4e was good because it had design goals and achieved them. If those design goals aren't things you want out of a TTRPG then of course you're not going to enjoy it, but 4e was a good well-balanced tactical grid based high fantasy wargame. a lot of people who played it weren't looking for that, though, which is why it has the reputation that it has.

>>97778542
It was pretty shit in 2007, was a great game by 2009. Essentials sucked as a replacement.

>>97778590
*2008, typo.

>>97778542
Sucks, really.

>>97778542
Aight let me see what I can remember from that time. First of all I wanna say I largely agree with >>97778565 that 4e has goals, met those goals, and is good for it.

In the later 3.5 days you could see them beginning to test subsystems and parts of what would become 4e. The Star Wars d20 system which came out in the late 3.5 days had what amounted to healing surges and bloodied. The Book of Nine Swords aka Book of Weeaboo Fightan' Magic was a preview of more Power Use oriented martial classes. The D&D Miniatures Combat Game and their overall push towards use of minis and grids presaged 4e, etc.

Basically what happened is that 4e was an attempt to fix every perceived problem with 3e. But sometimes you forget that things you may perceive as problems are in fact what gives something its character.

>Problem: "Why does the wizard get a whole suite of spells to use while the fighter just runs in and hits stuff?"
Solution: OK now your fighter has a half dozen special attacks, which use the same underlying system as the wizard's spells. Some of these are powerful and can't be used repeatedly. Some of these are niche fillers for special situations.

You can see what they were going for, but the immediate response was
>They changed it, now it sucks!
and that is in part because in order to solve a lot of the "problems" with 3.x they introduced new problems which they hadn't foreseen. Like how now, wizards and fighters worked off the same underlying rules for spells and powers, so "magic" didn't feel like it was "magic" and simultaneously "swinging a sword real good" became a power with a cooldown. A lot of the new systems in 4e were more open about the fact they wre a game, and people hated that. We called it WoW Edition, because once the fighter clicks Bladestorm he can't do it again until he has a nice cup of tea and a sit down.

>>97779793
I was one of the people who said
>They changed it, now it sucks!
but I have since come around to 4e *in the right circumstances*

Part of the problem is that people use D&D as a generic system when it really isn't one. Both 3e and 5e are better as generic systems than 4e, so anyone who was running a game that isn't REALLY what D&D is suited for, was immediately shit out of luck. It was a lot harder to refluff and rearrange 4e because its systems work together for a specific end - somewhat balanced high-fantasy high-power combat with weird shit and defined roles.

At the same time, 4e was a lot more on-rails. There was less opportunity to pick weird shit out of a bunch of books and feel creative. Partly that was because as a new system it didn't HAVE all those extra books yet and partly that was because the system is a lot more on-rails with your "builds" than 3e was.

Another issue 4e had, but one that I think gets overhyped nowadays, is that it was ACTUALLY built for digital play to some extent but the digital implementation never happened. They put all their eggs in one basket, the single programmer who was making their digital tabletop system's internal gubbins murder-suicided himself and his family and they never got his code to work without him. However, this was 2007 and I do not think the digital tabletop would ever have worked WELL. Look at today - hasbro have yet to make a good digital tabletop, and most digital tabletop even for more crunchy RPGs still need you to just know what to do rather than automagically following all the rules for you. A digital 4e tabletop would've been resistant to any homebrew or changes, which would also retroactively make it worse when they fixed abunch of 4e's number problems

and oh yeah that was a real problem

>>97779805
4e had numbers issues. Not like 3e had number issues. When 3e had number issues they were limited to a single part of the game. The Tome of Magic Truenamer class was infamously busted because they tried to base the whole spell system for that class on the skill system. Great idea but terrible execution, like Final Fantasy 2's level-less advancement system. I'm glad someone did it and fucked it up so we could see what not to do next time.

So 4e was the first edition where they sat down and said "numbers should work like this" on a large scale, rather than individually for parts of the system. 3.x had numbers being controlled in some places - like the BAB and save growth for each class being on one of a few tracks - but the way 3e let you multiclass meant characters were ALL OVER THE PLACE. 4e put all the numbers on rails and said "Your stat growth is based on your overall level, not your level within an individual class, because you do not actually change class when you multiclass". And with that control over the numbers they put a lot more care into making sure monster statblocks were more coherently scaled with level and monster role...

and they got the scaling all wrong. The playerbase worked this out and when the 4e Monster Manual 3 came out they fixed the monster scaling, such that things weren't quite so HP Sponge-y, and the players crafted unofficial How 2 Fix It guides for updating old monster statblocks to MM3 standard.

