*glug, glug, glug*
That's the sound of me using my whole turn to drink the entire decanter of my prepared 'Don't Give a Fuck(™)' potion.

Didn't read and you're gay. Retard.

>>98518302
I thought you were just drinking semen
like usual

>>98518302
Gave a fuck to not only reply but include the TM character

Don't care and you're both gay and I bet you think this post is about you.

boy am i glad I ain't those two anons

>>98518425
Nah semen is more of a
gulp, gulp, gulp
unless it's really watery and gross, in which case jack off less and let your sperm count recover.

I hate how many of these things I have, I cannot even give them away.

>>98518559
Wow, you sure do think about cum a lot. I can give you plenty, and if you're a cute enough twink, it won't matter how much I've jerked off; I'll still shoot thick ropes down your throat.

>>98519323
>twink
Fuck off faggot. I can source cum from people who aren't into feminine penises just fine.

>>98519423
I'm impressed that, of all things, was your takeaway from my post.

File: demo drink.png (355 KB, 531x429)

355 KB PNG

>4e thread immediately pivots to gay ERP
Ironically this is the most classically /tg/ thread in years.

>>98517988
>if you aren't running Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller then you are actively playing the game wrong and are getting punished for it
did we play the same game?
if you play that comp you get 4 hour combats
striker/striker/striker/leader, maybe replace one of the strikers with one of the other 2 roles if the gm is hardcore into varied encounters (he won't keep it up for more than a couple sessions at a time, that's hard shit to keep doing)

>>98517988
>Warlord is a kino class
Already done by AD&D in a way that doesn't violate how time works, I believe that Warlord was added to suppress any requests for fighters to actually be leaders by just saying "Well here's a nonmagical leader class, all it does is move people around in combat and buff them, it has nothing to do with having your own recruits and followers, which we have also forbidden".

>Fighters can actually stop attacks
Already done by Arduin in a less videogamey way (BF, the AC and to-hit equivalent, increases by level and fighters gain it the fastest, but the mechanics make it not the only important combat attribute)

>Dragonborn is a PHB race
Dragonborns were an attempt to remove the issue of unequal crossbreeding (and somewhat sex in general) which half-dragons (and half-demons below) created, and it makes very little sense that a dragon humanoid and a regular humanoid should be equal in power.

>Tieflings were edgy punks instead of cosmopolitan Californians
This is a holdover from AD&D and 3.x, not an innovation, and 4e standardized the aesthetic of tieflings into not-Draenei rather than making them alien and grotesque like they were before. Even FATAL has a more original half-demon race. And alu-fiends/cambions were better because not only were they more original than Tieflings, they were sexually dimorphic and had a less contrived reason to exist (I'm not saying this in a gooner way, I would also be happy with the male half-demon race being seductive and the female one being monstrous, and I'm straight, but both of those would be an even bigger taboo nowadays for different reasons)

>is fun if you have the time to play physical Fire Emblem
Simulationist systems are also fun if you have the time to play them, yet this is exclusively used as an argument against them. At least we agree that 4e is more of a JRPG than a MMO, although this was on accident since it was meant to be a MMO.

>>98520717
.

I don't think we should ever talk about 4e ever again.

>>98517988
Instead of wasting time hating something you'll never play, why not make something you will play?

4e walked so Lancer could run and 5e could run off a cliff in the name of brand identity

>>98517988
>skill challenges
I hate to see this shit coming back in more and more systems. The math was fucked then and imitators fuck the math up even worse.

File: fighters in 3e 4e 5e.png (163 KB, 821x925)

163 KB PNG

>>98521191
I think we should talk about 4e even more!

>>98522090
>4e walked so Lancer could run
directly into the "gender affirmation" surgery clinic

>>98523965
Man I miss the build autism of 3.5 where you can be like 6 multiclasses. 5e is literally Crossbow Master, Great Weapon Master or a fullcaster. Three builds.

>>98524024
Build autism was dumb

I don't care what anyone says. As the groups forever DM I've actually preferred preparing material for a session in 4E over 3.5. The encounters were a lot easier to balance, minions let players with suboptimal build still kick ass as one player could focus on taking them out while others focuses on a standard or elite enemies. None of my players cared that it was more limited because they had gotten tired of having imbalanced parties and 3.5 where it turned into "The adventures of Talos and Urist oh and Sven and Michael came along".

>>98525728
>"The adventures of Talos and Urist oh and Sven and Michael came along"
The Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit, one summons angels the other ride a BMX. Their a crime fighting duo du du du oh yeah.

>>98520717
>doesn't violate how time works
Explain.
>fighter = warlord
Wut.
>Already done by Arduin
Now explain how that works with paladins and ardents.
>it makes very little sense that a dragon humanoid and a regular humanoid should be equal in power
Your bias in flavor of pretend is the problem here, as well as not actually knowing where dragonborn come from.
>4e standardized the aesthetic of tieflings into not-Draenei rather than making them alien and grotesque like they were before
For the people who actually read planescape, you would know this is nonsense. Most tieflings had one (1) strange aspect to them. You only got weird results if you continued rolling on a chart in such a way you never saw with example npcs.
>Simulationist systems are also fun if you have the time to play them, yet this is exclusively used as an argument against them
Because the attempt is doomed to fail.

>>98525937
>Explain.
Pretty common complaint you see about Warlord is "what I can do in 1 turn is supposed to be the physical limit of my character, how the fuck are you giving me more actions and movement just by shouting commands".

Usually from asinine wizardfags whose imagination dies the second they can't use "it's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit" as an excuse/

>>98525937
>fighter = warlord
>Wut.
In pre-WotC D&D Fighters would gain a fief at level 10 which gave them access to manpower to bring on adventures with them.

>>98525960
That imbues them with a heretofore unexplained capacity to motivate others and execute complex field maneuvering from squad to platoon size?
>>98525954
>what I can do in 1 turn is supposed to be the physical limit of my character,
I've never read that in any 4e book, desu.

>>98525975
The game was just different back then, if you could roleplay it effectively the DM would just let you do it, the rules were a lot more fast and loose. Just look at the rules for resolving illusion spells in 2e.

If you're complaining about the way warlord abilities in 4e basically function like magic granting additional actions outside of the initiative order I just don't care. My group plays 4e and we like it. Maybe because I recruit players from my Warhammer club the fact that 4e plays like a war game more so than an traditional RPG is why they prefer it over other editions.

File: 975d5946-5eeb-4d7c-b40e-6(...).png (689 KB, 533x539)

689 KB PNG

>>98519432
Fucking kek

>>98517988
I think it's the nest edition on balance but there's definitely things that benefit from being changed.

For noncombat encounters you do need to DM them the way you would for something like 3.5 or 2nd ed. Abstraction is fine in places but you're absolutely right that it's not the full picture.

I definitely wouldn't run without minis and a board, but I like minis and boards anyway so it works for me.

Striker/Striker/Defender/Leader works just as well. It is limiting, but there's enough classes I've never struggled to get my groups roles down.

>>98521802
Ah, no answer because no games, got it.

>>98526062
I noticed that you also find controllers types useless. Having a second striker is always going to be better than the so-called "board control" abilities controllers get.

>>98526183
Depends on the controller; I've run groups with both setups and they were both fine in a fight. If anything the controller group was scarier. That said, controller does better when the group is more organised and able to abuse things like AoEs. Might have been a better group rather than just the controller doing the heavy lifting.

>>98526041
>If you're complaining about the way warlord abilities in 4e basically function like magic granting additional actions outside of the initiative order
I'm not.
>the fact that 4e plays like original D&D
Yes, it does. The guys around my way who ran it were all old Basic to Advanced grogs.

>>98526078
>>98521802
You didn't contribute anything to the thread and have never played a game in your life.

>>98517988
Easily the best D&D edition, marred by the GSL and 3aboo autistic manbaby rage.

>>98525937
>>doesn't violate how time works
>Explain.
>>fighter = warlord
>Wut.
I realize that when 4rries praise warlord, they don't praise the in-setting concept of a lord who goes to war (which high-level fighters and paladins were), they actually praise the concept of a class that slides allies around, controls their arms to attack faster, and inflicts knockback using fear somehow. I actually think that a commander or trumpeter class would work well in a system with heavy emphasis on morale (the video game Dominions 6 does this well), but his capabilities would be limited to positively modifying morale rolls of his allies and negatively modifying morale rolls of his enemies (and this would indeed be very powerful), rather than actions which violate the expectations of the setting.

>>Already done by Arduin
>Now explain how that works with paladins and ardents.
I'm not sure if this is a shitpost or not since I don't know what you mean by "ardents", but warriors gain 3 to BF per level while paladins gain 2, so paladin isn't just "fighter but with divine magic and better"
(1/2)

>>98525937
(2/2)
>>it makes very little sense that a dragon humanoid and a regular humanoid should be equal in power
>Your bias in flavor of pretend is the problem here, as well as not actually knowing where dragonborn come from.
I know that they underwent the rite of rebirth, and I find it absurd to have a race or class with prior advancement at the same stage as a previous iteration of it, as if there were a squire and knight class which both start at level 1. Since this was 3.5e where player inequality wasn't so much of a sin as it is now, dragonborn were better than humans in most ways except for missing a feat and skill points (which were added for balance reasons), but in later editions where that granularity doesn't exist,

>>4e standardized the aesthetic of tieflings into not-Draenei rather than making them alien and grotesque like they were before
>For the people who actually read planescape, you would know this is nonsense. Most tieflings had one (1) strange aspect to them. You only got weird results if you continued rolling on a chart in such a way you never saw with example npcs.
What I meant by non-Draenei is that tieflings now almost always have an odd skin color AND horns AND a tail (but they aren't ugly or deformed), while previously they might not even be identifiable as fiends at the first glance, and many of the traits that could identify them were random, undesirable, and might need to be concealed, now tieflings can't be weird outcasts.

>>Simulationist systems are also fun if you have the time to play them, yet this is exclusively used as an argument against them
>Because the attempt is doomed to fail.
Not an argument, otherwise D&D would have never been created in the first place. To make an analogy, RPGs now are a dying ember that was pulled from the fire of simRPGs (before throwing water on it) and placed into a cheap copy made of plastic, which burns into fumes that pollute the trees that the wood for the original fire was harvested from.

>>98524014
This
4e (and lancer and pf2) tried to achieve balance by filling the fruitful void in the same way a transgender fills their amhole with a dilator

>>98531630
Violating your autism is not violating the expectations of the setting.

>>98531995
Then do explain how you can make someone take more actions in the same amount of time without magic.

I'll wait

>>98532551
You tell them to hurry up and they obey, duh.

>>98532559
>Be someone in the middle of life or death combat
>Already exerting myself as much as I can
>Some faggot screams unwarranted advice while doing fuck all otherwise
>Somehow that makes everyone go faster rather than being a distraction and a liability

That's why people say 4e is a shitty videogame, this thread belongs on /v/

>>98532687
Maybe because of their unique set of skills, the advice they offered was actually warranted and helped you to be more efficient?

>>98532694
Their shouting could also offer distraction, point out a weak spot to target, boost one's morale and fighting spirit, and more!

>>98532551
Yep, it's autism.

>>98532891
100%, yep. If there had been a technique in 3.5 where someone could give warlord-like advice in combat to make said ally attack there would be ZERO complaint, they would say "badass, proof 3.5 is based, kek" and move on, but since it's 4e...

