|
greatn posted:It is really the most ergonomic and easy to play game in the DnD franchise. It's pretty easy to run, yes. If the class balance didn't fall apart after a few levels I'd like it. Unfortunately it's rather easy for people who write certain class names on their sheet to render their fellow party members redundant at best and unnecessary at worst. There are simpler and easier games where this problem doesn't exist, and I choose to play those instead. I don't even play 4e anymore outside of pbp because it's not great for newbies and is overly complicated for what my friends want out of a ttrpg.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
The 5e fighter is pretty awesome though. He has a ton of options and fun abilities. You haven't even played a high level 5e fighter, on what basis are you saying they are ineffective?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:So I mean, obviously I was being facetious, but this is basically the story of why I stopped playing 4e. I played that character, ended up actually making DPR spreadsheets and stopped when I realised it was literally what I did when I played WoW. Holy poo poo you were serious. I was about to chastise the others for misunderstanding your obvious satire. I thought your post was so obviously ridiculous that you must be mocking 4e=WoW idiots. Nope, turns out you are just the biggest idiot we've seen in a long time. gently caress, even Monsterenvy's stupid And seriously, nobody forced you to make a DPR spreadsheet. You don't want to do that? Don't do it! You think people didn't make DPR spreadsheets for 3.5? For 5e? Jack the Lad is doing it in this very thread. I guess you have to quit 5e because you can analyze the combat. Sorry, better luck with your next game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
greatn posted:The 5e fighter is pretty awesome though. You haven't even played a high level 5e fighter, on what basis are you saying they are ineffective? Their abilities--or rather, lack thereof.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Esser-Z posted:Their abilities--or rather, lack thereof. I really don't know what the gently caress you're talking about. They have tons of abilities and options.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
greatn posted:You haven't even played a high level 5e fighter, on what basis are you saying they are ineffective? They're ineffective with respect to other classes. Also their numbers are pretty garbage. Also a lot of us have run through high levels either as or with people playing fighters. greatn posted:The 5e fighter is pretty awesome though. What does it do that you find awesome?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
greatn posted:I really don't know what the gently caress you're talking about. They have tons of abilities and options. Have you even read this thread or are you just trolling
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
greatn posted:5e rocks though. It is really the most ergonomic and easy to play game in the DnD franchise. Its great. I've run threw sessions now and everyone had a ton of fun. I thought this would be a thread of people discussing the game, instead it is a thread of everyone whining it isn't exactly like their precious 4e that everybody except this forum hates. You're all a bunch of grognards. Nobody wanted it to be exactly like 4e. A game that at least respected the advancements 4e made would have been nice, though. Instead we get a kinda fixed 3e.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
greatn posted:5e rocks though. It is really the most ergonomic and easy to play game in the DnD franchise. Its great. I've run threw sessions now and everyone had a ton of fun. I thought this would be a thread of people discussing the game, instead it is a thread of everyone whining it isn't exactly like their precious 4e that everybody except this forum hates. You're all a bunch of grognards. That everybody except this forum hates. Are you mad people here like fair, easy, consistent gameplay or something? edit: Also people call my Pathfinder sessions a ton of fun. But it's still Pathfinder - the RPG equivalent of a root canal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
The way 4e words its abilities and lays everything out mechanically is a peek behind the veil of fluff and cruft. But a lot of people don't like to see how their hot dogs are made and such a thing happened with 4e. In an effort to make the best hot dog, they thought it was a good idea to show people the meat pullers and the protein extruders and the fat renderers so as to enhance the experience and show how neat and tidy and clean everything is. Sadly, this was not the case. NEXT returns to hiding behind the curtain and the vermin and entrails and other waste got to seep back since only the people who truly cared took a look at how their meat was made. Everyone else got to go back to eating their hot dogs, blissfully unaware of what things went into making it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
greatn posted:The 5e fighter is pretty awesome though. He has a ton of options and fun abilities. You haven't even played a high level 5e fighter, on what basis are you saying they are ineffective?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:I found it much more limiting that a lot of noon combat stuff was structured. It felt like if there wasn't a spell or SU ability I couldn't do it because they are so heavily structured. The only problem with this is that it forces the game even more strongly in the direction of "Wizards: The Game". You're essentially building a system where only one class gets access to the ability to dictate what they want in the game while the rest don't get it. Think of it this way: everyone else gets a toolbox with a set quantity of tools that they get to use with no ability to deviate from there. One class gets a toolbox that is literally "if you can dream it, you can do it!" Why would anyone play a class other than a wizards, then? Why should anyone play something that's not a wizard, for that matter, in a system like this? That's assuming you're playing D&D. This is all perfectly great in a game called "Wizards: The Game" because that's the point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
homullus posted:"You should play the new edition of D&D because it's kind of like Dragon Age except this time you can have sex with everything."
