" and now youre mad? I think I got it.
>>
>>60328633
What point did I miss?

I am legitimately lost now
>>
>>60328633
You are missing the point of 4e. This is the 3.5 mindset.
Don't be surprised if people call you a faggot.
>>
>>60328625

I’m hoping to try Reavers with my new group once they’re a few sessions in. It came out late enough I missed it the 1st time around with my initial groups but it looks dynamite from what I’ve read so far.
>>
>>60328658
>First off, Crits were a joke in 3.5. Roll to confirm was awful.
I stopped reading here. Hitting things was not a big deal in 3.5 - many argued that AC became irrelevant if unoptimized.
No idea about the rest of your post but I guess is bullshit.
>>60328660
Fighter must be able to do ranged and melee because is not a MMORPG tank.
This was a resource investment in 3rd that 4th did not fix. And is just one of many, many cases showing the restricted design point of view that 4th ed designers had.
This is one of the reasons the game failed.
>>
>>60328711
Don't be surprised if your game failed.
What I see today is the same arrogant attitude that both designers and 4rries had back then, and drove people away.
>>
>>60328744
>This was a resource investment in 3rd that 4th did not fix. And is just one of many, many cases showing the restricted design point of view that 4th ed designers had.

And you had the gall to call *me* functionally illiterate?
Try opening a book, faggot.
>>
>>60328744
So what role does fighter fit into in your mind?

What is a fighters "job" in an adventuring party?
>>
>>60328764
This is not an answer, in the slightest.
Nervous?
>>
>>60328775

Keep score and suck the wizard’s dick obvs.
>>
File: Edition Wars.png (9 KB, 501x383)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
>>60328760
Just to clarify, *my* game didn't fail. I still have a weekly 4e game and it's one of the best campaigns I've ever run.
But whatever, keep crying because a dead game that came out 10 years ago did something you don't like.
>>
>>60328775
Kill things and protect the party. Absorb big blows.
Conceptually, being a master of many techniques, not 1.
3rd edition crippled this because you needed 463824683264 feats to do 1 thing.
4th edition said "fuck it, just do 1 thing".
This is what people perceived opening the PH1. Fuck, even reading the previews.
This is one of the reasons your game failed.
>>
>>60328785
Try not to be a dick

I know what the fighter in 3.5's job was, it was a two level dip to get you extra feats with no actual personality beyond that, but I want to know what he thinks it's job was
>>
>>60328800
>But whatever, keep crying because a dead game that came out 10 years ago did something you don't like.
This is a nice deflection.
The game is dead, and is ill-remembered.
>>
>>60328713
It is. I'll storytime a bit later, because I'm tired of feeding that poor lost 3aboo.
>>
>>60328801

>Kill things and protect the party. Absorb big blows.

Question: Isn't that kinda hard for a bow-focused character do to that isn't just "Get big damage".

I mean you'd have a point if there wasn't a striker based martial class that could use bows very effectively that you could easily just flavor as some variety of fighter... but there is... it's called the Ranger.
>>
>>60328785
t. "a wizard touched me when I was 5"
I am trying to explain this
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
If you all want to avoid this discussion don;t put it in the OP.
If instead you want to circlejerk against le ebil paizuzus or how a wizard ruined your childhood, there is reddit.
>>
>>60328801
Oh ok

So the game failed because people only see window dressing and never tried to look deeper, despite coming from a game where looking deeper into mechanics was what made the game fun in the first place
>>
>>60328833
In Complete Warrior in 3rd you could pin and maneuver enemies with a bow.
That is awesome - just it needs too many feat to do anything else.
Anything else - are you able to get this?
>I mean you'd have a point if there wasn't a striker based martial class that could use bows very effectively that you could easily just flavor as some variety of fighter
Are you intentionally obtuse? They are not the same concept. And in 3rd, most rangers have different skills and armors.
>>
>>60328824

Bitchin, I want all the storytimes from here about stuff getting run.

I’ll also say from a player point Prey for Smiley Bob was a fun little side trip as an early level character made even more fun by our party turning the initial quest conversation into a full blown Disney number to get more pay out of the poor halflings that asked us for help.
>>
>>60328875

>Are you intentionally obtuse?

Are you? No really I don't actually know the point you're trying to make here is.

>Anything else - are you able to get this?

Fighters in 4e can stun enemies, move them around the battle field, set them up to grant combat advantage against other opponents, immobilize enemies and a variety of other things with abilities that're baked into the class.

They can do WAY MORE than a 3rd Fighter with no feat investment.

>They are not the same concept

In 3rd edition maybe? But in 4e they're both martial classes it's just one 'conceptually' is more like a hunter... but then hey being a warrior and being a hunter is SO DIFFERENT that you just can't stand the thought of having that attributed to you. Even though it'd be simple to come up with any given backstory for a 'bow focused fighter' and apply that to a Ranger in 4e.

Look lemme spell this out: Rangers in 4e don't have divine powers. Heck I'm pretty certain animal companions are mostly optional to them. They are entirely a class that focuses on more stealth and hit and run tactics... which is kinda what a bow focused fighter SHOULD be like anyway so what's the problem?

I mean if you're explicitly objecting to a fighter not being able to just stand there and throw out ranged attacks and this somehow defending your companions... okay? Kind of an arbitrary set of requirements you're asking for.
>>
>>60328875

So you want to be a fighter...that uses a bow to control the battlefield?

Dear boy, it seems like you want the controller ranger variant. Still not a great build, but that exists in 4e. You want to get hung up calling it a fighter, not a ranger, knock yourself out, but hey, again, if you looked things up, you’d see depth and room for play where you complain about shallows and single mindedness.
>>
>>60328875
Ok, so you have no idea how the system worked and your expectations are fundamentally different than what the game provided. However I think you are the one being intentionally obtuse if you think the classes in 4e are so restrictive as to be only able to perform their 1 role. In fact, I would say that most classes adequately performed 2-3 of the roles with little to no extra effort on the player and optimizing to do additional roles only made this more apparent. Your knowledge of the system seems to be limited to what you feel rather than what the system did and it's showing and it's why you are getting so many poor responses.
>>
Here's a few scenarios for you:

1) You're part of the D&D Next design team, and you have the chance to bring one (and only one) 4E mechanic into the upcoming 5th Edition. Which one do you choose?

2) You're setting up a new 4E campaign, but your group requests that you play without miniatures or a grid. How do you make it work?

3) You need to incorporate your favourite 5th Edition mechanic into your next 4E campaign. Which one is it, and how do you go about it?
>>
>>60328094
Fighter is a defender. Front liner. He can RBA with a bow but if you want an archer you need a Ranger.
But some autists can't understand that.
>>
Are there any known maps of the area of Nerath outside the Nentir Vale
>>
>>60329126

1. That is a tough choice. But I’d keep AEDUs for combat, make them build around that.

2. Easily, because i’m a freak that can keep numbers in my head and describe the situation to players. I’ve done it before and I can do it again.

3. Inspiration. Everyone handing dice around to help buddies out should feel good (it didn’t when I played 5e) and could open up some fun design space in 4e.
>>
>>60329143

Only one was the game map from Conquest of Nerath, which feels like tons of stuff could be added to before it was truly complete
>>
File: Nerath_Map_HighResa.jpg (280 KB, 817x645)
280 KB
280 KB JPG
>>60329143
This one. I don't think there's anything more specific, but bits of this were reprinted in Dungeon Mag.
>>
>>60329126
I'm going to skip 1 because I can't choose a single one.

2. Zones like in fate. Close and melee attacks hit the current zone, ranged and area attacks hit the next one. But I honestly don't see the point of running 4e qith no grid.