>>98532923
In 3.5e such thing would require the target of such advice to have some of their action economy left. You want more actions per turn? You get Haste or similar magic.
The way 4es warlord works is pure gamist nonsense

>>98531630
>>98531630
Pure autism. You would accept it completely if the power source was listed as arcane instead of martial. You're being so autistic about a single fucking word we could power a city with it.

>>98532968
>Starting at 4th level, a marshal can direct and motivate his allies to act immediately. Once per day, as a standard action, he may grant an extra move action to any or all of his allies within 30 feet (but not to himself ). Each of the affected allies takes this extra move action immediately, acting in their current initiative order. This extra action does not affect the allies' initiative count; the round continues normally after the marshal's turn is over.

>>98517988
>Dragonborn is a PHB race, Tieflings were edgy punks
Two worst things about 4e

>>98532991
See, this makes perfect logical sense and PROVES 3.5 is the best system because 4e's take on this is just badwrongfun while 3.5 is epicbasedgood.

>>98532991
>Miniatures handbook
Cringe
That's pretty much proto 4e

4e is the one true edition, the only one I need

File: The other replier wasn't me.png (438 KB, 2212x1454)

438 KB PNG

>>98533288
>>98532991
>>98532968
I don't think 3.5e is perfect, I think late 3.5e is actually when the gamism began to set in, 4e was just a continuation of trends that had been already established but in an edition designed for those mechanics rather than a formerly simulationist edition.


>>98532971
I also don't think a haste-based mage would be an interesting class, I don't like time magic in general as a concept and I think that one-sided buffs are boring (I denounce CoDzilla). But what I do think is a good way to implement warlords or commanders is by making combat by default have a significant number of penalties due to morale, flanking, visibility, and coordination (using an alternative initiative system similar to the one in the Arduin grimoire), and making warlords have mechanics to reduce these penalties as well as the ability to recruit loyal henchmen (4rries and 5etards hate the concept of having minions that last for longer than an encounter, and the only minions you can access in 5e are from a magical power source, so you were proven wrong, since I think that recruitment should be primarily nonmagical). Warlords could train for different types of terrain and for combating different types of enemies, and they would provide bonuses against resisting their hax, rather than manipulating time. For example, just fighting undead without a warlord could result in 60% of your units leaving disorganizedly, and fighting dragons could result in everyone below a certain morale score becoming paralyzed in fear. In addition, multi-unit maneuvers like flanking and backstabs would be much easier if a warlord is communicating with the units involved. Players would hate this for the same reason that they hate survival mechanics, even when rangers counter survival mechanics in the same way that my warlord idea does.

See the video game dominions for an example of how warlords could work.

>>98536561
3.5 was gamist from the outset and incoherently simulationist at best. Miniatures Handbook is also one of the earliest 3.5 books.

>>98536561
Dominions is a completely different style and scale of game from D&D 3.5e. Working in something unrelated is not the same as working in a game that would immediately bog down and choke if you tried it.

>>98518302
Apparently you lacked the healing surges for it, as you gave enough of a fuck to reply.

>>98526041
>if you could roleplay it effectively the DM would just let you do it
Kinda off-topic, but the first time I DM'd 4e I didn't understand the point of the balance in the rules, and just let players do unintended shit with AEDU powers. "Yes, you can use repeated ray of frost casts to make an ice path over the lake, but your character is so tired he has to be carried by the team" goes a long way making 4e cooler to play.

Common arguments from 4e hating retards who never played it:
>There is no roleplaying
Between skill challenges, backgrounds, roles, paragon paths, and epic destiny's, this is the most RP focused d20 game.
>It's like a video game/mmo
Classes have roles and do things, just like they always did. They are better defined now and basic responsibilities really baked in, so it's easier to figure out how to play. Concepts were borrowed from MMOs no doubt, but MMOs came from D&D...so its all eating each other anyway.
>Everything is the same
This is referring to power advancement, which is the same as a game like PF2 where everyone gets feats and spells at the same progression. Unlike PF2, your math can be quite varied (there is significant differences between defensive stats) and you can't homogenize and take the same powers/spells/archetypes like in PF2 - even within the same role powers are vastly different. Between the impact of subclasses, feats, how races work, themes, paragon paths, and epic destinies, characters play and are built quite differently from one another.
>It wasn't popular
4e actually did quite well. It was the target of a smear campaign from folks mad at losing revenue, and it suffered from WOTC draconian policies such as making more money than other games at the time but not enough money for what they wanted.

>I don't like that spell casters are not broken as fuck anymore
>The game was intentionally trying to fix shortcomings of 3e, and yes, a wizard making everyone else irrelevant every encounter is a shortcoming.
>I don't like that spell casters don't have utility
All the utility is in rituals, they work great.
>The game is all about combat
Combat has always been a major focus on D&D and represents most of the rulebook in all editions. 4e was no different here but, it did add more for non-combat than any other D&D game before it (and debatable after).

>>98538048
>your math can be quite varied
Probably the most understated truth about 4e. Considering everything but flavor in a TTRPG is just different "maths" the book can give you, 4e gets flak for trying to make these maths balanced within the first few levels, mostly by people who never engaged just how varied the compounding of such maths gets at higher levels.
>it suffered from WOTC draconian policies such as
getting butthurt the VTT devs went postal on themselves and shelving it for a version that doesn't need such infrastrutcture
>muh wizards and combat
exactly, I actually liked it better that rituals were widely available and didn't last 5 secondfs to cast.

>>98536561
>the only minions you can access in 5e are from a magical power source
Hireling costs, including mercenaries, are in the PHB. Same with various animals. Knight background gives you 3 minions (though explicitly non-combat). The only thing you've proven is that you don't know shit.
Nobody uses them because players are retards and combat takes long enough as it is, and they are not worth the effort.

i'd play the shit out of a 4e videogame, I have no idea why they never tried to put one out

>>98517988
Overall, 4e was garbage.
It had about 2 ideas in the pile of crap that should've been expanded upon in 5e, though:
>Distinct roles for monsters.
Monster design generally sucked and the math was sus, but at least it aknowledged that different monsters should have differen combat roles. Minions that can easily be used in large numbers and cleared out easily, more powerful solos and elites, and not everything is just a bag of per-CR-table HP with per-CR-table damage output (I'm looking at you, MMTF). Some are are skirmishers, some are support, some are tough melee brutes or teamwork focused.
>rituals
Separating combat and non-combat magic was a great idea (though hardly new to 4e). Ritual magic isn't part of caster's power budget, non-casters can access it, it has cost and the DM can control it's availability, which helps with worldbuilding. Again, there's a lot of ways rituals could be improved, but 5e's "just take longer to cast a spell and save a slot" is a step backwards.

>>98539156
Neverwinter MMO was inspired by 4e, but things obviously had to work differently in the MMO format.

>>98536755
By "it" (in regards to morale), I mean merging all fear effects into the same morale system, which includes undead fear and dragon fear from AD&D, and which is also triggered when certain mundane combat results occur to you or your allies, and having fighters be able to increase the morale of allies that they command, which does not just prevent fear but also increases the effectiveness of maneuvers like flanking, charging, and feinting, which are all maneuvers that require an action by the person engaging in them, not triggered effects that the warlord makes someone else do. Choice would be offered to the warlord by having the warlord choose what maneuvers to train untrained allies in being extra effective in, as well as choosing what type of morale effect to bolster his allies against, which could be altered over time but requires planning (essentially, you have to talk with your allies for a few minutes before you expect to find the circumstances) to be activated.

>>98532968
No one's stopping you from going over there and playing 3.x so you can play out your Angel Summoner supremacy fantasies, anon. Or even one of the WoD Mage iterations. DaveB and Satyros are just waiting there, fully turgid, ready for you to charge your caster JO crystal with them.

File: dndsupplementthegrogsneed.jpg (180 KB, 640x828)

180 KB JPG

>>98538048
I'll never forget the pearl-clutching complaint of some faggot jew on Green Ronin's forums when 4e came out:

There's no rules for haggling, so you can't haggle.

>>98539156
Atari

>>98538048
Skill challenges are absolutely not RP. They're less RP than combat. Same with character builds.
>classes have roles and do things
What do they do outside of combat? WoW defined roles as combat abilities with cooldowns. Real D&D defined roles as different abilities at all levels of the game.

>>98540153
What role out of combat does a fighter have in 3.5? A barbarian? A monk?

>>98540767
None, as it should be for dumb baby classes

>>98540153
>What do they do outside of combat?
What do you think Skills are for, anon? Or Rituals/Martial Practices? And really, D&D hasn't ever really had much in the way of non-combat or downtime mechanics, so this is just pot calling the kettle black.

>>98539156
Fucked up thing is that you could do 4e in fucking RPGMaker.

>>98540954
This desu.
It'd be an excessive mental load for someone still in training wheels otherwise

>>98532968
>The way 4es warlord works is pure gamist nonsense
The simulationist sissy fears the gamechad and his purity of purpose.

>>98532687
>>98532551
>>98532687

It's a timing/organisation thing. It does kind of work, I've done reenactment and having someone who's got more of a broad overview and can notice things you missed (Because you're dealing eith moment to moment strikes and blocks) suddenly direct you to "Do X, Fucking Now" can be effective. At its most basic thinkof a boxing coach, or just directing someone to hit the guy to their left because they aren't defending properly and you didn't see it.

My 5 cents (adjusted for inflation) is that if I was playing I'd rather play 3.5 but if I was DMing I would 100% go with 4e. I've played and DMed both.

>>98542355
Personally I hope to never play 3.5 ever again. Pathfinder 1e MAYBE but never 3.5 itself. But if I ever get a chance to play 4e I would 100% jump in.

>>98518425
kek

>>98517988
is one of the worse aspect of 4e that people can't seem to be able to fix the bad aspects while leaving the good ones be?

I desperately want a 4.5. Essentials is not 4.5. I want a version that cleans up the V shaped classes to be in line with all the rest of the classes. I want what we should have gotten in Arcane/Primal/Psionic Power 2 so some classes like Seeker, Runepriest and Ardent aren't so barebones and inadequate. I want a sweep through the Themes to unify their power and also including more, and also remove the bad ones like the ones that use the shitty Fortune Card product. I want Monster Vault 2 which is just a fixed version MM2.

Draw Steel and Pathfinder 2 don't even come near to scratching the same itch as 4e and the Lancer devs are so gross that I don't care how much their products are inspired by 4e, I won't touch them.

>>98553225
Such as?

>>98526183
Controllers have 2 roles, mass minion clearing and hard control. And they need to be able to do both to be useful. Its why Seeker and Hunter are fucking dogshit but Wizard and Invoker are really good. Seeker can do 3x3 area damage somewhat accurately but its best control is like making two people switch places and some slows while the Wizard has both huge chip damage and access to Daze/Stun/Dominate as the game goes on. Its not particularly fair but the devs feared the [W] doing any actually useful effect on anyone but Fighter for some reason.

Even the Fighter lost this because in Essentials if your hands ever touched a weapon you lost the ability to do anything interesting at all. Just damage numbers.

>>98517988
Fuck I am jonesing so hard to play 4e again. Hoping my group enjoys it when we start gaming again in a few months.

>>98517988
Let me just spend an hour to kill three wolves then talk about how great the combat is.

Play pf2 instead, is like 4e but actually good

>>98556310
pf2e took the bad parts and none of the good parts

>>98517988
>Dragonborn
Ew

>>98556597
I do not understand this opinion, and have only seen it here.
Dragons have always been among the most popular creatures in fantasy, and dragon 'people' of some sort usually pop up in those same ips.
Taking the dragonman concept and making it in line with other options so your game can run mathematically and still keep much of the flavor is win.
Unless the point for you is to be better than everyone else because the numbers say so?
Explain.