That's how I remember it. 4e came out and it was wildly different, when we were all used to 3rd ed making new stuff happen within the 3.x framework. 3.x had experimented hard with weird classes, new stuff, books like the 9 swords, tome of magic, magic of incarnum. 4e threw it all out and said "we vidya now" and people hated it.

>>97778565
>high fantasy wargame
4e D&D is a fucking terrible war game.
Thing is that 4e wasn't setting out to be a war game. It was setting out to be a combat-heavy roleplaying game. It was setting out to be dungeons and dragons.

And if you want to engage with the core concept of Dungeons and Dragons, that you are heroes fighting monsters? 4th edition is fucking great at it.

You are correct though. 4th edition makes it really clear - you need to play it on a grid. However, every edition of D&D is OBJECTIVELY better when you play it on a grid so this shouldn't be a problem.

>>97778542
It's fantastic to do what it was designed for, but it's pretty rigid in that if you try to use it to do something else you are going to have a bad time. Unfortunately Dnd 3.5 and 5th always had the undeserved reputation of "do everything systems" in that people used them to so things they weren't designed for. DnD 4e completely removed this pretence, and the disconnect caused a gigantic backlash.

If you enjoy crunchy tactical games where your heroes fight monsters with a balanced system, defined roles and need to collaborate and combo with each others it's a fantastic system. I wouldn't use it for anything else however.

>>97779849
Is combat heaviness REALLY D&D? the original editions of the game were deadly, and players would be rewarded for ingenuity, leveling up from the loot rather than the killing of monsters. I would argue 4e is more of what D&D should not be striving to be, superheroes with powerful native abilities not afforded through magic items.

>>97779822
Not OP, but thanks.

>>97780412
>Is combat heaviness REALLY D&D
Yes. Like 60% of the rules are for combat.

>>97780412
All classes are combat capable and more then three quarters of all classes' abilities are devoted to killing things, some having even more or literally nothing that is not combat focused.

>>97780495
>>97780506
Yeah the later editions, I was talking about the game's roots.

>>97780569
That is also true of the game's roots.

>>97780569
AD&D is 95% dungeon delving. All characters' skillsets are based around combat or combat-adjacent things like healing, disarming traps or stealth.

>>97778542
I have a load of 4e books moldering in my back room, since it was the first rpg I ever bought.

Basically, it's shit.
Takes too long to do anything, and doesn't even really resemble Dungeons and Dragons, for good OR ill.

And that includes after they rebalanced the creatures in MM2.

>>97778542
Basically this >>97778565
4e leaned hard into 'go into dungeon and fight a bunch of monsters', and largely does a good job of that. But a lot of people don't use grids, only want to have one combat encounter per day, or otherwise dislike that, and so 4e simply isn't the game for them.

One other factor I'd add is that if you have players who are unfamiliar with the system or are the sort who struggle with basic math, the combat can become incredibly slow. A lot of complaints stem from the fact that there isn't a dumbed-down tutorial class that just gets to roll to attack every round.
In my experience, you do need players who are familiar with their character's abilities and paying attention during other people's turns in order to run combat at a reasonable pace. Even then I still wouldn't describe it as fast combat, but it suffers the most if you have players who aren't on board.

4e was very... gamist? Why does your character have all these abilities? Because it is a game. Why do your abilities churn ever upward in power and you literally lose access to the weaker ones? Because it is a game. And because it is a game, the list of abilities that everyone has are roughly equivalent (not always balanced the best, but that was the intent) ones. Why does the fighter only get to do that cool move once a day? Well why does the wizard only get to do that cool spell once a day? Because those two things are the same kind of ability and only get used once per day, silly.
This rubbed a lot of people the wrong way on a conceptual level. Didn't matter if it was implemented well or not, it's an entirely different presentation from previous editions.

>>97780588
>combat-adjacent things like healing, disarming traps or stealth
uhhhh

>>97780938
Why would you want to heal? Because you just had combat.