3. There is only one thing that I would salvage from 5e, and it's the feat list. I'd make my dream 4e with just 3 meaty feats per tier, and more space for theme/racial abilities.
Backgrounds in 5e are salvageable, but I already have my own systems for that kind of thing.
>>
>>60328979
>>60328987
>>60328989
I think I can answer pointing out this post
>>60329130
I am fine if you all think this. But answering to the OP, this is the main reasons the game failed, no matter how much you want to refluff the ranger.
The fighter should not be forced to only go melee. It should do many things and you are incapable of getting this difference.
Look at this.
>>60328987
>So you want to be a fighter...that uses a bow to control the battlefield?
This is why I say you are all functionally illiterate.
Saying that a fighter should be able to do that, and complain that you need too many feats in 3.5 for that, does not mean asking for a fighter (or refluffed ranger) that does ONLY that.
Now since you want only to circlejerk, go ahead. I don't care.
Just don't ask in the OP what killed the game if you think you already have the answer.
>>
>>60329130
>Fighter is a defender.
No, 4th edition designers decided that fighters are defenders.
>>60328989
>Your knowledge of the system seems to be limited
This is not what people got from advertisement, discussion, designers etc back then.
You could even be right (you are not) but the perception made people just uninterested.
>>
>>60328979
>Fighters in 4e can stun enemies, move them around the battle field, set them up to grant combat advantage against other opponents
In 3rd you can stagger, daze, stun, pull maneuvers often in combination with hits, use fear effects.
The feat system sucked and scaledbadly but a fix to that could have worked just fine, keeping all the ways power attack or weapons worked.
If they did that, they could have kept the people that moved to other games.
I am desperately trying to explain you autists THIS.
>Look lemme spell this out: Rangers in 4e don't have divine powers.
And this probably turned off many. In 3rd you could choose just with the SRD.
>I mean if you're explicitly objecting to a fighter not being able to just stand there and throw out ranged attacks and this somehow defending your companions..
I am not and I don't understand how you get to this without being utterly dishonest.
>>
>>60302583
Hey OP, next time, when you write this
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
Add that there is a list of things that are acceptable answers and ask people to only post those or 4rries fee fees will be hurt.
>>
>>60329475
No, fighter was a defender in AD&D, assuming he was lucky enough to have good armor

The role became even more prominent in 2e thanks to the way initiative and weapon/spell speeds worked

3rd edition was the weird one
>>
>The troll gets desperate for (you)s, starts multiposting

Hey faggot, are you aware that 4chan does not have a post counter?
>>
Seriously, just ignore him. He's not even discussing the same thing. He's just bitching how 4e wasn't 3.75 and that's 'why it failed'.
>>
>>60329618
But that's what makes it fascinating

HE is the reason why he failed, he and people like him, and I want to know how these people think
>>
>>60329595
Nope, you killed even more in AD&D.
In fact, 4ed was praised because it codified "tanky" abilities in a more effective way than 3rd edition's "take Stand Still and pray".
>>
>>60302583
>What killed 4e in your eyes?
expectations. It's not that 4e was a "bad" system, it was perfectly fine for what it was trying to do.

People expect something different from something called "D&D", though. If it was anything but a D&D product, it would've been perfectly fine.
>>
>>60329618
>>60329644
I find this exchange amazing.
The OP asked why it failed.
I answered that instead of fixing 3.5, they gave us a different thing.
You assume that the only rational solution for people was to swallow the new product without questioning. We did not, I explained that there were design principles that did not resonate with people (the fighter is just an example, dissociated mechanics or bland spellcasting could be others).
This is of course REGARDLESS you could consider the way 4ed handled it. If for you works, great.
But for many did not.
But the only way you are able to answer is "you did not get it".
Nope. Wotc threw the baby with he bathwater even if soldi ideas were there. This is why the edition failed, the lead designer was fired each year and they backtracked with 5ed.
>>
>>60302583
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?

I'm guessing marketing.
For some reason the game mechanics just didn't sit well with a large amount of the customer base.

I got me the first books but for some reason, I just didn't like it a lot. All these statuses (statia? statii?) that needed to be kept track of and all the "move enemy/friend one square this way or that"-effects simply put me off at the time.

I gave the books to a friend and he just loved the rules and to this day happily use them and his players are very happy with the rules as well.
>>
Shitter’s had multiple answers to his ”concerns” and he’s still going. It’s a sea lion boys, get out the clubs.

Seriously, I wouldn’t have asked that question as OP since it’s a sign begging every edition wars and summer fag to come in and shit up a comfy thread.

Anyways, to elaborate on my earlier answer, to import Inspiration to 4e, it’d be an encounter power for players to use, passing the dice to an ally in LoS. Leaders can add it to healing, strikers to damage, defenders to either defenses or marking penalties, and controllers to extend effect durations.
>>
>>60329693
Yes

You are very, very wrong, but since you fail to notice how wrong you are, you represent a perfect example of why the game failed

Because no one actually paid attention, they saw the surface, decided it looked too different on the surface, and rejected without ever actually seeing the game

The game could have been the best RPG to ever exist and it wouldn't have made a difference, people still would have rejected it off-hand for looking different
>>
>>60329756
Ahah this would be the most pathetic post in the thread but "it's paizos/ 3rd party's fault" was posted above.
I am not wrong. And you are obviously delusional and with an horribly warped perspective.
>you represent a perfect example of why the game failed
I owe nothing to wotc. If they failed to produce a good game (or at least, more objectively, a game suiting my tastes), goodbye.
I am not forced to buy a game. Especially a game missing a lot of elements I demand.
>>
>>60329796
I am not blaming you

I am using you as an example of the sort of person that rejected 4e. You are who WotC failed to appeal to by having a game that looked different on the surface

I mean, just look at your own line
>Especially a game missing a lot of elements I demand.
It included the element you demand, but you did not notice them. Failing to see that their audience would be too reactionary to actually pay attention to the game itself and not just the surface is where WotC failed
>>
>>60329796
Lets pretend you've got a point and that the groups of people still stuck on the previous edition were a deciding factor in why it failed. What did you think was going to happen? History shows the way the edition changes in D&D goes. AD&D was different enough to scare off the 1e crowd, who were then scared off by 2e, who were then scared off by 3e. Even some of the 3e crowd was scared off by 3.5. Was it so shocking that dramatic changes would occur when they put a new edition out?
>>
>>60328307
>5e would be the DM asleep on the chair behind the screen.
my experience was more the DM raging at me for my constantly wondering why shit was no longer in the game, even though it made sense.
>>
>>60328921
Ok, here we go. You'll notice that most of it followed the module pretty close, but the PCs were absolutely free to make their own path between encounters.

>Party is elf ranger, eladrin paladin, human bladesinger, kenku bard
>At the end of Twisting Halls party decides to capture the evil wizard alive and bring him in to the authorities
>Lord of Fallcrest is impressed, asks party to scout in Harken Vale because trouble is afoot
>Party has acquaintances in Harken, agrees
>On the way they see smoke
>Bandits are attacking a farmstead, party drives them off
>Bandits have cloaks with a ring symbol, it's the Iron Ring
>Kenku bard had been enslaved by these fuckers in the past, wants revenge
>Elf ranger gets strangely awkward
>Anyway looks like there's a new sheriff in town, his cronies have been bullying people all across the vale
>Party makes a beeline through the woods to another village on the other side, where a friend of the paladin lives
>Place is mostly OK, but friends tells them about the Iron Ring, points them to the resistance movement
>Party gets to Albridge, strolls in town dressed as Iron Ring and get to the tavern
>bladesinger puts foot in mouth, fight ensues
>Party wins but a few bandits get away, leader of resistance hides party for the night
>Next day, party makes a plan
>They get a lift on the halfling boats
>Balkan music starts playing in the background
>Moustached halfling wives are offered
>First stop: Tor's Hold
>A village of buff dudes and dudettes who want to join the fray but have troube with the bullywug in the forest raiding their homes
>Party takes the matter in own hands, go in forest
>Decide not to go straight into the bullywug caves, wait in ambush for raiding parties
>Kenku gets almost eaten by a frog but they save an halfling child

(1/3)
>>
>>60328094
I don't see how it's shitting on past games, but you're not wrong about it being an issue (or at least representative of an issue). D&D's always had a problem with inconsistent class concepts but 4e really underlines that because every class has a so-specific baked-in hook and discrete, explicit options. Those roles are pretty firmly locked.
With most classes there are complimentary classes or added specialization options that shore up the different angles, but this is less true for Fighter and it's flexibility in other editions. As a martial defender the Fighter is mostly focused on being a beefy melee guy that gets in your face and makes it harder to target other people. Not a lot of room for bow attacks in its design space past a basic attack (though throwing weapons sort of thread a needle, like other people said).