>>98556618
>Explain
no

>>98556628
So it's faggotry, as could be expected?
Makes sense.

>>98556579
Patently untrue

>>98517988
4e isn't real D&D, but not because of the reasons you may think. It's spiritually a D10 skirmish game with hero units, that uses the D20 framework because of branding and nothing else. It is in no way, shape, or form a Dungeons and Dragons game (this is not a statement on the game's quality) but it suffered from WOTC's efforts to shoehorn it into their brand.

If 4e wasn't "D&D" people would play it without problem, and they'd have their own autistic corner of the hobby to play their skirmish wargame in.

>>98557002
Except it IS D&D and is the best edition. Yeah, it focuses on combat, just like literally every edition (every edition focuses on basically just two things - combat and magic). 4e though at least attempted to roleplyaing and social skills, addressing the variety of players and how to engage with them, all things 3e and 5e basically just handwaved as "I dunno, figure it out? Now here are 5 more ways to make Ranger awful."

>>98556618
4e haters will actively make up shit to cry about for the edition. Same as the retard who keeps claiming that Tieflings getting promoted to core book and having a standardized look was to appeal to WoW by making them Draenai. Never mind that outside the horns they don't look alike and 4e even took away the hooves that some old 2e Tiefling art had that did make them look closer to the Draenai. And we have the dev's thoughts in those WotC Presents 4e books.

Also Dragonmen have been playable in some way since Dragonlance in the 80s so especially crying about them in 4e is silly.

>>98562372
Hell, playing dragons was talked about in the AD&D 1e DMG and then there is the Council of Wyrms setting from the 80s.

Since this is the only 4e thread I've seen in a long while and its still up, does anyone have any good or interesting 4e homebrew they'd recommend?

>>98558462
Combat was A focal point of pre-3e D&D, but not THE focal point. B/X was clearly much more focused on dungeon exploration and traps and the like.

>>98556905
They've turned Spellcasters into pure buffers with complete lack of battlefield control. The best characters for just doing plain damage is Martials and they didn't give anyone else really anything fun otherwise.

They really did take all the worst and none of the best.

>>98570296
>Tons of damage options
>Buff and debuff, push and trip and removing enemy actions
>Walls and terrain manipulation
>On top of the out of combat utility stuff
>The only spells that got needed were the super broken "yeah might as well be an instant death" ones

Vs
>Literally everyone has the same power economy

Wrong

i'm going to say it


4E WAS HATED BY RETARDS WHO THOUGHT IF IT DIDN'T PLAY LIKE DIABLO 2 IT WASN'T DND AND THATS WHERE THE MMO COMPARISONS CAME FROM IT WAS SO GAY AND STUPID IT STILL PISSES ME OFF TO THIS DAY

that said I do enjoy pathfinder and no I do not know or care about the lore for that game.

>>98572070
I do think part of the MMO thoughts was them just removing the curtains and blatantly saying what everyone had been saying for 40 years, Fighter in the front protecting people, Cleric healing and buffing, Wizard debuffing and spamming AOEs and the fourth class just killing things. I would say Rogue but until 3e Rogues were skill monkeys who could kind of fight and 3e made them their more common assassin-y style they are now.

But people will pretend that when they sat down to character create all this time they didn't go "We need a frontliner and someone who can heal and someone who is magic" and that the Roles somehow were a completely new concept to MMO and totally don't predate video games by a decade, at least.

I almost wish MMOs would make playing Healer even half as fun as 4e Leaders are. Just clicking on my allies and using heals as they come off cooldown in WoW is fucking boring while the 4e Cleric is bashing skulls in with his mace or shooting holy lasers while healing and buffing as a bonus to their actually interesting actions.

I just came here to post Warlord is my all time favorite class in D&D. I know it's a stereotype of 4e fans sucking off the Warlord but I don't care.

>>98572138
we had a cleric in the party and the signature move of the cleric was SPLIT THE SKY with his waraxe for Moradin and it was hype everytime. I wish more games would do shit like that.

>>98572159
Its a stereotype for Warlord, and to a lesser extent Swordmage, to get sucked off by 4e fans because those classes fulfilled a class fantasy that literally no other edition of D&D ever managed to scratch. Some have tried like how Warlord is an evolution of a late era 3e class and Pathfinder has its knock offs but they just don't feel the same.

>>98558462
>Except it IS D&D
no
>is the best edition
hell no lol, you're retarded. 4e literally sucked the entire soul out of DnD both ruleswise and lorewise. It was the start of the turbo-corporate slopification that gave us modern 5e, while also 'streamlining' and 'balancing' the game to make combat as shitty and boring as possible, literally copying MMO mechanics (on purpose no less), which are the worst gameplay loop imaginable. Oh boy I fucking love cooldowns.

File: 1637827218133.gif (696 KB, 360x270)

696 KB GIF

>>98572935
>Per day abilities weren't cooldowns by another name

>>98572138
>But people will pretend that when they sat down to character create all this time they didn't go "We need a frontliner and someone who can heal and someone who is magic" and that the Roles somehow were a completely new concept to MMO and totally don't predate video games by a decade, at least.
Believe it or not, zoomer, most people pre-4e did not think about DnD in terms of MMO mechanics. It was, in fact, possible and even preferable for everyone in a party to simply make characters and not have this faggot-ass party composition brain virus that 4e injected the game with. Parties could feel out and fill roles without having to feel committed to anything, or they could simply not think about 'team roles' and enjoy the game playing however they wanted without being pigeon-holed. Without at any point resorting to keywords like "TANK" and "DPS" to suck all nuance out of the conversation. 4e streamlining party construction into designated roles made everyone playing it dumber by dumbing down the dialogue regarding party roles to MMO-level terminology. The damage is irreversible, and still felt in 5e to this day.

>>98572990
>all mechanics in every game are cooldowns because I said so
4e brainrot is so fucking rancid

>>98572991
False.

>>98573001
If the point of the mechanic is to limit how often you use your ability, then yes, a spade is in fact a spade even if we didn't have a unifying shorthand name for the mechanic. Most MMO concepts predate MMOs without codified shorthand game language.

>>98572991
>Zoomer
>4e
Nigger 4e is 18 years old. Zoomers didn't play it. You are retarded

>>98573001
Explain to me the meaningful difference between "you can rage 1/day" and "you have a daily power to rage"

>>98573641
Don't even try to reason with these idiots. They make their decisions and form their opinions entirely based on vibes.

>>98573777
Triple 7 blesses the Anon that tells the truth, as it should be

>>98573641
They're both the same, and retarded. 4e is a clear expression of how retarded 3.x is, without the bloat and clutter that blinds the weak-minded and ensorcells the autistic. 5e added a subtler illusion (just ignore what you don't like) to rope in all the normies.

>>98573777
One would think after years people here would know not to engage with the anti-4e fag.

>>98570849
>Beaten by a fighter with basic move strike
>Buffs already mentioned. Debuffs are Fear, Slow, and Synesthesia. Quandry if you want to be cheeky. If you are taking actions as a martial to push and trip you are usually targeting the better stats on a monster and just better off attacking.
>Its pathfinder. Most people are playing adventures and the utility really doesn't matter in those for some stupid reason

vs

Classes that actually matter overall. Whoo what a quandary.

File: anime halflings 4e vs 5e.jpg (589 KB, 2000x1414)

589 KB JPG

4e gave us the best halflings

>>98579078
Halflings are never good. Practically as bad as gully dwarfs.

File: halfling etiquette 01.jpg (96 KB, 744x972)

96 KB JPG

>>98579135
Halflings in 4e are great.
>+2 Dex, +2 to Con or Cha
>+2 Acrobatics and Thievery
>+5 vs fear
>+2 AC vs AoO
>1/ encounter force an enemy to reroll an attack against you
>All while still be 6 speed
Seriously, not bad. Sure, small hurts them when it comes to some weapons, but they make fucking fantastic rogues, probably the best in the game

>>98579157
Oh I'm not talking about their game mechanics, I'm talking about how WotC made them into a race of gypsies and how in my campaigns they are treated no better than goblins.

>>98579206
Oh. I mean, modern Halflings are weird, but considering they had to try and differentiate them from Hobbits it makes sense. Personally I like the river wanderers 4e made them, gives them a unique flair. I leaned into it and made them Louisiana Bayou-like folk, traders and merchants who speak with a THICK accent and eating a shit ton of gator jerky.

>>98573007
Nice argument retard
>>98573149
Zoomers also didn't play 3.5 and previous editions before party comps were defined by meta terms. Proving my point.

>>98572991
There's nothing nuanced or beneficial about players faffing about each round trying to figure out what they're supposed to do to be tactically relevant if they're even thinking tactically and not just trying to pull some rule of cool shit.

>>98579288
You're right, it is a nice argument, because it's right. You're wrong. If you think people weren't guided toward picking a warrior class when the party lacked a frontline, you clearly did not play the game before 3.5 or 4E.

>>98573021
>If the point of the mechanic is to limit how often you use your ability, then yes, a spade is in fact a spade even if we didn't have a unifying shorthand name for the mechanic.
Point pools like ki and sorcerer spells per day are not cooldowns. Vancian casting, on the other hand, is a managed resource, not a cooldown. Your brain is so fucking fried by 4e and WoWslop it hurts.
>Most MMO concepts predate MMOs without codified shorthand game language.
Yes, as I already said, MMOs and therefore 4e dumbed down the language of TTRPGs significantly.
>>98573641
Explain to me how "you may use this cookie cutter weeaboo fightan magic maneuver once every five rounds" is in any way, shape, or form similar to "choose your spells wisely." I'll wait, you retarded faggot.

>>98579308
You are literally bitching about wording. Every individual wizard spell is a once per day ability. You are literally failing to see the forest for the trees.

File: 1768869186404371.png (631 KB, 923x924)

631 KB PNG

>>98573777
Classic 4efag projection. You love to see it.
>>98579295
>There's nothing nuanced or beneficial about players faffing about each round trying to figure out what they're supposed to do to be tactically relevant
Oh, so people can only make sound tactical decisions if you spoonfeed them specific roles and attack patterns? Amazing logic, dumbfuck.
>>98579303
>You're right, it is a nice argument, because it's right.
It's not an argument at all. It is a baseless assertion.
>If you think people weren't guided toward picking a warrior class when the party lacked a frontline, you clearly did not play the game before 3.5 or 4E.
And here comes the coping! I love it when the obvious WoWbabby pretends to be a grog who played ADnD since the day Gygax shat out 1e. Just admit you worship rancid MMO mechanics as the end-all be-all of TTRPG design. If only I had already pointed out that party composition existed in previous editions - oh wait I did, and you're retardedly parroting MY POINT without realizing you're reinforcing MY ARGUMENT like the absolute 4e slop-eater you are.

>>98579341
>wall of text retardation
You did not play this game before 3E.

>>98579345
Brave of you to assume they play any games

>>98579316
>You are literally bitching about wording
No, that's you. You don't know what words mean, which is why you say all mechanics are the same, including point pools, Vancian casting, etc. You desperately want distinct mechanics with their own rules and flavor to be the same as a 10 round cooldown, because if you admit your logic is fucked you admit 4e IS different from 3.5e and not for the better. Or, to play Devil's Advocate, let's take your logic to its ultimate conclusion: all DnD editions are identical because all mechanics are cooldowns and therefore it doesn't matter what edition, class, or subclass you decide to play because everything is the same.
Given we know that's not true, your logic is inherently wrong. You are trying to play semantics by falsely equating a variety of mechanics that play entirely differently in practice. And then, for good measure, you accuse me of playing semantics. I think you'll find that if you read the actual rulebooks you're going to find more differences than similarities, which anyone with a few functioning neurons and an IQ above pavement ape level could figure out.