Why would you want to stealth? To avoid combat.

Why would you want to disarm traps? To avoid damage that will make you fight worse.

All of those things are combat adjacent. Nobody was running AD&D campaigns RPing as the Red Cross providing healing to villages afflicted by disease. They had healing to recover from fights.

>>97778542
Just don't lump it in with D&D and it's an okay system for autistic MMORPG feels mixed with a hyper-condensed wargaming angle, think Kill Team

>>97778542
I've only played 5e but that 4e comic that gets posted here sometimes is great.

>>97781310
>Why would you want to heal?
because you are damaged, many ways for that to happen
>Why would you want to stealth? To avoid combat.
yeah, reread what you said as many times as you need, anon
>Why would you want to disarm traps? To avoid damage
that you would need to heal from, yes, traps
>combat adjacent
taking a piss is combat adjacent

>>97782334
The one great thing about 4e, and it got unceremoniously canned.

>>97782356
>because you are damaged, many ways for that to happen
95% of the time this will be combat. harmful weather and traps (which are combat adjacent) are basically the only other things that will harm adventurers. nobody is simulating tripping and spraining your ankle in everyday life.
>yeah, reread what you said as many times as you need, anon
"avoiding combat" is in fact combat adjacent. Stealth is an ability that exists entirely to bypass combat encounters. In a campaign with no need to avoid a combat encounter, there is no need for stealth.
>that you would need to heal from, yes, traps
traps are made to aid combat, to soften up enemies or kill them outright. They are a weapon; a form of corraling or inflicting damage on intruders so your forces can deal with them most effectively or just get rid of them

>>97778542
A bit too gamist, the revised monster math fixed a lot of its initial problems (too little damage across the board). I think minions could've been handled better, say by giving them collective HP as a group or having an HP value and dropping to 1 if they don't get one-shotted.

At the same time its presentation, consistency, and clarity in the rules is unparalleled, and should've set the standard for TTRPGs going forward. Anyone who compares it to a videogame has no fucking idea what they're talking about. If it's so much like a videogame, where's the rules-accurate 4e videogame?

>>97782500
>95% of the time this will be combat
Not in old editions of D&D, combat is notoriously lethal for players. Experience is earned from treasure. Having to get out of a dungeon treasure in hand without dying is a balance act.
>"avoiding combat" is in fact combat adjacent
so is taking a piss >>97781710
>traps are made to aid combat
There's a few things to note about old D&D. Combat is deadly, it's preferable to avoid it. Things like traps can damage a valuable resource, health. Whether engaging in combat or not, having low health is a risk, and risk gets in the way of the true goal, to leave with treasure.

>>97782531
>If it's so much like a videogame, where's the rules-accurate 4e videogame?
There was a murder suicide.

>>97782558
NTA, but it was a war game hacked to find treasure in a diminishing resources game to get better war game stats. Yes, it was pretty much all about combat. The prostitutes table didn't get anywhere near the space that combat matrices, weapons, and armor did, and you carried holy water around as a replacement for grenades, not for religious ceremonies. Acid isn't there for alchemy, but to also be ammunition, especially against trolls and other regenerating monsters.

War Game Supplement is gonna War Game.

>>97782688
Are you familiar with AD&D ?

>>97782558
Do you find that every AD&D party consists of nothing but magic-users and thieves? Since combat is so rare and all.

>>97782688
>>97782777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdH1Hp3ueck?t=359

>Fourth edition, this one right here is probably one of the best miniature tactical combat games ever made. Uh, the problem is, uh, you know, D&D is more than just tactical combat, uh, to chagrin of the combat fans, but uh, this is a really really good edition of Dungeons and Dragons, uh, if it wasn't Dungeons and Dragons.

This about sums it up. Uh's and all.

>>97782441
fuck I forgot about Fell's Five
yeah, we agreed that thing was great even when we were in full on "dunk on 4e, call its players 4rries" mode

>>97778542
It wasn't bad. It just wasn't for me.

>>97778542
It was a perfectly serviceable system that made the mistake of having D&D on the name and coming off the heels of 3.5. If it had been called 'Dungeon Invader' or something like that nobody wouldve had an issue with it

File: 4ecover.jpg (6 KB, 259x26)

6 KB JPG

>>97778565
>good because it had design goals and achieved them
A pity no one informed the graphic designers that
>4e was a good well-balanced tactical grid based high fantasy wargame
because the cover shows they clearly had different goals to making a wargame

>>97778542
Analog video game that contrarians pretend was good because it was unpopular but don't actually play.