Now, you CAN make a Hybrid-classed character that combines Fighter and Ranger using Ranger's Hunter spec. The Hunter's a martial controller alt-class of the Ranger, and being a controller is almost like being a ranged defender, so you should still fit an okay spot in the party. Plus you'd have a few options to slide in some extra damage. As a Fighter/Hunter you can transition between a damage-dealing ranged harasser and a more defensive melee fighter as a minor action, or make use of some extra point-blank shot options.
Without doing a deeper dive I'm really not sure how effective it would be over the course of a campaign, but if something jibes conceptually like this it should at least be functional for a while.

Alternatively you could just play a Hunter, who can dabble in melee damage as well as a Ranger-derived class.
>>
>>60330257

>Kenku mimics the bullywug's voice, they get in the cave and REMOVE FROG
>Frog treasure is a chest of knick-knacks, a few are slightly magical
>highlights are a box of snails who live and die in pairs and a neverending piece of chalk
>Getting back there's some partying with the gypsy halfling and Tor's Hold bears
>Next stop: Elfwood
>Ranger gets even more awkward
>On the way they stop in a village that had been burned down as an example
>They find a Iron Ring gang resting there
>They make short work of them
>Leave a message on the wall
>TODAY MARL, TOMORROW HARKEN
>Resistance is in full swing
>Soon after PCs get innawoods, get escorted to elf regent
>ohshit.jpg
>turns out elf had been banished from the woods because he had helped the Iron Ring poach critters in the past
>Elves ask for help in the woods in exchange for forgiveness and help against the Iron Cirle

Now, in the module there's three encounters that feel a bit tacked on. What I did was google for "Elven City"; I found a nice map of a ruined city from one of Paizo's adventures. I kept it, changing the background a bit - I made it an Eladrin city that existed on both the world and the Feywild, until something made the planar equilibrium collapse. Now the place was something like a wild magic zone, with a patrol of elves to keep things from getting in (or out), until goblinoids allied with the Iron Circle went in there to stir trouble.

>Party joins the elves in a raind inside the eladrin ruins
>They get around a bit, see some weird things, help one of the elf leaders in an attack
>Explore a place in the ruins where the goblins are consorting with undead creatures against the elves
>Put an end to the issue
>Peace is restored among the elvenkind

(2/3)
>>
>>60330278
>The forces of the resistance gather in Albridge
>While they prepare for battle, paladin and bard stir the spirits of the villagers, bladesinger helps train the peasants, ranger prepares an ambush
>PCs discover an agent provocateur hiding in the populace, might be a doppelganger they already had met (she was)
>foolishly they lock her up in a barn with no surveillance and go away (she escapes)
>The Iron Circle gets there, battle ensues
>Party tries to make a run to the leader, but let themselves getting bogged down by minor skirmishes
>The rebels win anyway, but the leader of the Iron Circle retreats to the keep in Harken with the remaining forces
>After the battle, the PCs get to Harken village, take contact with people there
>Discover there's a secret passage to get in the keep, but can't be opened from the outside
>Also find out that the doppleganger was there, might be in the keep now
>There is a wizard tower in Harken, looks abandoned, but they try to get in
>go past a few puzzles, finally reach the last room
>Wizard of Oz situation, the voice of the wizard allows them one request
>The party asks him to unlock the secret passage
>okay.jpg
>party sneaks in, find the passage, special forces through the lower levels of the keep
>Make a point of freeing the Baron of Harkenwold first
>Take down the Iron Circle leader
>Take his head, rout the rest of the forces away
>Heroes of the Barony

This adventure then dovetailed in an expedition to Thunderspire Labyrinth, on the tracks of a few more goblinoids who had fled with some slaves. We juuust got to the end of that part, getting ready for Gardmore now.

(3/3)
>>
>>60330301

Good stuff anon, thanks! I like the idea of the feywild city in the woods, it’s a solid modification.
>>
>>60329450
So you’re anally devastated because they called the class fighter instead of front line melee guy ...
K
>>
Getting rid of class roles in 5e was a dumb ass idea
>>
>>60331289

I mean, most of 5e was a dumb ass idea, but I repeat myself.

Anyone else with good storytimes? I’ll have some Keep on the Shadowfell news after I run my Monday game, just looking for some things to tide us over
>>
>>60331160
This. Like some people that can't play a Samurai if the written name of the class is Samurai.
>>
>>60331771
>isn't
Fix'd
>>
>>60331160
>>60331771
Is not "this". Not in the slightest.
I could make a gran master in bow, Sword, a polearm and a fourth weapon in fucking BECMI and kick ass with all of these.
Why I cannot with 4th? This is bullshit.
>>
>>60329879
>It included the element you demand, but you did not notice them
No it doesn't. Stop pretending it does.
>>
>>60332084
You can do that in 4th

You can be a ranger with equal strength and dex, or a warlord with the archer warlord class feature
>>
>Lol ded gaem ded general
>Keeps bumping it up with inane bullshit

You have to be the most retarded troll in the history of /tg/.
>>
So does anyone know any good 4th edition actual plays or livestreams, like a 4E version of Critical Role or something like that?
>>
>>60332348
I guess you can look around for the Acquisitions Inc stuff. I hear they were pretty good, but streamed games are not my thing.
>>
>>60332254
I find amazing that I talked about flexibility in different tactics and you can only go "you can use a bow with X"
>>
>>60332402
>I could make a gran master in bow, Sword, a polearm and a fourth weapon in fucking BECMI and kick ass with all of these. Why I cannot with 4th? This is bullshit.

I see no mention of tactics in that post

You made a point, the point you made was objectively wrong
>>
>>60332348

I use to be in a game that published the games on youtrube.

Warning: it's a delve campaign, little no no RP, full combat / puzzles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi8UI-iH_ss&index=1&list=PLH2PeeleFo7hQgwjMMb55Wm_SgQBYkJT2
>>
Guys, any way to multiclass in two classes without being a bard or using up paragon path?
>>
>>60332447
He's going in circles now. If he was arguing in good faith he'd have stopped posting hours ago.
>>
>>60330301
That was neat.
>>
>>60332447
>>60332473
look here >>60332084
again, retard.
I stated that in BECMI you could be excellent in ranged AND melee.
In 3rd they tried hard to expand this but it fell flat because they designed retarded feats.
We were waiting for the fix in 4th, the result was a fighter unable to do both.
you answer to this is "muh ranger is good for teh bow".
How incredibly stupid and narrow minded are you?
.
>>
>>60332650
No good sir, you see, in my post, I said a ranger can use all the weapons you stated. Not just a bow

Because rangers can have both melee and ranged abilities, and with a balanced stat spread can be excellent with both

I also mentioned archer warlords, who use strength for bows instead of dex, and also have a wide array of melee and ranged abilities, so they can also be excellent with all those weapons, although less so than the ranger due to being more focused on support than damage-dealing
>>
>>60332471

Half Elf Dilletante? Multi-class feats? What kinda of features you looking to snag?
>>
>>60332727
You could also just play a Slayer. Who is a Fighter who is good with a bow.
>>
>>60332727

But you see, because some grog may at some point in the future, want to do some durdly bow build on a Fighter (because using a class that actually benefits from using bows is for pussies) even though a fighter can make bow attacks and be reasonably be skilled at it, but they didn’t cater to the vast silent bow fighter crowd, 4e was shit from the get-go.