File: 1758661064026836.jpg (27 KB, 300x392)

27 KB JPG

>>98579345
>no argument again
You really are bootyblasted, I see.

>>98579341
I've never run a D&D campaign that was not trying to herd cats before 4e came out. I don't care if it's streamlined things, as the group's forever DM it made my job significantly easier. Half of my players literally needed to be told what to do in 3.5 or they were wasting their turns. Thankfully we switch from D&D to FFG's Deathwatch which is a significantly faster to play, the players knew what they should be doing every turn even when they were on their phones and they didn't try to ass pull stupid GM Fiat nessisary non-standard use of abilities. Everyone playing Deathwatch knows their place and shuts their mouth.

Looks like the 4e hater is out of school for the day. Wonder how remedial school is for them now that they are in their 40s.

>>98579380
The argument is that 4E codified behaviors that already existed. That's it. It didn't enforce specific compositions, it told you what the default was and how to adjust for non-default compositions.

>>98579405
Your right, the roles already existed. Codifying it so that players understood how to not waste their turns when half of them are only paying half the attention they need to when it isn't their turn makes the game just run smoother.

Had 4e stuck around, what would you have liked to have seen from the system? Like classes, races, whatever.
Personally I would have liked to have seen more adventures to take parties from 1 to 30, maybe o e to try and take down Lolth or a campaign to take down one or more Primordials.

>>98583006
By the end of 4e it was already getting very bloated. Also I don't like prewritten adventures so there's that.

>>98583006
The problem was they were trying hard to ruin it because of the faggot they installed that hated it. So it dying because he decided to try and make a 4.5 that bombed was the best thing they could do to it.

I would've preferred seeing more terrain rules and a retooling of the earlier monster manuals with the proper math with what they learned later.

>>98583028
What monsters/enemies failed to get updated?

>>98583040
Practically the entirety of monster manuals 1 and 2.

>>98583086
Weird, I could have swore most of MM1 got a conversion...

>>98583006
More successful attempts at alternative resource models. Whatever happened with Essentials was an abject failure, because they both broke the game's balance in just about every way they could and because they were boring as fuck compared to AEDU. 4E psionics was boring and gave itself over to mono-spam, but at least it actually functioned.

>>98583110
If it did I didn't find out about it.

>>98583006
Other than fixing what was broken, publishing the Nentir Vale, expanding the *Powers books for sources that only got 1?
I'd have liked:
More 1 to 30 adventures, or adventures in general
More setting books
Domain rules
maybe another attempt at a VTT

>>98583110
It got Napkin math and a planned MM redux, but it died before it happened.

I wish the... Runesmith? Runemaster? That one rune class got any more support at all. Also 4e deserved to have a turn based CRPG and the fact it never really got one is a crime.

>>98583328
We had Domain rules in Divine Power already. Though a better take would have been nice. Feat prereq bullshit is very lazy design.

Prestige Paths and Epic Destinies were cool. Providing a big choice similar to background/paths in 5e in the mid and late game makes playing to those points worthwhile.

>>98583006
Mike Mearls tarred, feathered and the quartered publicly
Finished set of X Power 2 books
A dedicated Themes book to even out their powerlevel since the Dark Sun ones really fell off and the later ones were really good
A few more races like Lizardmen
Maybe a few archetypes from older editions like Soulknife or Arcane Archer that isn't Seeker or 1 feat for Artificer

>>98583424
Runepriest did get a single Dragon Article. It definitely wasn't enough but it did help. Its such a cool class flavorwise but its also probably the single most fiddly little temporary numbers class out of the Leaders.

>>98583434
I think by "Domain rules" they specifically mean the old BX meaning where you become a ruler of a domain

>>98523965
Fighters in my game: as they level up, they get to take up to 5 actions a round, instead of 3, and they can give two of them to other players however they want.

>>98517988
not sure if this is the right thread but fuck it i'm asking here anyways

I'm planning on running a campaign taking place in Gielinor, AKA Runescape's setting.

As such I really want a system that has good grid based combat, since it'll make mechanics easier to implement, since it's already being based on a grid based game.

Is 4E what I want? What other systems with good grid based combat exist?

I also want to be able to insert a more flexible leveling system to reflect something like, a melee character choosing to get better at magic, or vice versa, but i'd prefer to not have to homebrew that. Any other system suggestions?

>>98585632
If snappy tactical combat is what you'd want I'd suggest either 4e or Ironclaw.
>a melee character choosing to get better at magic, or vice versa
The latter is classless.

>>98585643
I immediately go to look up Ironclaw and see it's marketed as a furry game.

While I'm no stranger to game systems that work great for a genre other than they were intendedDogs in the Vinyard is the best system for a Star Wars game, if you replace every instance in the rulebook of the word "Gun" with "Blaster", "God" with "Force", "Devil" with "Dark Side", and "Train/Boat" with "Spaceship", it might be a little difficult to sell to a traditional audience. Is it that good to warrant giving something with furries on the cover to normal people?

For context, what i was planning on trying to emulate in the progression is something akin to the RS level up system. The way that I'd be aping it in 4e would be making all three players a three-class gestalt with varying levels of progression in their primary, secondary, and tertiary classes, but that seems like a cludge.

File: thatnite.jpg (104 KB, 553x658)

104 KB JPG

>>98585670
>I immediately go to look up Ironclaw and see it's marketed as a furry game.
Well yeah but it's early 2000s furry so it's good.
That aside it is a good system, and probably my go-to for fantasy adventure. The combat is snappy and lethal. Magic is uncommon, the moment someone brings out a gun the whole scene changes and there's options for dedicated support characters. I'm currently using Myriad Song, the space opera version, for a long-running sci-fantasy campaign to great effect. My group doesn't give a shit so long as there's something to play but if (Disney's) Robin Hood mixed with Game of Thrones is a no-sell you could stick with 4e or 13th Age. The latter I haven't played but I know it's inspired by 4e.
>For context, what i was planning on trying to emulate in the progression is something akin to the RS level up system.
It's been over twenty years since I last played RS but what I remember is Fishing 1/99. If particularly gradual and granular skill progression you could try Cortex Classic, which allows for basic skill leveling and then specialization later on in custom skills.
>The way that I'd be aping it in 4e would be making all three players a three-class gestalt with varying levels of progression in their primary, secondary, and tertiary classes, but that seems like a cludge.
That's not ringing any bells for me. Is it like, leveling up and assigning points to Thief or Warrior or Mage? Kinda like Skyrim leveling?

>>98523965
fighters in a good game

knockback and charge attacks are universal options and there are innumerable powers you can use to perform them

you don't have to choose a specific option to wield huge weapons, you can just do it

high mobility is an option anyone can invest in

high toughness is an option anyone can invest in

unarmed and grappling are options anyone can use without a specific build

>>98532968
Haste is also gamist.

>>98536561
gamism is good

>>98540068
why shouldn't there be rules for these things? who decided that only combat should be resolved by dice?

>>98540153
combat is roleplaying.

>>98572138
I never said anything like this, actually. Most of my games in 3.5 were four to six full casters, typically a druid and a cleric, the rest wizards.

>>98579308
Once a spell slot is used, it cools down until the next day, when it can be used again. You lose.

>>98579370
They're not distinct in the slightest.

If you didn't want to just "I attack, I end my turn" then 4e had the best martial classes, including the best Monk in any tabletop game ever. Each move also comes with unique movement.

>>98587325
Thank god there are better games that don't have classes

>>98587334
Too bad no one plays them

lmao coping nogames bitch

>>98583006
I would have like another campaign as well, but yeah, just more stuff for all of the classes/powers as well as a proper 4e conversion of Ravenloft

>>98520088
Yes, this is the cardinal sin of 4e - its a boring slog to play. Ironically this can be determined by anyone who has actually sat down and played a session or two (but as we know people on /tg/ don't play games, and never have).

They tried to cargo cult the mid 2000s WoW combat design, without understanding any of the hows or whys. If they did, they'd understood that these advanced mechanics need a pre-planned party composition, and CRPG devs have been fighting since forever to make anything but full DPS the most viable build and not always suceeding.

So they did what every shitty designer does - they undertuned damage compared to health, so you don't actually have to learn the system they designed(which is just as good since it sucked). Basically all classes whose purpose is preventing the enemy from wiping you out in two turns have no purpose any more because everyone is tanky, and have free heals (wtf). So you go all DPS

The biggest and most damning evidence of how much it sucked is everyone playing tabletop avoided it like the plague, and they failed to make a single even decent video game out of it.

>>98591367
I don't think you understand anything about 4E and blaming 4E for not having video games instead of the very public lawsuit involving the rights to make D&D video games that went on for most of 4E's lifespan is dumb.

>>98532551
Because a turn or round is never stated to be a specific amount of time. Turns are an abstraction of combat, not a simulation of it.

>>98587277
There are rules for interacting with npcs in circumstances like haggling, they just don't have explict rules specifically for haggling.

>>98572991
Thanks for confirming that your issue is purely the terminology being used

>>98572990
As opposed to per rest abiltied that are definitely not cooldowns

>>98593155
They are, yes. That's my point. Bitching about a Daily/Encounter structure to Power usage because of being "cooldowns" is retarded because no functional difference lies between the distinction. It was something 3.X already dealt with in its design, simply without codified language to mark it.

Bitch about how shit managing the AEDU system was in regard to the PC Work Day, sure. I'll even agree as such, which is why my homebrew significantly changes Power structure to include more options. But complaining about how it's different from the "per round/rest/day" abilities of 3.X when it's not is just dumb.

>>98593203
Anti-4e posters are fucking delusional idiots. 4e was the single biggest improvement that D&D ever had under TSR or WotC.

>>98593040
Yeah now I remember, there was a suit, but that's not what I referred to.

There was a 3.5E MMO apparently which I totally forgot about, that had nothing to do with 4e.

But what I did refer to was the 3D character designer and virtual tabletop env WotC built for playing online. They were trying to turn DnD into WoW to bring in the PC crowd.
It's the age old story of chasing popular trends and new audiences while shitting on your core customers and getting hated by both.
The project failed because 1. WottC was out of their depth when it came to building software, 2. Nobody wanted it, and it was universally reviled. 3. The guy in charge killed himself and his wife.
So the main reason 4e was designed like WoW never even came out. Which is ironic considering NWN RP was decently popular if niche back then.
There was another 4e based MMO built by Koreans as they made another attempt, but it was one of the worst reviewed games of all time, which is saying something, considering everyone was shitting them out So safe to say 4e's master plan didn't work out.

>>98517988
4e works better if you see it as not having 22 classes but actually four classes: Striker, Defender, Controller, Leader, and then everything else is just choosing your power source & flavor for that class.

In fact it's odd to me that Strike! is the only 4e inspired RPG to break things down into 3 modular choices.
>Combat Role
>Out of combat role (kit)
>Power Source/Flavor. (class)

>I will play a [Controller] - [Necromancer] that's a [The Flame] femme fatale constantly getting herself into trouble with her double-dealing and feckless hunger for vice (Lilliana Vess)

>>98593203
>It was something 3.X already dealt with in its design, simply without codified language to mark it.