>>97778542
My understanding is it would've been a better videogame than ttrpg

>>97778542
Give it a try, anon!
Just remember to cut MM1 monster's health by half

>>97782531
Isn't D&D Online 4e-based?

File: 1613055678105.png (558 KB, 634x630)

558 KB PNG

>>97780412
At my table where I play GAMES, we are very combat focused because none of us are faggy theater kids trying to be shitty actors at a community play. We want to play a game with rules, we don't want to engage in group storytelling bullshit

>>97786370
DDO is 3.5, Neverwinter is 4e.

I loved it. 1 and 4 are my favorite editions

4e was fantastic for certain groups. Especially because it stated outright that these books are for the combat stuff, the RP side is up to how you want to play. You don't need us to tell you how to write a story you dumb shits, that's the GMs job. The default world setting is also my favorite one from any edition, and Points of Light is fun.

That all said, the best thing about 4e came after it ended. 4e abilities are the best way to make benefits, magic items, rewards, and other such things for 5e games. Giving 5e characters a level of a 4e character as a reward for completing major quests feels awesome as a player.

4E is my favourite D&D edition next to BECMI *. I like a lot of the ideas it had going, and wished it had gone further with them.
I would have prefered they had called Powers something like Techniques and the Power Sources would have been Themes (Now what should the 4E Themes be called then?).
Putting all the class powers right after the class was a mistake IMO. It would have been better if that had come in a separate chapter.


*(I really should write down all the rule ideas I have in my head for that 4E X BECMI mix)

4e tried to get rid of caster supremacy and for that alone, it should be lauded.

And this is coming from someone who's fave class is wizzy. I love my wizards but I hate obviating 3 class roles at the table. I just made the rogue, fighter and bard useless, oh yaaay. Yay. This is so fun, guys. No, it really is.

>>97787738
I always get the impression WotC shouldn't have completely abandoned 4e, and should have just made a sideline of tactical skirmish games using the system. Call it D&D Tactics

>>97789061
There was something similar for it but it was 3.x. I think it was Chainmail? It was ok. It's had a little push for about two years, maybe three, I forget, but i don't think it sold well. I still have some of the minis

>>97789101
The Miniatures Handbook had some good stuff for 3.5

>>97789310
I think I have that! It's been in storage so long that I have forgot what I have and don't have. Kinda sad really.

Combat is the only thing that really needs dedicated and balanced rules in the end, as well as abilities that change how you engage with or bypass combat. All of the "broken" spells in 3rd and 5th are the ones that can just end a fight outright, because that's the only balance that genuinely matters in the end. All you need for social encounters is a set of guidelines for rolls and a GM who's interacted with a human being besides his parents frequently.

If you need your hand held to play-act out the roleplay with your friends you're the exact kind of blithering retard that 5e was made for.

>>97787607
>Giving 5e characters a level of a 4e character as a reward for completing major quests feels awesome as a player.

Huh?

>>97791659
Exactly what I said. Home brew world but essentially magic is just breaking back into the setting. When the players finish a big feat like save the mayor or plunge a tomb they find a magic mcguffin that let's them take a level in a 4e class. So they would be a Level 4 Fighter in 5th, and have say, 2 levels of 4e warlord. They are still level 4 for game purposes, but now they have genuine power along with it.

>>97789310
War Hulk is such a cool class, it always annoyed me how a massive monster could only hit one target at a time.

File: 4c59d8f3ea25460e1cc20d472(...).jpg (94 KB, 1000x1000)

94 KB JPG

I have been running and playing 4e since 2008. I ran a session of 4e last week and will be doing so again soon.

One thing I really like about 4e is the ability to challenge tactically savvy players with enemy group synergies.