Gonna go throw up from this nonsense now.
>>
>>60332759

Want to grab a wizard and warden feats on a knight
>>
>>60332727
But people did not want that.
People wanted the choice of going full melee, full ranged or mixed with Fighters and Rangers because this is what they used to do.
This is what I talked about when I said that the designers introduced bias and artificial limitations.
Tangentially, even with mixed styles, a mixed ranger and a mixed fighter should not play in the same way.
>>
>>60332810
They literally made the Slayer for people like that one 3aboo posting here.
>>
>>60329341
>>60329292
See
>>60318123
>>
>>60332820
Switch edition is not mandatory. You can sperg against the grogs as much as you want, but what happened is that people remained where their character concept were.
Fighter benefitted from a bow since BECMI.
You are just retro-fitting your worldview to adapt it to 4th edition.
I find actually the phenomenon fascinating: is the same mental gymnastic necessary to fit to the gameworld all those disconnected mechanics.
As the event is decided after the roll, the fact that the fighter does not need bows is a fact because the designers arbitrarily decided is not a fighter thing.
Hilarious.
>>
>>60332845
Is it really so hard to look past class titles?

A 4e ranger is more like a 3.5 fighter than a 3.5 ranger, the 3.5 ranger is more what you see in the 4e seeker class, a controller that uses primal magic and weapons together
>>
>>60332963
That arrived.. how many manuals later.
See what happened? See why it failed?
The design team was so up their asses they did not get to release shit able to fill the archetypes they helped to establish.
>>
>>60332900
>disconnected mechanics

First, it's dissociated.
Second, after this, I really hope nobody else gives you any attention, because this paints you as a shitposter.
>>
>>60332900
You are hung up on what the class is called over what the character can do.

I understand that many other people were like that, and that this is one of the reasons that the edition failed. Do you, in turn, understand that this is incredibly shallow and stupid?
>>
>>60332963
>a controller
uuuh.. no?
>>
>>60330627
>>60332539
Thanks. I'm going to do a writeup of our run in Thunderspire for the next thread, but that's quite a bit longer, it might take a while.
This campaign has been a blast so far.
>>
>>60329693
>instead of fixing 3.5
There was no fixing 3.5. Every problem it has is so baked into the system at its very core that you cannot fix it without just making it another game.
>>
>>60332999
disconnected from the gameworld, dissociated.
Post-roll. Whatever.
Is what they are. You are just in denial.
And what I said is true. you kinda retconned the role to the fighter.. "post-manual".
>>
>>60302598
Is the revenant already in 5e?
>>
>>60333006
>Do you, in turn, understand that this is incredibly shallow and stupid?
No because you are utterly unable to understand that people want form a mixed melee-ranged ranger, and a fighter with a similar spec different things and just wanted manuals that fixed the concepts introduced in the previous game.
We asked "fix this game" we got "here is another game".
>>
>>60333030
If you read the 4e design interviews, they actually step by step explain the problems they identified and the attempt made at fixing it.

4e is absolutely a fixed 3.5, just not fixed in a way that the people who stuck with PF wanted.
>>
>>60333056
They already did THAT in Bo9S. What you want is another expansion, not a fix.
>>
>>60333056
Ok, now the problem is what everyone already knew it was

People wanted 3.75, got 4th, and because it was something new, like what 3e was to 2e, rather than what 3.5 was to 3e, they rejected it

Congratu-fucking-lations, everyone already knew this was why 4e failed
>>
You know why I like 4e generals?
Because we always manage to get a bit of quality content even if we get a few very dedicated shitposters.
But please, OP of the next thread, find a better thread question.
>>
>>60333056
And you're still whining about this 10 years later and with a new game come up.
A game which has very little content, but since it has fighters with a bow, suddenly is ok.
So the key for success is fighters with a bow. Very good, we got that sorted out.
Why are you still here?
>>
>>60333082
Bo9S did not automatically retro-fit, and auto-scale all the former feats (or broken spells or whatever).
>>60333100
This is how all this shit started:
>>60328032
>I just wanted a fixed 3.5.
All you sperg sperged because "I did not get the game" etc. While this was my first statement.
Are you sure you don't play 4th just because you are too stupid for anything else?
>>
>>60302583
I know some autist will get pissy over my opinion, but I think its biggest failure was in not actually explaining how it was changing the presentation. That meant that people who read the other books were expecting something very similar with similar organizing, similar themes, etc. None of that was there, and it put a lot of people off because it 'felt different'. I know, I was one of them. I didn't so much as look at it again until the 5E playtest.

Initial impressions matter, and when ever edition has the land speed of a horse and suddenly this one doesn't (quick example), you're left wondering what you're supposed to do. Your first thought after 20 years of gaming isn't 'bah, all that stuff i learned before was actually trash, just make something up'.

That said, once someone in the playtest explained what was intended and made a couple recommends to me, I loved it to pieces and it's now my favorite edition. I even converted my entire groggie group over to it.
>>
>Want to try out 4e
>Realize it doesn't have bounded accuracy

I haven't played any rpg before 5e, do the stat bumps really get out of hand with like +15 to a roll meaning to make something challenging the DM has to up the DC but that also means no one else who didn't specialize could possibly succeed?
>>
File: Spergs.jpg (77 KB, 300x475)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
>>60333134
Point where I defended 5ed.
I don't know it enough, I just stated it looks ok.
>So the key for success is fighters with a bow.
Again, you are incredibly stupid. I stated above this is just an example of the design goals and artificial limit that the team put, shooting themselves in the foot. It was just anexample I had to defend because you hate-filled, butthurt faggots cannot accept that not everybody was ok with these artificial limitations.
YOU and the other 4rries sperged incontrollably because this.
>>
>>60333134
>Why are you still here?
>Why you hurting my feelings I want my safe space
>>
>>60333180
Skills auto-scale like in 5e, but someone who dumped the stat and isn't trained is SoL if he has to roll a skill that isn't easy (for his level... he could ace lower level checks).
>>
>>60333180
Kind of

The absolute maximum modifier bonus you can have to any stat in 4e is +10, by starting with a score of 18 in that stat, getting a racial boost, putting every levelling stat boost you can into it, and choosing an epic destiny which gives you +2 to the score, so assuming this guy, with his awesome stat modifier, requires a roll of 10 to make the DC, you can make it too on a 20


There's a whole lot of other niggling bonuses for skills and the like, such as training, racial bonuses, feats and whatnot, but i mean... it's not like the guy walking around in full plate was going to succeed a stealth roll in 5e either
>>
Power died, sorry for the late response.

>>60329215
1. AEDUs, that's a solid mechanic to bring over. Would you reinstate them fully ala 4E, build them around existing class resources (Spell Slots, Ki, Rages, Action Surge, etc), or find something in between?

2. Doing it all in your head is one way, but wouldn't it be difficult for your players to follow along? You might need to remove or streamline rules like opportunity attacks and difficult movement zones.

3. Inspiration is also a favourite of mine from 5E. I homebrew it so that characters can store more Inspiration based on their WIS modifier (other mental stats get other buffs as well).

>>60329405
1. Okay, name two or three that really stand out to you from 4E. Remember, you can't just port the whole system over, your goal is to keep it mostly 5E but with the very best ideas from 4E.

2. Zones, that's a fair substitute.

3. Big, meaty feats are a favourite of mine as well. 4E did give you a lot of them by 30th level and they were individually quite weak, so going for fewer, more meaningful changes could be the right direction.

