D&D 4e General

sharing on Veeky Forums is not commercial release.

Oh, well that's fine but you could non-commercially release it and, at your discretion, have a patreon or paypal tip jar.

Games that can't do white room combats well don't have good combat.

keep reading the thread m8, that wasn't the real problem with that situation.

So now that it's been long enough that the edition wars are over, what is 4e actually good for? What are its flaws/

A lot of that comes down to taste, man. One man's flaw is another man's feature.

I'd say that some parts of the game weren't as developed as they could have been. The classes introduced later on didn't receive nearly enough support, and the Essentials materials could have been better integrated.
Some of the later classes, especially Vampires, were missed opportunities. Could have been better.
Skill challenges could have been better developed.

4E shines in two areas: the character creation mini-game, and tactical combat. Otherwise, it's just a competently designed dungeon adventure game in the tradition of D&D. It's emphasis on war game mechanics feels (to me) like a spiritual successor to D&D's war game roots going back to Chainmail.

It is a die.
It escalates.

Hunter Ranger is actually okay. The (save ends) on Disrupting Shot works pretty well, and Twin Strike can be achieved through a feat for damage purposes.

I wouldn't so much frame it in terms of merits vs flaws, and more in terms of the what it's suited for and what it's not suited for.

What it does well:
>Combat is its own minigame that is a fun enough game to literally be a tabletop wargame: think Warmhordes, but deeper, and faster.
>PC's actually feel like fantasy novel heroes out of the box, without house-rules.
>You can refluff into almost any concept you can imagine without having to worry about it making the crunch not make sense, because of fluff-crunch separation. TLRD, every concept is mechanically viable thanks to seamless refluff.
>Encounter building is a BREEZE. Actually, everything about DMing is a breeze.
>Classes are balanced, with a few exceptions, mostly from essentials.

What it's NOT good for
>Realism takes a back-seat to a balanced game and genre-imitation. If you want the world to feel like a gritty real medieval world where you are a small insignificant cog trying to amass enough wealth to retire off of deathtrap-delving, you will not like 4e.
>Combat takes much longer than other editions of D&D. IF you don't like combat heavy games, or often find yourself saying "man I wish we could get this combat over with and get back to the game," you won't like 4e.
>Some people do not like the separation between fluff and crunch, saying it cheapens both since neither enforces the other.
>Some people do not like the class balance, because the difference between a high-optimization character and a mid-optimization character in 4e is much smaller than many are used to, and the "reward" for mastering the system is not as great.

Personally I LOVE 4e.

Combine Skald weapon buffs with Cavalier smites for nova turns.