4e is almost literally just T~o~m~e ~o~f~ ~B~a~t~t~l~e:~ ~B~o~o~k~ ~o~f~ ~9~ ~S~w~o~r~d~s~, Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic, turned into its own entire edition.

>>98593834
If I'm not mistaken 9 Swords was made specifically to explore the sort of concepts that would form the basis for what 4e became, so basically yes. Even then, all this does is demonstrate how a new edition was needed if it takes a whole new concept of power structure from a splatbook to make genuine Martial characters viable beyond pack mules for casters.

>>98593419
>4e was the single biggest improvement that D&D ever had under TSR or WotC.
Wrong.
4e isn't D&D.

4e is easily WotC's best made TTRPG game, but it's not D&D in anything but paintjob.

>>98593895
it's d&d, sorry.

>>98593883
The problem is that Meatwall and pack mule for casters stopped being important.

A wizard by himself in a 1e dungeon just fucking dies.
He has no cantrips, he has no armor and little in terms of weapon training, everything is prepped in advance specific-spell-in-slot, he doesn't even choose which spells he knows has it's all RNG, and if he DOES happen to have something that actually applies he starts casting at the beginning of the round, gets nailed in the fucking head by a rock thrown by a goblin, and if he doesn't immediately die with his 4 fucking hp, he drops the spell wasting both the slot and his turn.

A 1e caster is an escort quest for the martial main characters, who in between his long bouts of being a civilian in a bath robe occasionally pops off a cheat code that solves a problem wholesale instead of the martials having to solve it the hard way.

>>98594058
It categorically is not. TSR era D&D is D&D.
3.5 and 5e are D&D, poorly, because they don't understand any of the underlying decisions of the TSR era.
4e D&D isn't trying to achieve TSR era-esque i.e. D&D-esque play in any form. It is a wholly separate game with a wholly separate playstyle, that happens to be D&D themed.

4e has as much making it D&D as Dungeon World does.
No one would argue Dungeon World is D&D, it's a very D&D-themed PbtA.
4e is not D&D, it's a very D&D-themed [still yet unnamed 4e-like keyword-soup tactical grid genre which contains things like Strike!, Lancer/ICON, BEACON, 13th Age, Trespasser, Draw Steel!, Gubat Banwa].

>>98594280
And the issue there is people like to play magic users and want them to be more consistently useful. This was egregiously overcorrected for in 3.X where Casters were given far too much power and Martials not enough. 4e, for all of its actual flaws, actually did something to legitimately solve the martial/caster divide and bring all classes in line with capability to contribute.

>>98594326
Distinction without a difference. Plenty of games that aren't named D&D get edition changes that vastly alter how huge chunks of the system work to the point that it's a very different game feel between one edition to the next. D&D is just one more. You don't have to like 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e or whatever else they pump out next. But if people recognize them as D&D enough for the title to stick you're not going to change their mind by being a grogsnob about it either.

>>98525975
player rounds were 1 minute long so a lot of shit was abstracted. Also having 100 guys to back you up was a class feature for fighters and clerics.

>>98579308
>Explain to me how "you may use this cookie cutter weeaboo fightan magic maneuver once every five rounds"
I don't have to because that's not a thing in 4e either. The "cooldowns" were Encounter and Daily, which are mechanically indistinguishable from "per Short Rest" and "per Long Rest"

>>98594326
it's d&d, sorry.

4e WON

>>98596910
In the long run, yes.

>>98583123
>>98554520
>>98553315
I've only played a few times but, from what I got, essentials kinda made martials not rely on AEDU the sae way right? Would a more OSR (take the term with however many grains of salt you must) style of theater of the mind gameplay be feasible with essentials?

>>98599622
Lots of pretenders to the throne went theater of the mind with their attempts at heartbreakers. It doesn't really scratch the same itch. Part of 4e's appeal is the tactical combat and its granularity, so no grid sort of kills the magic. This is one thing Draw Steel gets right. Too bad it got the other 95% wrong in other directions.

File: 25.jpg (150 KB, 474x602)

150 KB JPG

>Ctrl+F
>"murder-suicide"
>0 matches

File: 1770849432396348.png (135 KB, 800x600)

135 KB PNG

>>98599703
What a weird thing to ctrl+f

4e was the first edition of D&D I played (It was the only one the local hobby shop was running at the time) and I thought it was okay. The people in New Holland are assholes though.

>>98532551
the same way a fighter gets more attacks in the same amount of time by leveling up and raising their BAB or taking Improved Two Weapon Fighting as a feat to make two offhand weapon attacks instead of one? Neither of these involve any magic whatsoever.

If you want an in-universe justification it can really be as simple as the warlord calling out to an ally with "Sweep the leg!" style advice mid battle; taking the Attack action doesn't represent every individual arm swing a character makes, it represents committed and successful attacks with a significant chance of actually hitting and dealing damage. The Warlord is a force multiplier, his presence and commands literally make his allies better at fighting so instead of only getting two openings for a good hit they find three instead, etc.

It's not any different than any other non-magical Feat or class feature granting additional attacks. For all the World of Warcraft criticism the 4e Warlord is honestly much more like a pulp action hero or comic book character, he's the Cyclops giving commands to his fellow X-men mid-battle to draw out their full potential.

File: 1522537569382.gif (1.11 MB, 400x307)

1.11 MB GIF

>>98599703
>Beat the dead horse for my amusement

>>98599713
it's an important milestone in development of DnD 4e

>>98599794
I mean, it STOPPED development of a number of things, but importance means different things to different people

>>98599676
Draw Steel is like Strike! isn't it? In the sense that classes are made to be reskinned? I don't quite like this approach. You're right that 4e does grid-combat the best out of what it does, but I also quite like the separation of rituals and battle spells, that alone makes it worth playing. Having that separation and having classes that work like Nimble would be fun.
>>98599703
mentioned in >>98538917

>>98601921
No each Class has its own flavor to it in Draw Steel, but it does divide Class capabilities and Weapon capabilities between Class and Kit though, which is an interesting way of doing it. Sadly, it also has a somewhat Mother-May-I approach to Skills, which I despise. Its approach to Races, what with Racial abilities being point buy, is interesting. But it also rubs me the wrong way kind of.

Nimble I like conceptually for the tightness of its approach, but its pieces when put together offer little in the way of the tactical depth of play I'm looking for. I've stolen tons of concepts from it for my homebrew though, so at least it has plenty of ideas, even if they weren't fully realized as part of its own product.

gay anime wow hotbar edition for dumb babies LOL

>>98602889
>Mother-May-I
That stings. I like the idea of racial abilities being point buy, in my homebrew I plan to make it so you can take levels in your race (as if it was a class) to get racial abilities. Maybe I can cook up something in the ballpark of each class getting to deal a pre-determined range of damage, but the ones that aren't in the higher damage brackets having more utilitary class features.

>race has specific mechanics
just buy the powers to represent what your race does like any other powers. stop repeating design mistakes.

>>98602889
The mother may I on skills is exactly why I bounced off 13th Age even though it was created by some 4e designers. I saw evoking your background(s) instead of actual skills when learning the character creation rules, threw up a little and gave up on it. That and it being TotM. I am addicted to my grids.

I hate Lancer's out of mech for the same reason, though Lancer is 100x more of just a war game like 40k Kill Team with RP between missions than 4e is and its seemingly proud of it? I've not read into ICON but its the same devs so I'm assuming it will have the same problem.

>>98605073
Mother-May-I is designer speak for "I can't create a viable Skill system that satisfies my autism, so you figure it out instead", which is just lazy really. My homebrew system divorced Skills from Attributes, but it still provides a meaningful Skill set for Players to invest in, and the means to do so. Though to be fair, my resolution system isn't basic bitch d20 either, so I have more avenues than the typical 4e-wannabe does.

>>98517988
i hate 4e
>>98518302
this

No one cares. No (you) for you. Thanks for the bump though.

>>98609339
Good post.

bump

Thanks to this thread, I'm re-reading the Dragon run of 4e material.

>>98611340
A lot of it was really good, particularly the Prince of Frost stuff

>>98605073
>>98602889
Mother-May-I shit works fine with an actual group. Your problem is with randoms who will abuse the shit out of it. That or you have actual autism and can't write down a few things your character should be a trained professional at doing.

>>98618818
The trouble I have with it is less the coming up with something part and more the unstructured nature of Skill execution part. You not only need to determine your backgrounds/expertise/etc. to see where your Skill bonuses come from, but also determine which ability score will serve as the basis for the meat of the Skill's actual Check bonus. Sure, a decent DM will work with you usually, but it's offloading a bunch of extra work onto the player because the designer couldn't decide how to make Skills work in a way that either doesn't rely on ability scores, or that does in a way that justifies not pigeon-holing character Skill options in the process. Can it work? Sure... But that doesn't make it good design, and it sure as hell doesn't make me want to play the system even with a good group.

>>98618818
Depends on the player. I can tolerate it, but all else being equal I prefer a structured system where you can map a character's capabilities pretty well and can reconstruct scenes from the mechanics with as little fiat as possible.

Describe your ideal 1-30 campaign

>>98618881
>You not only need to determine your backgrounds/expertise/etc. to see where your Skill bonuses come from, but also determine which ability score will serve as the basis for the meat of the Skill's actual Check bonus
Why would this not be situational?
>Sure, a decent DM will work with you usually, but it's offloading a bunch of extra work onto the player
If three minutes of thinking is "a bunch of extra work", you straight up don't deserve to play the game because you obviously won't put any effort into roleplaying or engaging with the tactics. In fact this is an extremely good argument FOR DIY Skills: They filter out shitty players.
>ecause the designer couldn't decide how to make Skills work in a way that either doesn't rely on ability scores, or that does in a way that justifies not pigeon-holing character Skill options in the process
Well no, it's usually because designers figured out that crunchy skill systems tend to suck and be unnecessarily restrictive, which leaves you with three options:
1. Embrace the restrictiveness (This works if you're making a niche game or it's for a very specific setting)
2. Make a gargantuan, clunky, shitpile of skills (AKA the GURPS method)
3. Accept that you cannot cover all possibilities, that 99% of skills are uncomplicated and should come down to a quick ten second roll, and create a framework that can be adapted to a groups needs.
(There's a secret fourth method where you make specific subsystems for the 1% of skills, but frankly most games don't need this and even in Fantasy games it should only matter for crafting).

>>98618891
>I prefer a structured system where you can map a character's capabilities pretty well
You can do this with "Mother may I" mechanics quite easily. Why would Fiat matter unless you're worried about the GM fucking you over (IE, you don't have a solid group and are a 3rd rate player)?

>>98620133
>Why would this not be situational?
Sometimes it is. Others it's player agency. "Hey, can I use my Wisdom to make a stealth check by camouflaging into my surroundings?" This in and of itself isn't a sin, but if the system wants to do something like this, cutting ability scores out of the skill process entirely and building the system around that fact seems a simpler solution than hamfisting MMI into it.

>If three minutes of thinking is "a bunch of extra work", you straight up don't deserve to play the game because you obviously won't put any effort into roleplaying or engaging with the tactics. In fact this is an extremely good argument FOR DIY Skills: They filter out shitty players.
Well look, it's not like improvisational skill usage isn't a thing that can work in a solid skill system too. It's the message it sends from the designer chair I have a problem with, not the act in and of itself. If me and my table wanna throw whatever ability score at a skill we want, that's our prerogative. My gripe is the designers don't seem to even try with this sort of approach and just assume we'll do the heavy lifting start to finish. Why would I buy your system if you can't be assed to actually finish it?