My three would be the following:
1. If I could bring one 4E mechanic to 5E, it'd be an adaptation of AEDU. All characters get a 'basic attack' modifier or replacement ability, a short rest tactical resource, a long rest resource, and some utility effects. No more 'one class gets all long rest powers, one gets all short rest powers'.
2. I'd use 13th Age position tracking, it's pretty simple. AoEs hit between 2 and 5 grouped enemies depending on size.
3. I'd bring Proficiency and reduced scaling from 5E to 4E. Numbers get really high in 4E, I think you could keep them lower without losing too much.
>>
>>60333180
The math in 4e at this point is stabilized and you have very solid guidelines. The Rules Compendium, which came out at the end of the cycle, goes into some detail about what to expect in performance at each level. 4e has hard caps to stats too there is no way to get past 30, and even then we're talking about epic levels), and most of the other bonuses are fixed too.
One thing I see many people get hung up on is the scaling of DCs. The guidelines give you DCs for easy, medium and hard challenges appropriate for each level - operative word being appropriate. Some people took this to mean that everything in the world autolevels like in The Elder Scrolls; but the truth is, when you are midway through Paragon tier, low-level threats just aren't a threat anymore, and this is a conscious choice. If you value the idea that goblins should be a threat to high level characters, well, 4e isn't really the game for that. And by the way, not all DCs are supposed to scale.

tl;dr: the game scales differently from 5e, but the scaling is controlled and there are good guidelines in the Rules Compendium
>>
>>60333343
>2. I'd use 13th Age position tracking, it's pretty simple. AoEs hit between 2 and 5 grouped enemies depending on size.
care to elaborate?
>>
>>60333343
>1. Okay, name two or three that really stand out to you from 4E. Remember, you can't just port the whole system over, your goal is to keep it mostly 5E but with the very best ideas from 4E.

Disclaimer: I ran a bit of 5e, hated it, but I wouldn't just port the AEDU system in it.
What I'd do is get rid of bounded accuracy (give me high level characters that feel like they are), make short rests 5 minutes or 15 if that's too few, and give classes more rechargeable resources.
Also, skill challenges man. The most versatile tool in a D&D ever, and miles better than that travesty of "three pillars" in 5e.
>>
>>60333362
Characters start battle Unengaged and Nearby each other. This means they can reach another character with a single Move action. When you move up to another character you become Engaged, which lets you attack (and be attacked) with melee weapons. If another person moved up to the two of you, all three of you would be Engaged with each other.

You can visualize it like this: if your miniature isn't touching the base of another, you're Unengaged. If you're touching another mini's base, you're Engaged with them AND every other miniature connected by their bases.

There are a bunch of other small rules. When an enemy rushes past you to engage an ally, you can Intercept them halfway and become Engaged instead. You can Move to try and Disengage yourself from nearby foes, but they might get to attack you. You can also choose to move Far Away, which makes it harder for enemies to reach you but also makes it harder for your allies to come save you.

>>60333432
I actually like Bounded Accuracy, but I could see the argument for removing it. 5 minute short rests is how I run my (infrequent) 5E games already, so absolutely agree. Giving classes more resources is also a fine idea, and skill challenges were pretty good as well (but could use some fine tuning).
>>
>>60333595
>13th Age position tracking
Thank you for the time used in posting this anon.
Are there rules for front - back, flanks?
Are there AOOs, and how are they handled?
It seems a good start for te theatre of mind type of games, unless I am mistaken.
>>
>>60332084
>why can't my character master every weapon in the game? why does he have to be a master of only one thing? i wanna be over powered! Whaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!
>>
>>60333735
Come on this is not the message. Especially not in a world when magic exist.
The example given with BECMI was done with4 weapons, not 40.
This is just dishonest.
>>
>>60333676
IIRC doesn't care about flanks, but you could do similar things with outnumbering enemies in melee.

That'd probably be a good way to simulate the tight motions of 4e actually; instead of leaders giving out shifts, they'd let an engaged group one less or one more for one side or the other.

>>60333735
He can, just be a Slayer.

Fuck, basic fighters are already proficient with all of those, and the weapon master feat would let you hotswap between them.
>>
>>60333775
>they'd let an engaged group COUNT AS one less or one more for one side or the other.
>>
>>60333134
>A game which has very little content, but since it has fighters with a bow, suddenly is ok.
honestly, this is what bugs me about 5e and everyone's love for it. It has virtually no content, not compared to 4e, but everyone loves it because it "gives fighters a bow" or something equivalent to that. it is literally a dumber, fluffier, emptier 3.5. it is a damn twinky of a game, where 4e gave us a feast, but everyone is happier with a puff pastry than they ever were with a fully functional and really fun game, because that puff pastry looks like the lard filled cake they'd had before.
>>
>>60334125
>but everyone loves it because it "gives fighters a bow" or something equivalent to that.
You completely misunderstood the point of the discussion and the example made.
I cannot seriously tell if you are really that stupid or you are just a dishonest little shit.
Your dissociated shitfest of move 3 squares + stun was not what people wanted. That pathetic magic wasnot what peoplewanted. Healing surges were not what people wanted. And so on.
>>
>>60334196
>I can't possibly imagine somebody moving 15 feet and then being stunned from a blow
>I can't possibly imagine wizards not being fucking gods
>I can't possibly imagine having hidden stamina reserves that are called upon for all forms of healing (shittier version also in 5e)
>>
>>60333140
4e is exactly what "fixed 3.5" looks like.
The thing is, you never liked 3.5 either (nor did you seem to even get what it was trying to do) and did not actually want a "fixed 3.5".
You want a game with incredibly broad, generic classes, very vague design space, "meatpoints", abolition of balance and all the other halmarks of generic 90s fantasy heartbreaker shit 2e and 5e are full of.
>>
>>60334227
And this is yet another evidence of your utter stupidity
>>I can't possibly imagine somebody moving 15 feet and then being stunned from a blow
I was talking about the power format, in the context of one of the many things that people hated of the edition. Not that it did not "gives fighters a bow". This is just what youe extrapolated from the whole discussion and you did it because you are incredibly DUMB.
>I can't possibly imagine wizards not being fucking gods
You can have limits and restriction to magic and have it still feel like magic. Is what people asked and again, the design team just said "fuck it". Result: the game failed.
And so on. And we are again there. 4ed magic is bland, 3rd edition one is broken therefore 4ed is a fix.
Nope. Is a different thing and I did not ask for that.
>>
>>60334303
>4e is exactly what "fixed 3.5" looks like.
Nice goalpost moving but not. Is a different game that they called D&D. For some people is a better game and I can respect that.
The rest of the post is just you trying to make shit up because you have no actual points.
>>
>>60333180
All that lack of "bounded accuracy" means in 4e (and every other rpg on earth except 5) is that level-based modifiers quickly mount up to meat low level stuff is irrelevant and high level stuff is untouchable.

In actual play, this usually means the total numbers you roll with can get rather large, but it all stays within the 2-digit range, so it's not harder to track.
It also means you can't use low-level monsters at higher levels, but 4e works under the assumptions that you shouldn't do that anyway - high level monsters are more complex and involved, because the characters also become more flexible and complex as they mature - both from their mechanical abilities and from their accumulated story and the players' experience and working these characters together as a team.
>>
>>60334405
>All that lack of "bounded accuracy" means in 4e (and every other rpg on earth except 5) is that level-based modifiers quickly mount up to meat low level stuff is irrelevant and high level stuff is untouchable.
Is this a bad thing? I mean you should feel the level difference to feel the characters are progressing (it should be not the ONLY thing but..)
>>
>>60334324
You come into this thread with the same complaints every single fucking time, and you get BTFO every single fucking time.

We are retracking the same goddamn steps, where in the end you'll be forced to admit that you actually want magic to be a 6 second solution to everything, and that the power format is just a fucking format, and that there's actually a wealth of shit in there that breaks this stupid preconception you have of every power being damage+effect.