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Holy poo poo you were serious. I was about to chastise the others for misunderstanding your obvious satire. I thought your post was so obviously ridiculous that you must be mocking 4e=WoW idiots. Okay, so I disagree with you on my perception of D&D and you get so angry that you crack an insult about me being anti-Semitic. Against my better judgement I'll engage with what you've said anyway. Nobody forced me to make a DPS spreadsheet, but it was my perception when I played that that would be the best way to get the most out of my character because of the way the game played. I stopped because I don't want to engage with that feeling. I don't feel the same way about 5e as cited by the fact that I was most attracted by the warlock telepathy ability. P.d0t posted:See, therein lies the problem. Some people want to play fighters that don't suck, so 3.x and 5e don't cater to them. But hey, you don't care, so you can just ignore the problem, thus making those games better than 4e. I agree and if you really want to play a fighter that must suck. But I was hoping to show why someone might enjoy 3.5 or 5 more than 4 despite issues of balance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Against my better judgement I'll engage with what you've said anyway. Nobody forced me to make a DPS spreadsheet, but it was my perception when I played that that would be the best way to get the most out of my character because of the way the game played. I stopped because I don't want to engage with that feeling. This didn't happen to be Encounters or Living Forgotten Realms, did it? Organized public play is always going to be lovely and restricted. 5e won't do anything to change that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I don't feel the same way about 5e as cited by the fact that I was most attracted by the warlock telepathy ability. Again, Why are you playing D&D at all when you could be playing FATE, Dungeon World or their offshoots. Those seem to be what you are looking for in an RPG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
For what it's worth I'm pretty sure there's a 4E feat that just gives you telepathy at level 1, regardless of what class you are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I agree and if you really want to play a fighter that must suck. But I was hoping to show why someone might enjoy 3.5 or 5 more than 4 despite issues of balance. Kai Tave posted:For what it's worth I'm pretty sure there's a 4E feat that just gives you telepathy at level 1, regardless of what class you are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Okay, so I disagree with you on my perception of D&D and you get so angry that you crack an insult about me being anti-Semitic. Well it's easier to do the dps spreadsheet since the math is laid out in a more perceptible way so for people with a desire to optimize, 4e is easier to do it with. The same can be done with 3 and 5, but the barrier to do so is a bit higher than 4's. It wouldn't take too much to peel back the skin of 5 and make it look like 4 and the likely result is the turning off of people for the same reasons: it just doesn't feel right or it's not as evocative. The opposite could be done too and it'd probably go over swimmingly
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I agree and if you really want to play a fighter that must suck. But I was hoping to show why someone might enjoy 3.5 or 5 more than 4 despite issues of balance. No it is bad stop hurting yourself you are wrong stop hurting yourself *throws pillows at you*
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
"Everybody else hates 4e, get with the times grognards" is a sentiment that has so many beautiful shades of irony woven into it that it is like a rainbow of frustration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Okay, so I disagree with you on my perception of D&D and you get so angry that you crack an insult about me being anti-Semitic. So you intentionally ignore that part of 5e, and therefore...? I mean, you burned yourself out on DPR spreadsheets because of your decisions, not because of 4e. Whether or not you happen to feel this way or that way about 5e doesn't change that. You could get right back into 4e ignoring DPR or any of that nonsense and make a completely viable character regardless. S.J. fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:"Everybody else hates 4e, get with the times grognards" is a sentiment that has so many beautiful shades of irony woven into it that it is like a rainbow of frustration. It's a Prismatic Internet Spray! On a 1, you cannot act for 1d4 rounds. Instead, you start yelling about bringing the magic of glaive-guisarmes back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
The thing about 4E is you can play in a mixed game of people who care about optimization and those who don't and the people who don't will still be making valuable contributions and not just be totally eclipsed by the optimizers who single-handedly win every fight by themselves and then use a spell to trivialize the rest of the adventure. One of the advantages to a balanced game is that it better accommodates a variety of playstyles without breaking down. It's not to say that there's no difference at all between a ruthlessly charopped 4E character and one who isn't, but the difference isn't as vast and overwhelming as a 3.X party with a Druid on one end and a Monk on the other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Shut Up and Sit Down head honcho Quintin Smith decided to write a review of Next, and apparently explain why it's the most important, newbie-friendly, "ergonomic" version of D&D in the last 20 years. The guy really has no history with the franchise, but still trots out tired stuff about 4e having "macros" and being like an MMO (meanwhile he praises Next for being like a video game).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
I just wish people would drop the "this edition is better for roleplay" bullshit because D&D has never had a single rule rewarding playing in character, establishing bonds with other characters, or your relationship to other NPCs. People may mistake rules that give you abilities based on characteristics of your character's background for "better for roleplay" or the absence of certain rules as "freedom to roleplay" but it's bullshit. I'm not saying if you roleplay you're doing it wrong, but that the rules are silent on rp across all editions on D&D and it's a specious argument.
Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Okay, so I disagree with you on my perception of D&D and you get so angry that you crack an insult about me being anti-Semitic. Hey, hi, hey. Engage with what I've said? Pretty please? I haven't even called you an anti-Semite! In addition to what I said in my first post to you I want to emphasise what people have already said. There are a bunch of ways to get telepathy in 4e! You can be a Kalashtar or Shardmind. You can be a Changeling, Deva or Tiefling and take a racial feat. You can take the background from Psionic Power. You can be a Psion. You can take the Elan Heritage feat as any race or class. Important Question: Does knowing this change the way you feel about 4e? If not, why not? It's the thing about 5e that you were most attracted by. Addressing the post I've quoted here and reiterating my earlier question: what specifically about the way 4e plays led to your perception that making a DPR spreadsheet would be the best way to get the most out of your character? Aren't you a strong advocate of outside-the-box problem solving? If you're not that interested in or concerned by class balance or combat mechanics, why would you deliberately engage with them so heavily? Why does the DPR you're dealing bother you? What drove you to optimise your character? Do you believe that it's easier or harder to do DPR spreadsheets in 5e or 3.5 than in 4e? If so, why? Due to every class having a variety of meaningfully different and concretely mechanical powers to choose from - many of which will do less or no damage in exchange for other effects, and which you may or may not want to use in any given encounter depending on the circumstances and the enemies you're facing - it's extremely difficult to make one for 4e. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:The only problem with this is that it forces the game even more strongly in the direction of "Wizards: The Game". You're essentially building a system where only one class gets access to the ability to dictate what they want in the game while the rest don't get it. Think of it this way: everyone else gets a toolbox with a set quantity of tools that they get to use with no ability to deviate from there. One class gets a toolbox that is literally "if you can dream it, you can do it!" Well mostly because you can give a Fighter the same ability in that scenario. Let me describe my amazing feat of strength with some light mechanical backup. Let the fighter just say "I get angry and stomp the ground sending an ever growing shockwave out in the direction of the Orc Horde, destroying their ranks and scattering them" Then again I guess this is the wrong thread for that. D&D has always been about Mechanics of combat, not so much the make believe. FATE or something would be better suited for it. I was mostly just annoyed that apparently spell lists are truly magical while 4e powers are too drat mechanical for some reason. Even though both are quite mechanical, one just wasn't given to everyone and wasn't well designed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Hey, hi, hey. Engage with what I've said? Pretty please? I haven't even called you an anti-Semite! Mate, "Do you think Jews have horns" is a pretty loving loaded statement that doesn't have a goddamn place in a discussion about a tabletop roleplaying game. Because 4e is a skirmish Wargame where your ability to contribute is measured by how much you gently caress up dudes. Campaigns I played centered around loving up dudes. So I got into the mindset of optimising how well I gently caress up dudes. Some abilities do nothing, but their express purpose is to let you gently caress up dudes harder later on. Again, this can be entirely because of campaigns I happened to play, but the 4e rules fit in very well with that style of game. 3.5e games I played had some of that and had some of other things, so Optimising damage at the cost of noncombat utility wasn't necessarily the best option. Hence I wasn't driven to spreadsheets because I didn't think that was necessarily the most important thing. In terms of Telepathy, that's cool and I'm sorry I missed it. I skim through the classes and races in the PHB and pick out things that stick with me. What struck me as different between the two is that the telepathy is frontloaded as the first skill of one of the major Warlock paths as opposed to being a race specific feat. That creates the impression that this is a core part of that type of Warlock where a race specific feat seems like a side addon if you feel like doing it. I understand that's nebulous, but the nature of how I "feel" about the games is a nebulous concept in of itself. Andrast posted:Again, Why are you playing D&D at all when you could be playing FATE, Dungeon World or their offshoots. Those seem to be what you are looking for in an RPG. Honestly? I don't know what those are, would have to learn the systems, convince everyone to play them and I really enjoy 3.5 and am enjoy 5e right now. I feel like D&D is giving me what I want out of an RPG. I dunno at the end of the day I don't really get attached to my characters. If one's underpowered, I'll reroll a new one, it doesn't really matter. And I like my friends, if someone really wants to play class x, we'll find a way to accommodate and make sure they've got a niche to fill. We bring in different houserules to keep things fresh, like you can only cast magic if you've seen someone else do it and pass a spellcraft check.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
So, it sounds like your actual issue with 4e is that your DM didn't put any non-combat stuff in the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Because Your campaigns have directly colored how you perceive each edition of DnD. Should I assumed that 3.5 is a combat-only game just because my friends ran tons of "Fighter's Challenge"s and I participated in the Core Coliseum?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Honestly? I don't know what those are, would have to learn the systems, convince everyone to play them and I really enjoy 3.5 and am enjoy 5e right now. I feel like D&D is giving me what I want out of an RPG Literally, the sunk costs fallacy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