>Well no, it's usually because designers figured out that crunchy skill systems tend to suck-
Trouble is this is a discussion about a crunchy system and it's offshoots specifically. Crunch is half of the appeal to the point it's a feature for most 4e fans. You personally don't have to like it, but you're not going to sell to a heavy gamist crowd with a system that shines best in storytelling systems more. You could argue the MMI approach of its pretenders just shows how well designed and cohesive 4e's Skill list is. Anything else beyond it's confines would be specific to setting or table, if not both.

>>98620487
>Sometimes it is. Others it's player agency. "Hey, can I use my Wisdom to make a stealth check by camouflaging into my surroundings?" This in and of itself isn't a sin, but if the system wants to do something like this, cutting ability scores out of the skill process entirely and building the system around that fact seems a simpler solution than hamfisting MMI into it.
This just seems like you have a pet sub-system you want to jankily force into the discussion. It's not only not simpler and less intuitive, but it's a half-measure.
>Well look, it's not like improvisational skill usage isn't a thing that can work in a solid skill system too.
True, you can Rule Zero it all away in the end and do things that suit your group.
However, having a rigid skill system sets the expectation that skills will be rigid. Players usually engage with the mechanics you give them and ignore everything else. At best, I think the "rigid" skill rules should be something only the GM can see and can use to give suggestions to players who are struggling without the direction.
>Trouble is this is a discussion about a crunchy system and it's offshoots specifically. Crunch is half of the appeal to the point it's a feature for most 4e fans.
4e is a tactical skirmish game pretending to be a roleplaying game. The crunch centers around combat, and most of its crunch only leads to interesting within the context of combat. As such, everything outside that, unless it can lead to interesting choices (See: Secret 4th Method) are better off being as lite and adaptable as possible to minimize drag and empower groups to play how they like.

>>98621819
>This just seems like you have a pet sub-system you want to jankily force into the discussion. It's not only not simpler and less intuitive, but it's a half-measure.
Not really. I don't have a problem with distinct Stat requests for Skill usage as 4e presents it, but my complaint is systems like 13th Age and Draw Steel seem to. Rather I see the open ended nature of MMI to be a half measure. Anything with a concrete ground would be a better approach in my view. Agree to disagree I suppose.

>However, having a rigid skill system sets the expectation that skills will be rigid. Players usually engage with the mechanics you give them and ignore everything else.
I don't see how this is preferable to open-ended improve as the standard. If a player is literally that braindead that they can't think outside a defined box, how am I to believe they are able to think without any walls at all? Seems like they'd constantly be asking what's going on and what they should do with skill use in a system like 13th Age.

>At best, I think the "rigid" skill rules should be something only the GM can see and can use to give suggestions to players who are struggling without the direction.
If this was how these systems were made I would call it a fair middle ground. Sadly it is not.

>everything outside that, unless it can lead to interesting choices (See: Secret 4th Method) are better off being as lite and adaptable as possible to minimize drag and empower groups to play how they like.
Skills are not distinctly outside of that however. In many regards, they are squarely inside of that. The idea that Skills are divorced from the core crunch seems misattributed honestly.

>>98622012
>Not really. I don't have a problem with distinct Stat requests for Skill usage as 4e presents it, but my complaint is systems like 13th Age and Draw Steel seem to. Rather I see the open ended nature of MMI to be a half measure. Anything with a concrete ground would be a better approach in my view.
But you're also against a concrete ground in favor of a very specific mechanical change (One that doesn't make a whole lot of sense without going the whole way).
>I don't see how this is preferable to open-ended improve as the standard.

That's my point, you see. It trains players to be brain dead and think within a box, and sets the expectation that they should. It also trains burgeoning GMs to be brain dead and think within the box you've built them. Ignorance isn't stupidity, but is a disease that is entirely within the means of the rules to cure.

Now, don't get me wrong, players and GMs should work within the limitations of a box at times. That's why crunchy combat is a thing, that's what many puzzles fundamentally are. You're being put in an allegorical box and solve it.
But that kind of thinking only works if what's in our figurative box is interesting, and the vast majority of skills and their applications simply aren't.

>Skills are not distinctly outside of that however. In many regards, they are squarely inside of that.
It depends on the skill IMHO. I've designed complex subsystems for crafting, alchemy, and stealth across two homebrew systems I've made, but that's really it. There's no interesting network of choices you can build an Athletics skill towards, or a Riding skill, a Gather Info skill, or a Perform skill, or a Medicine skill, or a Religion skill, or Sleight of hand skill, and so on and so forth.

>>98622049
>But you're also against a concrete ground in favor of a very specific mechanical change (One that doesn't make a whole lot of sense without going the whole way).
I don't view MMI as concrete anything, hence my complaint. Thus the agree to disagree.

>But that kind of thinking only works if what's in our figurative box is interesting, and the vast majority of skills and their applications simply aren't.
By this logic, even MMI is pointless then, and the skill system concept should be abolished. If there's no sense in beating your head over a foregone conclusion of abject uselessness, put a math problem in front of the player like the set stat skill system and be done with it. Making it open ended doesn't necessarily promote out of the box thinking with skill use because the skills themselves are still what they are no matter if you're rolling X or Y ability score. At that point it's whether players and GMs can flavor resolution outcome to taste more than the methodology behind its execution.

>It depends on the skill IMHO. I've designed complex subsystems for crafting, alchemy, and stealth across two homebrew systems I've made, but that's really it. There's no interesting network of choices
The complexity is not necessarily the point in crunch though. 4e's systems as a whole are not really that complex in how they run, but rather in what they do. And even in combat, that falls to Players and GMs to make interesting as well. You can absolutely have a GM who doesn't get how Minions work and just throws them in to give the Controller things to blow up. That doesn't mean the decision led to complex thinking or execution. It's still within the parameters of the crunch though.

Honestly the more we talk, the more I realize I hate MMI because it doesn't improve what the standard does in any meaningful way outside of get rid of the guard rails so idiots drive off the road... But I don't imagine they'll obey the guard rails if they're that stupid anyways.

>>98622115
>I don't view MMI as concrete anything, hence my complaint.
Again, you're MMI-ing attributes. That doesn't really make sense itself if you think going the whole way is bad.

>By this logic, even MMI is pointless then
Why?
>If there's no sense in beating your head over a foregone conclusion of abject uselessness, put a math problem in front of the player like the set stat skill system and be done with it.
This wastes time, rules space, and discourages creativity. It's much better, and easier, to simplify and make generalized, adaptive skill rules that can be handled as speedily as possible.

>The complexity is not necessarily the point in crunch though
Nor did I say it was. You seem to have some problems grasping the written word, anon.
>4e's systems as a whole are not really that complex in how they run, but rather in what they do.
A pointless statement.

>Honestly the more we talk, the more I realize I hate MMI because it doesn't improve what the standard does in any meaningful way outside of get rid of the guard rails so idiots drive off the road... But I don't imagine they'll obey the guard rails if they're that stupid anyways.
I mean, you're giving me an example of one of its immense utilities as-is.

>>98622569
>Again, you're MMI-ing attributes. That doesn't really make sense itself if you think going the whole way is bad.
And the skill bonus itself. Which both lead to what that is more interesting than the set rules? Either the system sets the standard, or the GM does. Or the GM sets the standard regardless of what the rules say. At least in one direction there is a standard to fall back on.

>Why?
Because if it's execution is the same as what 4e does, just with a rote expectation of improvisation, this doesn't make it different from what 4e does save for the lack of a ground floor. I don't see why expecting the players to fly before they can walk is a benefit

>This wastes time, rules space, and discourages creativity. It's much better, and easier, to simplify and make generalized, adaptive skill rules that can be handled as speedily as possible.
See above. Without a foundation to support the improvisational approach, I don't find value in the improve in and of itself.

>Nor did I say it was. You seem to have some problems grasping the written word, anon.
Then perhaps my point escaped. I'm not worried about if the crunch is deep. I'm concerned as to the point for changing from one direction to the other when the other serves just fine.

>A pointless statement.
Is it? It seems to be the whole basis of all this, given both things are fundamentally the same in practice. If you're belaboring something about MMI that is not the mechanical execution and I missed it, then forgive my retardation.

>I mean, you're giving me an example of one of its immense utilities as-is.
I'm sure I seem stupid to you, but that's honestly not a problem to me. I'm enjoying the debate all the same. If I wasn't, I'd not responded at all. I'm not so autistic as to go picking internet beef cause I have to be right. Of course, if you find it too tiresome, you're welcome to not respond as well.

>>98620133
No, you can't do that.

>>98622740
>And the skill bonus itself.
That's not what the systems we're referring to infact do.
>Which both lead to what that is more interesting than the set rules?
Freedom and adaptability.
>Either the system sets the standard, or the GM does.
The GM is the end-all regardless, but the system encourages specific playstyles and actions from the players and GM, which is its true role when it isn't establishing exact rules that are intended to be followed.
>At least in one direction there is a standard to fall back on.
Correct, which is a downside.

>Because if it's execution is the same as what 4e does, just with a rote expectation of improvisation, this doesn't make it different from what 4e does
By definition, it does? The inclusion of something different does make it different. The question is what the difference exactly pertains to and how it fundamentally alters it. And I think it can be said without any real doubt that frontloading the expectation that some rules are simplified and meant to be adapted to the groups desires will change how the game is played.
Your analogy doesn't hold. Setting expectations is a self contained thing, not a progressive one. The expectation that the skill rules are to be inherently improvisational and adaptive will set a different standard from the onset, which will allow player creativity to be expressed and not bog the game down in generally pointless rules that serve to turn a choiceless 10 second dice roll into a 120+ second dice roll.

>See above.
The foundation is simply rolling a d20, anon.

>Then perhaps my point escaped. I'm not worried about if the crunch is deep.
You should be. Deep crunch is more harmful to systems than a lack thereof.
> I'm concerned as to the point for changing from one direction to the other when the other serves just fine
Except it really doesn't, but it actively impedes play and teaches bad habits.
1/2

>>98623003
2/2

>Is it?
Yes.
>given both things are fundamentally the same in practice.
They aren't? You're saying combat is up to the GM and players to make interesting. Except it's not. Combat is inherently within a box. If you like 4e's combat and find it interesting, you do not need to invent new rules wholecloth. You need only arrange what is in the box, and the players need engage with what is inside the box.
Now mind you, a GM can add new things to the box, he can even expand it, though this is best done when he has some experience and understanding of how to work within it.

>I'm sure I seem stupid to you
I'm not calling you stupid, but ignorant. You have a mindset that is pretty typical of people who were introduced to the game via crunch-heavy rules and were thusly given a wrongful education, if you would, as to how games "should" be, which is a good example of one of the immense utilities of MMI: It's omnidirectional. I started from MMI as a basis of my TTRPG experience, and as a result, I'm perfectly fine with both it and crunchy non-MMI rules existing side-by-side. Whereas due to your own experiences, you find MMI discomforting, which limits your scope of play and hampered your development as a player.
Hence, one of the immense utilities: It properly teaches players more about games and how to play them.