And yet you come back... why?
>>
>>60334345
No goalpost moving.
You first said you wanted "fixed 3.5", then proceeded to demonstrate that's not what you actually wanted.
It's perfectly fine to dislike the design paradigm behind a game. It's also understandable to completely fail at recognising it - after all, much of the problems with 3e was that all of their original testers failed at this.
I'm just helping you understand yourself better.
>>
>i wanna fight with a bow and sword!
>ok so you want to be a ranger
>NOOOOOOOOOOOO MY CLASS NEEDS TO BE CALL FIGHTER! BECAUSE I AM FIGHTING WITH A BOW AND SWORD! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

5e shitters in a nutshell, everyone
>>
>>60334444
It's a neutral thing.
We've been taught that it's fine by the massive majority of rpgs out there. A lot of gamers however prefer to have only the superficial vestiges of levels and classes, because being killed by 10 level 1 goblins at level 10 is more verisimilar to them.
>>
>>60334495
There's no need to be an asshole about it, even if you think he's being an asshole about it.
>>
>>60334475
>You come into this thread with the same complaints every single fucking time, and you get BTFO every single fucking time.
This is several layers of delusion.
You assume it's always the same person (persecution complex) THEN you assumenobody will comment something they think went wrong when this is posted:
>What killed 4e in your eyes? Marketing? Timing? Fate?
Then I am apparently BTFO because... ? I see no proper arguments from your part. I mean look what is at your side. >>60334495
This retard did not even get where the problem is. After all these posts and explanation, I have to read that. You are a pathetic bunch.
>>
>>60334584
The problem that fighters can’t use a bow? K, gotcha
>>
>>60334483
>You first said you wanted "fixed 3.5", then proceeded to demonstrate that's not what you actually wanted.
This is entirely in your mind.
I said that 4ed failed to deliver a fix and proposed a different game instead.
Butthurt ensued and a number of retards were not even able to get where the probelm with the fighter lies.
>I'm just helping you understand yourself better.
I find such arrogance ironic. I maintain that you all need a game with "point and click" powers because is all you can do. You are the special kids of the gaming community.
>>
File: your_next_post.jpg (335 KB, 676x485)
335 KB
335 KB JPG
>>60334604
>The problem that fighters can’t use a bow? K, gotcha
I genuinely hope this is trolling at this point.
My contempt is unbearable.
>>
>>60334607
> where the probelm with the fighter lies.
Let me guess. That they can’t use a bow
>>
>>60334631
The basic problem is the arbitrary restrictions the designers placed because in their mind a number of archetypal classes were supposed to be played only in a given way, or they were afraid to be not skilled enough to balance the game around more flexible concepts (like the old magic system).
This is why the game failed.
I pointed it out and you autists lost it.
>>
>>60334607
Now there's not need to get mad just because you're in denial.
You don't like abstract rules, and you don't like gamey rules, or balance, or limitations, that's fine. There's still plenty of games to suit your needs.
Like, maybe not D&D, Pathfinder, Warhammer, Runequest or many others, but there's plenty enough, like half of the OSR games (back in my day we called them "fantasy heartbreakers")
And if you really must stick to the D&D brand to experience personal validation, there is always 2e.
>>
>>60334704
You are just spinning things on their head supposedly because you think it ..? puts me in difficulty or something??
You are extrapolating all of that from my posts without any base. You are on the same delusional level of
>>60303688
>>60334475
Is not even being stupid you have to be insane to post the shit written in this thread.
Get a fucking grip, all of you.
>>
>>60334702
How the fuck is the fighter restricted exactly? Do bows explode when he picks them up? No? Is it that you are full of fucking shit?
>>
>>60334746
You see comrade, when the fighters' "powers" are specialised around dealing damage, forced movement and area control in melee, it's much more restrictive than when the fighters have High-Strength, no Dexterity, and only enough feats to support a single, narrow fighting style.
>>
>>60334746
You need powers to make it work in 4ed. don't be ridiculous.
>>60334805
Deadly Aim + weapontraining already fixes most of this in PF.
What people asked for was a fix better than the half-assed job paizo did.
I pointed it out, and you all sperged.
Are you all so fragile you cannot accept something so simple?
>>
>>60334805
Ahh, the ultima ratio.
"b-but in 3rd edition this sucked, t-too"
>>
>>60334859
>You need powers to make it work in 4ed. don't be ridiculous.

You need powers to make it your FOCUS.

But if you want bows to be your focus, you want to be a Ranger, or one of the other bow focused classes. Or, if you want, you can multiclass them.

You don't understand how and why classes work in 4e at all. You don't understand why 4e made the changes it did. You just keep bitching about things you half remember, from an edition you set out to shit on.
>>
Why are we still going on replying at this moron instead of opening a new general?
>>
>>60335015
past bump limit, it doesn't matter anymore
>>
>>60334871
3rd, 5th, PF, 2e, Basic, GURPS, Storyteller, Runequest, SIFRP, WFRP...
No system rewards generalists.
The few "exceptions" on that list are jokes like Storyteller that were obviously designed by braindead English BAs so you could dominate multiple disciplines by maxing only a few of your available options.
Using a weapon that you did not invest in at all does mean only using Basic Attacks in 4e (and probably mediocre ones), but the same applies even to classless systems. D&D is just more obvious about it (which is a good idea, considering how stupid some people seem to be).

>>60334859
Yes, if you invest additional resources in it, you can be medicore, congratulations.
By the same measure, 4e is less restrictive because it allows you to invest additional resources and actually make it work.
>>
>>60334859
>Deadly Aim + weapontraining already fixes most of this in PF.
No it didn't. It made it less shitty of a backup option for non-archers, except all the other shit archers got in PF meant that what it actually did was make archers better than other forms of combat for the Fighter.
>>
File: 1491139429324.jpg (1.37 MB, 1328x1110)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB JPG
I don't really get the complaints about Fighters in this thread.

If you want to play a warrior who defends his allies while wading into melee, you pick the Fighter class.
If you want to play a warrior who slays foes with a flurry of dual wielding or archery, you pick the Ranger class.
If you want to play a warrior who hits enemies from stealth or exploits weak points, you pick the Rogue class.
If you want to play a warrior who leads from the front, inspiring allies with every swing, you pick the Warlord class.
If you want to play a warrior who beats foes to death with his bare hands, you pick the Monk class.
If you want to play a warrior who enters a berserker rage and brutally murders fools, you pick the Barbarian class.
If you want to play a warrior who does two of these things well, you Multiclass or play a Hybrid of two classes.

Picking the Fighter class and complaining about the lack of ranged maneuver options is like picking the Barbarian class and complaining that you can't throw fireballs. Choose the class that fits best and multiclass or hybrid if you want.
>>
>>60335378
>BUT I WANT MY ARCHER’S CLASS TO
SAY FIGHTER! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>
>>60335073
>No system rewards generalists.
Being a threat with a sword and a bow is not being "generalist"in a game with fireballs, you utter retard.
>>
>>60335419
Sounds like a ranger.
>>
>>60335419
Pick fucking ranger then, you mog
>b-b-b MUH FIGHTER
>>
>>60335378
>>60335414
Being willingly ignorant goes nowhere. See >>60335419
Being able to use a bow and a sword is not being generalist. A Monk should be way more than punch things barefisted. You just described why the classes are perceived as cookie-cutter.
>>
>>60335455
Yes the monk should be a sword and bow fighter, my bad.
>>
>>60335455
Guess which game has monks that do a lot more stuff than punching things?

Oh right, you can't read.
>>
>>60335450
>>60335451
Fine. How is doing with shields the ranger? Tower shields, shield bashes...
>>
>>60335523
get a bladed shield to use with your TWF shit

I do wonder how you intend to use a shield with a bow tho
>>
>>60335497
In PF you can make very effective archer monks and they don't play like fighters or ranger using bows.
Everything that is build around the class, their skills, amor use and terrain makes the use of bows the only trait in common and yet the three concepts can be used.
Nice autogol, retard.
>>
>>60335419

You have a bow, you’re a fighter and proficient with it. Congrats, you’re a fighter who is threatening with a bow.

>But I can’t out-damage a ranger with it.
No shit, that’s because the ranger is intended to fight with a bow. You want to get mad you can’t cast sleep either.
>But with this feat, I could be a cool archer!
You could be a gimped archer, which was better than a plain fighter because fighters were scum in 3.5. Why be mad that you can contribute to the group in a different way. Did someone take Ranger before you could?
>I wanna be a generalist.
Cool, you can use lots of different weapons. You will always suck a touch more than someone who specializes at their weapon, that’s how it works. There are fighter builds that will reward you for adapting weapons, they never be as good as the guy who has dedicated his life to being the best at archery and hunting shit.