For example, let us consider an encounter against a group of xivort darters (level 1 artilleries) who have tamed a bunch of thornskin frogs (level 1 brutes) and wolf packmates (level 1 minion skirmishers).

http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster5029
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster4879
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster4614

The xivort darters can daze PCs, which is annoying enough. However, the thornskin frogs can move in to deal heavy damage and knock PCs prone. Standing from prone takes a move action, and a dazed creature can take only one action on their turn, so a dazed PC who wants to use a standard action will have to settle for staying prone. Unfortunately, the wolf packmates can then move in to deal extra damage to the prone PCs. Simple but nasty enemy synergy.

How about a positioning challenge for PCs of a slightly higher level? Let us say a couple of centurions of the Iron Circle (level 6 soldiers) have rounded up several dwarf warriors (level 1 minion artilleries) and a couple of extremist wilden ancients (level 4 artilleries [leader]) to stir up trouble.

http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster6025
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster115713
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster5027

The Iron Circle centurions are highly accurate against PCs with no other adjacent PCs... but if the PCs cluster up, then they might just be smacked by nasty area attacks from the wilden ancients, who can also buff the centurions. Worse, the dwarf warriors are many in number, and any PC not in cover is liable to be pincushioned by the extra damage from the crossbow attacks.

I like how 4e is a 30-level game, yet even lower-level encounters can have a surprising amount of tactical depth just with some good enemy selection, to say nothing of terrain.

>>97778565
>4e was good
Liar liar pants on fire.

>>97778542
It's a non-RPG that's mechanically shallow and narratively nonsensical. It could have made a cool boardgame in the style of Descent or Imperial Assault except with build-your-own-hero customization, but it was made by actual retards for an audience that never existed, so the entire effort was wasted.

It also insisted on irrevocably fucking up multiple settings in order to insert itself, which just makes it worse.

>>97780495
>le 60% of rules are combat xD
This was always a retarded argument. This is because combat requires and can handle structured arbitration, which is simply not true for most other things. It is and never was indicative of intent or the nature of anything.

File: 2c393b8e29810cf767685b75e(...).jpg (992 KB, 1843x2048)

992 KB JPG

I am a great fan of the D&D 4e fighter due to it having actual crowd control and defender-type abilities. Here is a sample turn for a 4e fighter at level 7:

• Minor Action: Activate Rain of Steel, acquiring an automatic damage stance until the end of the encounter. 1[W] is the weapon's base damage, plus any enhancement bonus from a magic weapon, and other miscellaneous bonuses.
https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power1436

• Move Action Minor Action: Use Kirre's Roar, marking each enemy within 3 squares and gaining Dexterity modifier as resistance to all damage until the end of the fighter's next turn.
https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power12850
https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=glossary139

• Standard Action: Charge an enemy, with greater accuracy than normal thanks to Fighter Weapon Talent, marking that enemy with Combat Challenge.
https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=glossary139

• Action Point, Standard Action: Come and Get It, pulling enemies within 3 squares, dealing damage to them, and marking them with Combat Challenge as well.
https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=glossary177
https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power2177

• The fighter now has damage resistance, several enemies marked, and a whole cluster of enemies adjacent. Rain of Steel deals automatic damage to those enemies, they have a hard time moving away due to Combat Superiority and the fighter's Agile Superiority feat (opportunity actions in 4e are 1/turn, not 1/round, and are completely separate from immediate actions), and even shifting away will trigger an immediate interrupt melee basic attack from the fighter's Combat Challenge. Similarly, if one of those enemies tries to attack one of the fighter's allies, Combat Challenge will likewise go off and give the fighter an immediate interrupt melee basic attack against that foe.
https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=class3
https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=feat1733
https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=glossary119
https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=glossary335

This is what a 4e fighter can do at level 7, and this is a 30-level game.

>>97792158
I find a lot of things borrowed from 4e and brought into 5e works wonders. Like minions and the bloodied condition.

>>97778565
>and achieved them
4e didn't have a functional monster manual for years, and skill challenges were redesigned 3 times before the design team just gave up.

>>97793394
>4e didn't have a functional monster manual for years
3aboo agitiprop. It had a functioning MM outside of Brutes being HP sponges at Paragon level. You don't wanna try to cheerleader effect thst with the shit in 3.5 or 5e.

>>97780794
>4e leaned hard into 'go into dungeon and fight a bunch of monsters'
Nah. It leaned into "go into an arena with a dungeon backdrop and fight three pro wrestling matches with a mostly predetermined outcome".