S.J. posted:So, it sounds like your actual issue with 4e is that your DM didn't put any non-combat stuff in the game. I have to wonder where all of these hack-and-slash 4E DMs are coming from and why they aren't getting the amazing social worldbuilding experiences that the 3 and 5 DMs managed to make. Like, is there just a factory churning out great storytellers for every system but 4E just to rustle up the grogs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Shut Up and Sit Down head honcho Quintin Smith decided to write a review of Next, and apparently explain why it's the most important, newbie-friendly, "ergonomic" version of D&D in the last 20 years. The guy really has no history with the franchise, but still trots out tired stuff about 4e having "macros" and being like an MMO (meanwhile he praises Next for being like a video game). RPS, Quintin and Kieran's old stomping ground (I think?) did a review of D&D, except it was 4th edition. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/11/dungeons-and-dragons-rps-verdict/#more-233343 Probably the quote that I take most umbrage with is: RPS John posted:Well games had to sort of rationalise D&D rules, which early on were a lot more esoteric and far less coherent than they are now. Many folks argue that makes for a better game, and they might be right. What 4th edition did was make all classes function within in similar mechanics, which is a very videogame thing to do. Why do esoteric/incoherent rules make for a better game? And why does mechanical balance have to be strictly a "very videogame thing to do" rather than something all games try to reach for as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:4e [...] Campaigns I played centered around loving up dudes. Yorkshire Tea posted:In terms of Telepathy, that's cool and I'm sorry I missed it. I skim through the classes and races in the PHB and pick out things that stick with me. What struck me as different between the two is that the telepathy is frontloaded as the first skill of one of the major Warlock paths as opposed to being a race specific feat. That creates the impression that this is a core part of that type of Warlock where a race specific feat seems like a side addon if you feel like doing it. I understand that's nebulous, but the nature of how I "feel" about the games is a nebulous concept in of itself. Yorkshire Tea posted:I dunno at the end of the day I don't really get attached to my characters. If one's underpowered, I'll reroll a new one, it doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:Well mostly because you can give a Fighter the same ability in that scenario.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:4e's crunch was overwhelmingly focused on combat and combat balance. Stuff that want useful for combat, but was useful narratively was minimal. Look at the 3E spell Storm of Vengeance. It's high level, and pretty useless against high level threats. But it's a spell that could wipe out an entire army of regular joes. Of course, the DM could place a macguffin that's capable of it, but it's not the same as a player having a problem and finding a solution I'm his toolbox that the DM didn't have to build into the scenario. Oh GOD 4e made the TERRIBLE MISTAKE of focusing on detailing the game that DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS historically DOES WELL and is THE MAJOR ACTUAL FOCUS OF PLAY, not THE PART I WISH THE GAME WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:4e's crunch was overwhelmingly focused on combat and combat balance. Stuff that want useful for combat, but was useful narratively was minimal. Look at the 3E spell Storm of Vengeance. It's high level, and pretty useless against high level threats. But it's a spell that could wipe out an entire army of regular joes. Of course, the DM could place a macguffin that's capable of it, but it's not the same as a player having a problem and finding a solution I'm his toolbox that the DM didn't have to build into the scenario. To slay an army of mortals, fly up and over it and cast Legion Hold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I just wish people would drop the "this edition is better for roleplay" bullshit because D&D has never had a single rule rewarding playing in character, establishing bonds with other characters, or your relationship to other NPCs. People may mistake rules that give you abilities based on characteristics of your character's background for "better for roleplay" or the absence of certain rules as "freedom to roleplay" but it's bullshit. I'm not saying if you roleplay you're doing it wrong, but that the rules are silent on rp across all editions on D&D and it's a specious argument. http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/41852/what-is-inspiration 5e actually does have a small rule concerning roleplay, and despite the system's flaws this is something my group has been really digging. This kind of "free advantage" mechanic gives them a tangible reward to keep with their character's personality. I don't think inspiration is entirely the cause of this, but thus far in our 5e campaign my players have been acting in character far more than previous games (4e, EotE).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
Why do people say "it's like a videogame" like that's a bad thing? I'm assuming describing the system of rules/math as similar in ways that WoW has DPS, cooldowns and so on is supposed to be insulting? I dimply don't understand why videogames are considered a thing you wouldn't want your game to be similar to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:40
|
|