>>98623003
>That's not what the systems we're referring to infact do.
But it is? Draw Steel's Skill Bonuses apply a +2 to a Test when your skill is relevant. 13th Age's Background points apply a bonus equal to the background where it could be considered relevant to a Skill check being made. In both cases you still apply ability scores as per the GM's direction or however you convinced them to adjudicate it same as in 4e Unlike 4e's Training your bonus is contingent to whether or not it could apply. Again, yes, the GM is recommended to work with you on this, and Players should be creative with this rather than simply minmaxing. But given all of that, I don't see a functional difference between it and Skill Training in 4e beyond 13th Age trying to make it a story beat thing, which is more to the flavor than the mechanics.

>Freedom and adaptability.
Again, we'll need to agree to disagree here. I don't buy into the idea that a Player has to, or even would, constantly stick to the training wheels just because that's how they first learned to play.

>The inclusion of something different does make it different
Yes, my point is you've made me realize there isn't one that distinctly matters here. I regard it as a difference without a distinction. One ball is red, the other is blue. But they're still both spherical.

>The expectation that the skill rules are to be inherently improvisational and adaptive will set a different standard [...] and not bog the game down in generally pointless rules that serve to turn a choiceless 10 second dice roll into a 120+ second dice roll.
If both are pointless, why do either at all then? This is what I was talking about with the 'remove attributes from the equation' thing a while back. Changing the thing to serve a meaningful function, even if it is just shrinking the Skill list down to like 5 or 6 things, would actually address the problem that MMI bandaids over. I don't have a replacement to offer, but the solution is the solution.

1/2

>>98623282
>Combat is inherently within a box.
Why is it terrible if Skills are too? There is plenty of ways to be boring, bogstandard and confined to the box of Combat just the same. But like with skill improve, the game assumes combat improve is a possibility and leaves the door open for it to happen. This is what I don't understand about your insistence to get rid of one box at all. If it's just about some players being too shit to get how to think outside the box, I don't believe it is the box to blame for them not even reading about something the manual itself details. I could more convincingly concede to your point of MMI being quicker than Skill Lists and Training before this particular detail begins making sense to me honestly.

>I'm not calling you stupid, but ignorant
The highest praise I've had all day anon

>It's omnidirectional
I see this as being able to be just as constricting as having set limits. If all roads are valid, the potential that you either can't pick one, or worse, decide to not bother at all, is just as real. Sure, it's up to the individual to square that circle, but I don't see this as a distinct selling point of superiority for MMI. I find having ground work laid and then deciding to lay your own over top of it instead just as viable. That is how most people learn to design their own games ultimately.

>you find MMI discomforting, which limits your scope of play and hampered your development as a player
But I don't? We literally had a discussion about how you can make up your own rationale for why X ability score works for a Skill check over Y and the only barrier of entry is if the GM says kay or not. I'm not stuck on the idea that you have to follow the skill list. But given how MMI is executed in the two systems in question, I don't see it as an improvement to simply doing your own thing instead of what the manual says to do normally.

Again, if there's something about the mechanics to it I missed, do tell me, because I don't see it.

>>98623282
>But it is? Draw Steel's Skill Bonuses apply a +2 to a Test when your skill is relevant. 13th Age's Background points apply a bonus equal to the background where it could be considered relevant to a Skill check being made.
...So the skill bonus itself isn't infact MMI? 'Cuz that's what I said.

>I don't buy into the idea that a Player has to constantly stick to the training wheels just because that's how they first learned to play.
And yet, you're proving otherwise.

>Yes, my point is you've made me realize there isn't one that distinctly matters here
How so?
>But they're still both spherical.
One ball is square, the other is a decagon. You're insisting both are square because you were taught that anything with an edge is square.

>If both are pointless, why do either at all then?
I never said both are pointless?

>This is what I was talking about with the 'remove attributes from the equation' thing a while back.
Not really. You were offering a minor homebrew addition that's just a half-assed, illogical version of MMI.

>Why is it terrible if Skills are too?
I already explained this, anon: Skills tend to be quite boring. There are many games where combat, too, might as well not be confined to the limitations of a box because it's incredibly boring.

>I see this as being able to be just as constricting as having set limits
You do not understand what "omnidirectional" meant. Omnidirectional referred to the ability to adapt systems in any which-way and see the utility in various options (or lackthereof) and the reason for said utility (or lackthereof). If you're educated ignorantly, you're not omnidirectional, but one directional (Wanting crunch and struggling with improvisation, or to understand what makes good crunch and what makes good improv). Hence why MMI is a superior baseline: It educates people to be able to understand what works best and why, whereas hard crunch merely entraps them in a limited form of thinking, such as how you are.

>>98623322

>But I don't?
We wouldn't be having this discussion if you didn't. Your only offer was a half-assed form of MMI, as you do recognize that it's superior to most skill systems, but you were brought up wrong and feel a distaste for it as a whole. As ever, it is easier to learn than unlearn.

>>98623322
Mother May I is always inferior because a GM is always within their rights to ignore the rules that exist, but creating rules from whole cloth takes effort and time. It's bad, and 4E is a better game for putting the effort into providing a ton of examples to benchmark its skill system.

>>98623322
>...So the skill bonus itself isn't infact MMI? 'Cuz that's what I said.
The operative portion was...
>Unlike 4e's Training your bonus is contingent to whether or not it could apply.
This is why it's MMI. 4e Training will always apply to the Skill's Check. 13th Age Backgrounds and Draw Steel Skill Bonuses do not without the GM agreeing it is applicable for the situation. That they're encouraged to find a way to make it work if it doesn't does not strip it's status as MMI.

>And yet, you're proving otherwise.
How so? By saying that improv is fine? This is not the part about the MMI aspect that I have an issue with concerning these systems. The above is one half. The other is it is lazy to simply make it the default rule rather than provide a skill system and assume improv and house rules will happen when the table is ready to let it.

>You're insisting both are square because you were taught that anything with an edge is square.
Die + Ability + Bonus vs DC is Die + Ability + Bonus vs DC. Again, how you flavor it is table dependent and not applicable to the actual meat of my point. Both Skill systems function as Skill systems, save for 13th Age and Draw Steel's bonuses possibly not applying for some reason. If there is any genuine distinction to be made between them it is that fact, and that fact patently makes it worse.

>I never said both are pointless?
This I will admit might be me reading further into it than it is. Your complaint about time suggests you'd rather not bother making skill checks. Though MMI doesn't fix that, so that's probably my dumb ass more. Sorry if so.

>Not really. You were offering a minor homebrew addition that's just a half-assed, illogical version of MMI.
I do not see the implementation of MMI in these systems as being any more logical than setting a standard and discarding it as one wants. I also don't see improv and MMI being synonymous towards this end because, again, the baseline functions still should the DM say no.

>>98623734
>Hence why MMI is a superior baseline: It educates people to be able to understand what works best and why, whereas hard crunch merely entraps them in a limited form of thinking, such as how you are.
By thinking that designers should design me a system and I can work around it if I have a more creative idea to flavor the moment and the GM agrees with me? Sorry anon but I don't see how this proves your point at all? Your point seems to be I don't need a system cause I can think of it all myself. And sure, but then why roll dice at all?

Again, MMI works best for story telling games, because those games are built around the story aspect. I am concerned with the system. Distinctly, in 13th Age and Draw Steel's case, the seeming lack of one with how floaty their bonuses are. If your whole point is that MMI lets you flavor things how you like straight out of the box, then yes, it does. This does not make it better for a gamist approach, which is what I'm after, which is why I dislike it as the standard.

>We wouldn't be having this discussion if you didn't
We're having this discussion because I was curious why you seem to think MMI is superior when mechanically it's the same save for how those games handle bonuses.

>>98623721
This.jpg

You'll understand how much Mother-May-I sucks when you get a GM who can't keep their DCs or whatever the game cares to call them straight, so your character vacillates in what they can actually do moment to moment like they're in a fucking capeshit comic book.

It's not good for storytelling OR immersing yourself into your character.

>>98623721
>Mother May I is always inferior because a GM is always within their rights to ignore the rules that exist
Self-contradictory nonsense.
>but creating rules from whole cloth takes effort and time
Sure, and they also carry the downsides of impressing limitations and taking up time in play.
>>98623734
>The operative portion was...
The skill bonus itself, as given here >>98622740
Which we have agreed is not MMI, making your earlier point invalid.

>How so?
Why anon, if you understood your own ignorance, you wouldn't be ignorant, would you? I've explained it, but unfortunately I can't undo your upbringing.

>Die + Ability + Bonus vs DC is Die + Ability + Bonus vs DC
Not relevant, and once again proving you think everything with an edge is a square.

>This I will admit might be me reading further into it than it is.
There's no 'might' to it. You simply outwardly projected (In the non-buzzword sense) your own viewpoints and inability to intake nuance or fully comprehend the purpose of both functions and why one might have advantages over the other.
>Your complaint about time suggests you'd rather not bother making skill checks.
Not at all. The complaint is that one leads to an unnecessary increase in time with no qualitative increase.
When playing a game, enjoyment is derived from being able to engage with the game, rather than from sitting and waiting as the GM makes sure he gets the GM right, or making sure I've tallied up my skill bonuses appropriately.
To this end, there isn't the usual spectrum of tastes, but there is instead an ideal intersection between speed and representation of what a character can do, which can be achieved with fast, streamlined rules, as opposed to lengthier ones. Rules that minimize the time needed to figure out how skilled my character ought to be are ideal
The only exception would be if someone had some extreme form of autism that made them greatly enjoy bean counting, but they're not really suited for TTRPGs anyways.

>>98623815
>I do not see the implementation of MMI in these systems as being any more logical
And as I've said, your rules-blindness is because you were raised within a very limited standard, handicapping your potential to understand the rules and their full utility.

>By thinking that designers should design me a system
For instance, here is how you're limited in your way of thinking, because a system would not necessarily require you to "work around it".
>if I have a more creative idea to flavor the moment and the GM agrees with me?
Is the GM more or less likely to look up from the book and say, "No, the rules don't say that" if the rules are explicit, lengthy, and detailed in what they encompass?
Rhetorical, the answer is that they're more so, which is why debates over rules were more spirited before the shift to a lighter standard for rules.

>Again, MMI works best for story telling games
MMI Works best for whatever game.
>This does not make it better for a gamist approach, which is what I'm after, which is why I dislike it as the standard.
Actually, it does. A gamist approach struggles with a constant issue: The rules are unable to cover all possibilities (And are often terribly rigid at what they DO try to cover). If you're raised with a gamist's approach as you were, you'll be unable to cope with this and be extremely dissatisfied.
If you're raised with an omnidirectional understanding though, it becomes very easy to blend gamist and MMI rules together in a way that enhances the game and allows for the box to stop being a constriction, but instead a new dimension of play.
You probably won't be able to understand this though. Like I said, unlearning is very difficult.

>>98623767
>But what if my GM is bad???
That's just a skill issue that crunchfags have my man. Git gud.

>>98623815
>You simply outwardly projected (In the non-buzzword sense) your own viewpoints and inability to intake nuance or fully comprehend the purpose of both functions and why one might have advantages over the other.
Stop projecting.

>>98623852
Kek

>>98623820
I started with looser games and moved towards rules heavy games for a reason. You're full of shit.

>>98623820
>Which we have agreed is not MMI, making your earlier point invalid
No, I said it was MMI. That's the whole point to me clarifying it as such.

>Not relevant, and once again proving you think everything with an edge is a square.
Absolutely relevant. Everything else equal, the system which requires minimal GM discretion is the superior option not only due to expediency of operation, but for actually having a standard to fall back on should GM discretion be against you. This is even when the GM's ruling is justified, mind, so it's not a bad GM thing.