>>97794814
That literally is just D&D.

>>97794819
it isn't

>>97794814
Skill issue on your part

>>97795187
The kayfabe thing is in fact a proeminent aspect of the D&D social contract. If the fight wasn't winnable or resolvable in some way then it shouldn't be here.

>>97792390
All games need structure
If you're just talking out random shit without rules you arent playing a roleplaying GAME, you're just doing improv.

>>97796283
It was important to the story for the villain to flee, get over it.

>>97780412
Ironically, 4e was still pretty deadly. We had more party wipes in 4e than 3.PF mainly because 3.PF had busted spellcaster classes where unless you were intentionally crippling yourself, the only way you were ever losing is if the GM basically decided "fuck it, you all die no save." Even widely touted "caster counters" usually had some way of bypassing or ignoring it. Though it was pretty worth it for the time the GM got mad that were made a spellcaster party again and sicced a bunch of golems on us. We just dropped a few Grease patches and walked away because none of them could beat the Grease DC.

>>97780922
I immediately wrote this game off the second I heard some 4rry say "I cast Melee Basic Attack." I've never wanted to strangle someone so badly in my fucking life.

>>97796545
As opposed to us hearing "I cast Whine About Shit That Never Happened On /tg/"?

>>97796559
Someone theoretically could've said they were going to use a Melee Basic attack that way. Why this would be grounds for strangulation, I couldn't tell you, I don't play 3.5 anymore.

>>97796283
But what about all those megadungeons with traps that just fucking kill you no save that the OSRfags jerk it to?

>>97778565
Some goals are inherently, objectively bad, and some people have better taste than others.

>>97779793
Why should there be an arbitrary division between using magic to deal damage and using a sword to deal damage? Or any other power source?

>>97780922
oh no, the game is gamist! not game mechanics in my fucking game! I might have to make decisions that actually affect things!

>>97782718
Are you?

>>97787014
Try diablo, loser.

>>97788986
What's wrong with that? Those classes are just for hazing the new guys anyway. Since there are only wizards, clerics, and druids in the party, it doesn't matter if the other classes are irrelevant.

>>97792390
Yes it is.

>>97796283
Why are we playing if we can't lose?

>>97797095
That Guy detected.

>>97797126
It's does when my friends are playing the classes I'm eliminating the need for.

File: macho-maam-tranny-savage.png (1.36 MB, 1009x757)

1.36 MB PNG

>>97797123
You're a gay faggot and will never be a woman

>>97796545
If that's your breaking point you've lived a genuinely sheltered life. I genuinely wish hardship upon you.

>>97778542
I like the Essentials

>>97796501
>if the fight wasn't winnable or resolvable in some way
sounds like it got resolved

>>97789061
My opinion has always been that around 4E there should have been 2 version of D&D: Basic D&D (the 4 we knew, or simplified a bit) and a new version of Advanced D&D (I imagine a more well balanced and designed 3'rd edition).

>>97799825
I figured there would be Basic, (like 5e) Advanced (like 5.5e) and Legacy (3.5e) so they could continue to profit off what exists while striving forward.

>>97778542
I like it because its less vibes based. But I'm not really the audience for rpgs because that freeform stuff really annoys me. I like rigid rules

>>97797168
Ironic.

>>97797197
Like I said, you don't let your friends play the fake classes.

>>97800471
Tiresome rhetoric.

>>97800471
How about not having fake classes? If you want to haze the new guys just haze them like a normal person. Why dedicate 1/3rd of the book to intentionally shit content?

>>97800688
Critical thinking isn't in his wheelhouse obvs

>>97800471
They're all fake classes faggot do you think wizards are real?

>>97800799
>>97800688
>>97800638
Clueless.

>>97800925
Do you think wizards are real?

>>97800925
>Doubles down on being a moron
Classic

>>97800948
I do think wizards are real

>>97800948
>>97801271
Clueless.

>>97801377
>Triples down on being a moron
Now you're just handing me Ws

File: dwarf fighter.png (651 KB, 860x780)

651 KB PNG

>>97778542
>What does /tg/ think of the system?
It is actually my favorite edition of D&D. It is also very obvious it was the only edition where actual deep design concepting was used while all of the other editions are slapdash "I dunno, uh, do this?" levels of BS for a lot of it.