We’ve had this same go around several times today. Either shut up or leave, I don’t care which.
>>
>>60335542
>I do wonder how you intend to use a shield with a bow tho
This sentence shows your utter lack of imagination. This is why you need "powers" to make your melee work.
A good fighter in PF/3.5 should be able to use a 2H, a tower shield or a bow when the situation needs it.
If a player of mine made a character with charge feats, couple of bow feats and quickdraw, he would have opened the PH1 and said "fuck this shit, we don't switch" along with the others.
>>
>>60335558
And in 4e you can build archer warlords and they play like nothing in 3.PF.

Different games not having all the builds available from each other shouldn't be a fucking problem.
>>
>>60335597
>If a player of mine made a character with charge feats, couple of bow feats and quickdraw, he would have opened the PH1 and said "fuck this shit, we don't switch" along with the others.

Wow, charge and bow? It's almost like A FUCKING RANGER.
>>
>>60335584
>No shit, that’s because the ranger is intended to fight with a bow.
You are arbitrarily restricting the range of weapons the warriors use because the 4ed designers were too lazy to write a flexible power system.
This is the greatest failure of your shitty game.
>We’ve had this same go around several times today.
None of you have a convincing argument and you just got mad because I stated something obvious. Even after one of you retard pointed out that IT WAS obvious.
>>
>>60335603
>Different games not having all the builds available from each other shouldn't be a fucking problem.
Yeah but I am not forced to switch. Many didn't and the game failed.
I listed this as an explanation (asked in the OP) and the sperging started.
>>60335621
>Wow, charge and bow? It's almost like A FUCKING RANGER.
Can the ranger use tower shields to gain cover? Use full plate?
>>
At the end, none of you is able to list a reasonable reason to switch to 4ed.
The game was a failure from ANY standpoint.
>>
>>60335597
>A good fighter in PF/3.5 should be able to use a 2H, a tower shield
>>60335621
>Wow, charge and bow? It's almost like A FUCKING RANGER.
Is being retarded a prerequisite to play 4ed?
>>
>>60335657
>Can the ranger use tower shields to gain cover?

That's not a mechanic in 4e. I don't even remember if tower shields exist. I DO remember a shield utility feat that does something like this tho, so it should be only 2 feats away.

And all shields give +2 to reflex, which is basically equal to quarter cover IIRC.

And tower shields suck in 3.PF too, literally nobody should use them.

>Use full plate?

Sure, costs tow feats IIRC.

>>60335695
No fighter in 3.PF can use a two hander, and a tower shield, and a bow, and have feats left for charging. It's a ridiculous strawman arguement where somehow you pretend that the shittiest class in the 3.x series is somehow this super diverse polytalented ubermensch and not an idiot savant who can do maybe one thing well.
>>
Voting for next thread to be titled “Fighters can’t use bows”
>>
>>60335719
>That's not a mechanic in 4e. I don't even remember if tower shields exist.
Of course. Is a game without the 10 foot pole. Or towershields. Or many, many other things.
>And tower shields suck in 3.PF too, literally nobody should use them.
Total cover as a standard from a defense that is not straped and is easily droppable does not suck at all, you fucking imbecile.
>No fighter in 3.PF can use a two hander,
You need 5 feats to charge in a devastating way (you cannot do before but, one of these is enough for TH use so yeah). Quickdraw, weapon F/spec bows. 6th level.
At 1st you can still use the tower, the damage from a single bow is a threat to monsters even if not composite, and you can take PA and either quickdraw or WF.
"the fighter sucks" is partly because feats scaling is horrible and the "class features" are overrated but you suck utterly. You just cannot discuss the class because you are too stupid to play it.
>>
>>60335793
That is just an example of the obtuse design of 4ed. There is nothing to laugh at, just witness a dead game.
>What killed 4e in your eyes?
you don't write this in the OP of a living game.
>>
>>60335636

Who’s restricting? Nothing stops you from using a bow. What’s everyone’s baffled by is that you expect the fighter to be just as good at using a bow as a ranger. I’ve never heard of anyone who thought that was a problem or even a concern in any edition of D&D, even as an example it’s retarded I’m worried it’ll give me a sympathy stroke.
>>
>>60335597
>A good fighter in PF/3.5 should be able to use a 2H, a tower shield or a bow when the situation needs it.
They can't, though. Tower shields are shit because everything it does is more easily gained from other sources without armor check penalties and an attack penalty that can never be negated while using it, archery is useless as anything other than a backup weapon and often it's not even useful as one, and being good at 2H combat requires more than a couple of feats. A good Fighter in 3.5 isn't some fucking idiot Fighter 20 who stretches themselves thin trying to do 6 different things poorly, it's a Fighter that bails as soon as they have everything they need from Fighter and gets features from other classes/PrCs that make their stable of tricks less situational.
>>
>>60335868

Nah, it’s funny to me, you’re just an autist who can’t admit when they’re btfo.

>m-maybe I’ll call the game dead, that’ll show them.
Yes, walking into a tomb of lichs and calling them dead will surely chastise them.
>>
>>60335934
>What’s everyone’s baffled by is that you expect the fighter to be just as good at using a bow as a ranger.
First and foremost, the way the classes are built makes the use very different. As an example, you don't expect the fighter being a SNIPER as much good. But you see perhaps him fare better on exposed terrain.

Secondly, you cannot simply grab a bow in 4ed and you know it. Stop being dishonest.

Third, I never said better or worse. You can still have the ranger being better because for some arbitrary reasons now rangers are shooting only (which is the other side of this retarded medal). You are just extrapolating bullshit.
>>
>>60335840
>Total cover against nonmagical ranged attacks as a standard
Fixed. It doesn't stop spells for shit. If it did it might be a little better, but even then, saying "I don't do anything with my turn" is pretty worthless.
>>
>>60335988
>Nah, it’s funny to me, you’re just an autist who can’t admit when they’re btfo.
When any of you will bring an actual argument about how classes translated in 4th, I will be BTFO. So far arguments and history prove me right.
>>
>>60335979
>>60336044
Tower shields are rarely used in melee. Is possible, but if it happens is for 1 round mostly. You can prepare the cover as a standard action. Other build could favour positioning + standard prepare in order to decide wether you remain threatening and use shit like Impr trip or standstill.
You can multiclass or use more combos, is the beauty of 3rd. You can decide.
You essentially said
"IN 3rd you are free to stay or change path for different things! AHA THE JOKE'S on you" but you essentially stated why for many switch was pointless.
Thank you for another valid point, anon.
>>
>>60336021

The fighter still wouldn’t be better on open terrain cause the ranger is still a better shot. In the instance a fighter is a better shot than the ranger, the ranger will still be doing more damage because it’s their specialization.

Actually, you can. Nothing stops you buying a bow. There’s not even inherent penalties for using it if you’re not proficient. (Unlike 3.jagoffs) proficiency only adds. Try again scrub.

In this thread alone, several others besides me have pointed out rangers can TWF. Congrats, you’ve trolled, you can cum now. There’s your last you from me.
>>
>>60336021
>You can still have the ranger being better because for some arbitrary reasons now rangers are shooting only (which is the other side of this retarded medal).

They are actually good with basically any weapon setup.

Even when that weapon is "bear".

Some are more optimal than others, of course.
>>
>>60336140
>he fighter still wouldn’t be better on open terrain cause the ranger is still a better shot.
I meant in 3rd you utter retard.
>Actually, you can. Nothing stops you buying a bow. There’s not even inherent penalties for using it if you’re not proficient. (Unlike 3.jagoffs) proficiency only adds. Try again scrub.
The power system makes this pointless. Is like le ebin page 42. Just a meme because a power is always better.
>There’s your last you
Is not that your contribution had some value anyway my friend.
>>
>>60336142
Good to hear I guess. There is something salvageable perhaps in this pile of shit of a game.
>>
>>
>>60336188
I love to argue with you retard 4rries but this makes me melancholic.
William O' Connor was a huge loss.
>>
>>60336181
I like how you brush off knowing shit all about the game you are complaining about with that.

>>60336171
>Just a meme because a power is always better.