>A gamist approach struggles with a constant issue: The rules are unable to cover all possibilities (And are often terribly rigid at what they DO try to cover).
This is why the rules adjudicate space for improv to exist. It already presumes this by default. That you think this is somehow a sin rather than a good is what baffles me. I'm sure you'll say 'ignorant upbringing' or something again, but really the same can be said the other way. You learned in one direction, and so now the idea of any degree of confinement being enforced terrifies you rather than inspires you to meet it on its terms (no I don't actually believe you think this, but you see how easy it is for the coin to be flipped). Meanwhile, I've never once had a problem with changing the rules when it suits me or my table, but having the rules should I not know how best to do so is still helpful to... you know... keep the game going?

I think we've reached the end of this. It was interesting at first, but we're either beating our heads against a wall about points we can't see eye to eye on, or we're talking past one another completely. Regardless, I wish you fun in your games anon, even if they're not going to be for me for one reason or another.

>>98623877
No you didn't.

>>98623885
>No
We agreed the skill bonus itself was not MMI.

>Absolutely relevant.
No.
>Everything else equal, the system which requires minimal GM discretion is the superior option not only due to expediency of operation
Minimal GM discretion =/= Expediency. In fact, the least GM-discrete systems are some of the slowest in existence.
>but for actually having a standard to fall back on should GM discretion be against you.
Here is the true issue. It's that you, the player, dislike acknowledging that the GM has total control. And you've caught yourself in a contradiction here: Either concrete rules restrict the group in your favor, or they don't restrict them and thus don't have the one benefit you've named.

>This is why the rules adjudicate space for improv to exist.
Sure, Rule Zero exists, but as you have proven, not adequately impressing upon people that Rule 0 triumphs over all and MMI is the actual state of all rules (And the default state of all play) sets them up to be inflexible, short-sighted, and handicapped as a player and GM.
>but really the same can be said the other way.
It can't, unfortunately. I learned how to play in all ways, hence why I've had no problems understanding the benefits of crunch, but you struggle with anything that isn't quite rigid, and your only approach was rather half-baked.
As per usual, your ignorance prevents the understanding of your own ignorance.
>Meanwhile, I've never once had a problem with changing the rules when it suits me or my table
I'm sure you'll say that and you may even believe it, but you've professed to the exact opposite in this very conversation, and are demonstrating an inflexible mind, thereby disproving your entire argument in this segment.

>I think we've reached the end of this.
I told you what the end of it was nearly 10 posts ago. You don't understand most of what you're talking about because you were taught wrong, and unlearning is an exercise that is difficult to go through.

>>98623910
Yeah I did you delusional faggot.

>>98623919
No, you didn't. :)

>>98620076
>Heroic Tier
The party start off just helping out a frontier region, dealing with minor threats that seem oddly connected before eventually learning all of these attacks and such are being pushed by giants, leading to the next tier...
>Paragon Tier
Basically I would run the classic "Against the Giants" adventures, which I believe were effectively updated and redone for 4e, so the party would go against the Hill Giants, then the Frost Giants, and finally the Fire Giants before learning they all were deceived by the Drow and their cruel goddess' machinations
>Epic Tier
The party must delve not only in the Underdark but also into strange and eldritch realms, stopping the Drow's plans, make allies and perform the mightiest of deeds before facing down and destroying the Spider Queen herself.

>>98624809
Based. Kinda old school, too.

>>98596910
>>98597391
Delusional

Oh look, we have 13th age fags and draw shit fags too. All the gamist immersion breaking dissociated mechanics garbage in the same place.

You can just call it "shit RPG general".

>Baitfags bumping the thread so it last longer.
Now if only we could have some decent 4e conversation instead.

Reminder that Mike Mearls is a sack of shit and if he had never been promoted to lead halfway through 4e we would have actively had a better game.

Even before his promotion he openly hated 4e and the Dragon articles he wrote were pretty much all dogshit. He must have dicksucked and politicked his way into his position because he has essentially 0 game design skills as the world has seen with 5e and whatever shitass projects he works on now.

Also I don't think any single quote related to D&D has pissed me off more than "You can't shout back on an arm". Disgusting pig man had worked on 3 editions of D&D, and all three explain that HP =/= meat points, and yet he just openly called HP meat points in a roundabout way.

I don't have evidence but I'd wager all the fun stuff from Next playtests failing to make it into the real game was his fault too. He couldn't dare think that Martials get to have fun or that Sorcerer's couldn't just be bad Wizards and was upset when people liked some of the Next stuff. He claimed that the feedback agreed with how 5e went but I was there on the forums and people there definitely loved the early playtests and hated as stuff got removed. And then suddenly right after 5e launch the forums got completely purged.

>>98632601
Perhaps...
But, I own the core books for 4e. They're terribly put togather. Like Shadow Run 5/6e levels of information not where it should be, and in a few cases not in the book at all.

>>98517988
Reddit shitters who come into 5e threads and pretend 4e is some goal or that all the caster/martial whiners would be happy if they had 4e, those guys deserve the rope.

Actual 4e players though, those guys are great.

I realized this distinction when some guy couldn't stop sucking off 4e in a 5e forum, and I googled him plus 4e and found a post of him selling his 4e books a year prior. What a fag.

Anyway there's a 4e discord and a 4e subreddit and neither are busy, but they have their fans. They should try harder to have a community version and run stuff.

But as far as looting it for concepts, or trying to beg wotc to shove stuff into 6e? I don't think that's a good idea of 4e. If someone wants to run 4e or make up houserules for 4e and sell the community on it, lets hear that.
>>98524014
kek

>>98633009
I wish we still had traditional forums because Reddit and Discord are shitshows. Funnily 4e gets better discussions on the generic rpg and D&D subs than its own because more and more people are finally giving it a read. The official WotC forums were great until they were purged.

4e would also really benefit getting the looser license it was promised a few years ago so that its fans can openly publish their houserules/a proper 4e Pathfinder variant without having to hide it on their gay grooming discords.

>>98632661
What information wasn't where it was supposed to be and what was missing in the core books?

>>98633296
It has been a minute, but I distinctly recall several things shown in equipment charts not being explained anywhere nearby in the book.

>>98605073
>>98602889
Do you two like the idea of skills being distinct, well-defined, and requiring investment, if only combat actions (like distracting an enemy) have specific rules while out-of-combat (like sowing rumors) is more freeform?

>>98633737
I think that having a system at all means it should be distinct, well-defined and requiring at least some degree of investment. I don't understand why you would bother to make rules for something you want to be as minimal impact as possible. Simply leaving it to flavor and RP would suffice if that's the case. In so far as 4e's skill set, with regard to this, there are plenty of areas I consider lacking to make it a fully realized part of the game. But I could safely give it a little over half credit for being workable as a system on its own. 13th Age, I would grade at a 2/10 at best, by comparison. Probably the same for Draw Steel, but I hadn't played much of it before our regular group decided to drop it and go back to just running 4e with our homebrew adjustments.

>>98633789
>I don't understand why you would bother to make rules for something you want to be as minimal impact as possible.
To make something still work and please a certain crowd, I guess. I've seen multiple people praise SotDL's skill/background system, despite how minimal it is.

>>98633789
That wasn't the question anyway.

>>98633831
"DC" doesn't change in SotDL like it does in 13th Age, so while I'm not fond of its background system for much the same reason I'm not fond of 13th Age's backgrounds, it at least has an understandable baseline to approach no matter what the situation is, so the lack of a swingy boon doesn't necessarily sting the way missing out on a +4 from a well invested background does. This is partially a credit to Draw Steel too with how it handles most resolution, but Draw Steel fails in many other directions to my tastes. If I had to pick one of the three games to play, DL would be my preferred system, though I hate it's standard flavor the most of all three probably... I should see about giving WW a try and see how different it is.

>>98633861
It still answers. If I need to specifically state my stance because you can't read between the lines; If you want out of combat skill behaviors to be minimal impact, then yes, freeform would be enough in my estimation.

>>98633912
I didn't say or imply they would be minimal impact.

>>98634047
I did. Minimal impact in this instance means you will resolve it to taste without dice result dictating the outcome overall. The GM either adjudicates it entirely, or works with the player to reach the outcome in a way that serves purpose. This does not mean it's impact is minimal on the story, but on the system's facets. If you want to hand wave skill resolution outside of battle, you don't need system weight slowing this process down.

>>98634066
Then you're answering a different question.

>>98634070
Then explain your question better.

>>98634073
>Do you two like the idea of skills being
>distinct
Having several skills like thievery, athletics, crafting etc. with varying proficiency instead of something general like only having a background of being a thief, an athlete, a blacksmith etc.
>well-defined
Having a solid outline of what a skill does and doesn't encompass, instead of leaving it up to interpretation
>and requiring investment
Skills being a part of the character you have to put some kind of points or development into to be good at, rather than just being good at it innately

Now, say your character is using the skill called Deception
>if only combat actions (like distracting an enemy) have specific rules
If you use Deception's action called Distract in combat, that action's rules already tell you what number you're rolling against and what the outcomes will be if you succeed or fail. And the GM may change things about it based on circumstances and exactly what you're trying to get your character to do.
>while out-of-combat (like sowing rumors) is more freeform
You still use your Deception skill. You describe what your character is doing. Where he's talking to people, who he's talking to, what he's saying, what he's trying to achieve. But the rules don't include sowing rumors specifically. Instead the GM determines what you're rolling against (if you need to roll at al) and what the outcomes will be. But your investment will count, and you knew all along you could use Deception for that.

Do you like that approach or is the non-combat option still too Mother-may-I?

>>98517988
It just sucks. It’s not that simple. You are a contrarian if you disagree.

>>98634136
Much clearer for what you're wanting to know now. But honestly anon, I don't see how this would be freeform at all. Unless you're suggesting that skills have nothing defined for out of combat purposes and it's all improv based on what the players and GM can agree on?

>>98634152
How does it suck? Or are you such a lazy faggot that you'll just vague excuse because you've never actually played it like >>98633306
and just repeat incorrect stuff you've read on Reddit?

>>98630928
>we could have some decent 4e conversation
The only thing that happens in these thread is the usual delusional lies on how the game was great, went great, conspiracies made it fail etc, and the butthurt comparison with better D&D (OGL and OSR).
There is nothing else because 4e has nothing to offer.
>>98632601
>You can't shout back on an arm
Yeah, people hate dissociated mechanics. 4e is utter garbage.

>>98634512
Literally no such thing as a "dissociated mechanic" because all mechanics have to rely on a level of "suspension of disbelief". Also, name a monster attack or spell or anything in 4e that has the statement that the target loses a limb and, therefore, Inspiring Word would not work on?

I'm actually playing a 4E campaign right now. It's my first time playing it, but there are some old heads that have played everything back to 1e at the table. It's honestly pretty easy to actually sit at the table and play. I like my cards. The 4e character builder app thing sucks ass though. Everytime we get to a new tier our Artificer plays a crafting mini game with the GM for three hours. I don't want to search ten books to find the most optimal magic item for my Build. Make my sword +3, I guess give whatever you think is best, and let's get going. Maybe if we did a critical role style shopping episode it'd genuinely be better? I can't believe how many times the Artificer forgets the items' names. You told them to us 30 minutes ago. You've been studying them for three weeks. Why would my memory be better than your's? Write shit down if you insist on doing this mini-game every single time!

>>98517988
4e was a shit game, a manual MMO (something that is canonically admitted to be true, don't try to argue this any more). But it had Fell's Five, which was the last actually good D&D narrative product released unless you liked the movie.