Being "better" doesn't mean that it's not worth doing the "not better" thing. Like, encounters and dailies are better than at-wills, but you still do them. By the same token, if you want your fighter to do a ranged attack, he can grab a bow, and the worst he's losing out on with a RBA compared to an at-will basic attack is pushing someone a bit away.
>>
>>60336257
>I like how you brush off knowing shit all about the game you are complaining about with that.
It does not matter because I am not trying to convince you bunch of idiots that 4ed is shit (albeit I think it and I am not shy to say it).
I am trying to explain why people dropped.
If the design team has been slightly less retarded with the design of the Ranger does not mean that a serie of bad decisions did not result in a loss of customers.
Is the point I made above but it was treated a s a sacrilege.
>>
>>60336312
We have already conceded your point that 3.5 players are whiny bitches. You just keep arguing that their whining is justified, when it is not.
>>
>>60336257
>By the same token, if you want your fighter to do a ranged attack, he can grab a bow, and the worst he's losing out on with a RBA compared to an at-will basic attack is pushing someone a bit away.
In 3rd, a fighter with no weapon spec in bows but with decent strenght can still crit adding a remarkable damage. Even if such crit does or cannot happen, the damage dealt is way more significant due to how HP in 3rd work compared to 4th.
>>
>>60336121
>You can prepare the cover as a standard action.
When's the last time you've been threatened by archers in 3.X? Because that's what you're stopping with this and at the cost of being hard countered by anyone with Grease. Hide Shields let you do this with a -3 ACP and are still bad because of the opportunity cost.
>>
>>60336340
I suppose you think this is some kind of clever comeback.
Was I right? One must be necessarily brain damaged to love this game?
>>
>>60336348
>the damage dealt is way more significant due to how HP in 3rd work compared to 4th.
No, archery without any feats sunk into it does less relative DPR than basic attacks in 4E do.
>>
>>60336348
>In 3rd, a fighter with no weapon spec in bows but with decent strenght can still crit adding a remarkable damage. Even if such crit does or cannot happen, the damage dealt is way more significant due to how HP in 3rd work compared to 4th.

I'm not sure this is true, but if it is, then the same is true for everyone, because of the changes to how HP works between editions are universal.
>>
File: 4e7.jpg (158 KB, 794x864)
158 KB
158 KB JPG
>>60336246
He was.
>>
>>60336357
Wow, strategies have counters! So every enemy has grease? Because we were discussing the PC using such strategy.
Also, is this another episode of "4rries cannot into spell rules"? Because is a 10 foot cube or a single object so I seriously hope you were not talking about spread NPC archers.
>>60336400
>No, archery without any feats sunk into it does less relative DPR
good thing PF added deadly aim! And anyway you can add damage with composites, enchant the bow, have it buffed if there is time, use special arrows and so on. The game allows to be creative, is no "point and click" like 4th edition is.
>>
>>60336451
>good thing PF added deadly aim! And anyway you can add damage with composites, enchant the bow, have it buffed if there is time, use special arrows and so on.

These literally all exist in 4e.

What the fuck anon.
>>
File: tomb.jpg (74 KB, 720x489)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
>>60336448
Ah fuck. This is my favourite.
>>
>>60335675
The system is far more balanced and harder to break than in almost any other modern iteration of D&D or Pathfinder.
The defenses are targetable and on the attacker to hit, not the defender to save from.
Contrary to the memes no two classes or builds play so similar as to make things feel overly redundant.
Every character has a well of healing to draw on which allows the classes that used to simply be healbots to focus on other things in combat, either debuffing enemies or buffing allies ehile still having a small well of healing power just in case.
Enemies being better typed and detailed means no having to flip through 3+ books to ensure you know their immunities, strengths, spells etc. and are easy to stat up on the fly making DMing easier than ever.
Rules in core for ridiculously high level play rather than having to homebrew or wait for yet another book detailing it.
Finally, the game finally manages to make high fantasy truly high fantasy while not crippling enemies, allies and others.
>>
File: feels.jpg (141 KB, 1017x1018)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
With daughter.
Too sad to troll now.
See you later.
>>
This one’s one of my faves.
>>
>gets BTFO
>hides behind a pic of a beloved artist with a baby

Wow. This must be a new low.
>>
>>60336544
I can continue if you wish.
But I genuinely liked O' Connor and I feel bad for him and the daughter.
The fact that you thought what you wrote means you are the same kind of low-life that could do that.

None of you BTFO anyone. You are just all too retarded to do that.
I mean loo at this guy
>>60336461
Trying to convince me that the damage and criticals (AHAHAHA) is the same.
Or this phenomenon >>60336513
late to the party and completely misunderstanding what the point is about. Look at this shit.
>Enemies being better typed and detailed means no having to flip through 3+ books to ensure you know their immunities, strengths, spells etc. and are easy to stat up on the fly making DMing easier than ever.
I hate the lack of spell likes in outsiders and fey as an example. This is presented as an objective plus for me was one of the many "these monsters suck".
>>
>>60336535
Is this O'Connor? It feels different
>The system is far more balanced and harder to break than in almost any other modern iteration of D&D or Pathfinder.
translation: is boring as fuck and the combat is predictable.
>The defenses are targetable and on the attacker to hit, not the defender to save from.
huge mistake. throwing saves is fun. this aspect of the design misunderstood a fundamental human interaction at the table.
>Rules in core for ridiculously high level play rather than having to homebrew or wait for yet another book detailing it.
The levels, by admission of the designers, are the 3.5 "sweet spot" stretched, with the resulting ability to influence the world crippled.
These are not high levels are just big numbers.
>>
>>60336636
>I hate the lack of spell likes in outsiders and fey as an example. This is presented as an objective plus for me was one of the many "these monsters suck".

I'm so fucking happy you hate 4e. It's like all my negative views on the people not liking the game are being justified.
>>
I could go on hours. You are entrapped in your mantras and in a circlejerk.
Abandon these illusion anon. I am here to free you.
>>
File: delve.jpg (143 KB, 720x649)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
One of my favs
>>
>>60336689
>I'm so fucking happy you hate 4e.
Smartass, my initial point was that I am not alone and this added to the people that said "fuck it".
Paizo, retarded as they are, is going to do the same now for PF2.
God forbid devils and fairies have some magic, amrite?
>>
File: Will.jpg (83 KB, 701x1000)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>60336702
>>
>>60336636
>I hate the lack of spell likes in outsiders and fey as an example. This is presented as an objective plus for me was one of the many "these monsters suck".
I hate when an enemy has a spell list because unless it's something easy like magic missile it usually slows the game diwn as we open the book, search the spells, read it up, then learn it's useless in that moment, powerful, or something else entirely. Having all of the actions spelled out in the blurb speeds things up.
>>
>>60336710
>God forbid devils and fairies have some magic, amrite?

God forbid you let the DM make up the miscellaneous shit instead of handing every single monster a fucking laundry list.

You have 0 fucking imagination or creativity in you, and want to have the book tell you everything even when the details are useless, because your autistic ass can't function otherwise.
>>
>>60336702
>>60336732
He had always something.. ethereal.
Only Rebecca Guay and few others can do something similar.
>>
>>60336736
>I hate when an enemy has a spell list
you don't have to use all of them at once. Is great for repeated encounters and make the monster "last" long in the campaign and gives more surprises.

>>60336758
>You have 0 fucking imagination or creativity in you, and want to have the book tell you everything even when the details are useless, because your autistic ass can't function otherwise.
No I want to have them because if I pay a MM I don't have to do the designer's job and adjudicate the spell level in base fo the CR etc.
>j-just homebrew
wow, nice argument you utter and drooling retard
>>
>>60336636
Are you italian?
>>
>>60336786
The designer did do its job you fucking imbecile.

What you are complaining about is fae lords not having "fart rainbows" tier of pointless spells that any DM will just handwave anyway.
>>
New thread when? I'm getting tired of this.
>>
>>60336636
You spent an entire day telling people to stop liking things you don't like.
Do you consider it an accomplishment?
Are you proud of yourself?
>>
>>60336938

Please
>>
Have a new thread

>>60337833




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.