Is 4e really as bad as people say it is?

Ah, yes, the great utility of 4e wizard that's limited to dealing damage, dealing damage to an area, dealing damage in a movable area and dealing damage over a random amount of turns

it depends what you're looking for in a game.

4e makes its tactical combat a big deal, where even small differences between powers can add a lot of nuance and tactical decision making to an encounter. 4e fights can last a while, but they're meant to be involved and interesting, enjoyable in their own right.

If that's not your thing, fair enough, but you can't really criticize 4e for doing that it was built around.

Those difference change the consequences of the attacks, making them more than "I hit for X damage"
They are there for tactics
The fighter tank more thanks to the first one, the enemy takes debuffs thanks to the second one and the last one have more chance to hit

So basically one battle in 4e can last an entire session. And that's... a good thing in your opinion?

>I can't break the game in half, so it sucks

Proof that 3.PF morons hate balance and good game design

What do you want your wizard to do ?
Also, casters in 4e do a lot more than that
It just depends on the caster

Yes it is full of nice powers powers that are so nice they had to make lvl 35 monsters immune to spells of lvls under 20 cause a lvl 10 char could kill them.
Also if you go buy the rules and you want to as a gm you can just send one aoe attack at the group and they all have to pass i believe they all had to pas a check of 15 on each pice of there gear or it was destroyed. Oh and also according to the rules a blind deaf player still has a 50% chance to hit a stealth ed char.
Forth is a power gamer's dream and is about as balanced as a pro football team playing against a group of 8 year olds

>So basically one battle in 4e can last an entire session. And that's... a good thing in your opinion?
Only with bad players/DM
If you/your players can't think deeper than "I hit him with this attack", it will take forever

So what you're telling me is that you never played 4e?

>balance

Why does everything have to be "balanced" these days?

Balanced != fun.

D&D isn't a competitive game so there's no need for any kind of balance. The DM is free to change mechanics and rules as he sees fit.

See What other casters are there? Clerics with their great choice of heal, fry, heal and fry simultaneously and give HP above maximum?

This.
Had a solid group where everyone actually made an effort to understand how they should fight in various situations and combat flew by, it was awesome.

>you can summon succubi to dominate your enemies, which is nearly always an instant death sentence
>you can bind people in an illusion they can't leave or create illusionary, one way walls
>you can create prismatic fields for your friends to punt people back and forth through
>you can resurrect the dead, teleport across the world, etc.

oops you're retarded

Most of the critics regarding 4e could be avoided if the people who made them actually played the game and/or read the books

Balance is incredibly important in cooperative games. If people aren't equally able to contribute to the group effort it's less fun for everyone involved. One player doing everything and the others being cheerleaders is not a good experience.

Also, the Oberoni fallacy. Look it up.

>Why does everything have to be "balanced" these days?
Maybe because before 3e, balance was the norm, and it only ceased to be a factor for one edition, 3e?

B/x and BECMI excepted due to the thief being a truly retarded character as a single classed type.

Half of the classes are casters

Play the game
Read the Player's handbooks
Then we will listen to you

>you can summon succubi to dominate your enemies, which is nearly always an instant death sentence
So, a Save or Die? Great game design right there.

>you can bind people in an illusion they can't leave or create illusionary, one way walls
A fancy description of paralysis. But hey, it's something other than DAMAGE

>you can create prismatic fields for your friends to punt people back and forth through
What?

>you can resurrect the dead
>wizard
lol

As a comparison, here's what the powers would look like if they were written with 3.5 writing standards.

Crushing Surge (Ex)- The feel of your weapon crunching against the enemy puts your heart back into the fight. As a standard action, make a melee attack against a single creature in range. If you hit and deal damage, you gain temporary hit points equal to your con mod. At level 21, double your weapon's damage dice with this attack.

Disheartening Strike (Ex)- The bite of your weapon is deepened by the sting of your ire. As a standard action, make a melee or ranged attack with a light weapon against one creature in range. If you are trained in Intimidate and the attack hits, the target takes a -2 fear penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn. At level 21, double your weapon's damage dice with this attack.

Piercing Strike (Ex)- A needle-sharp point slips past armor and into tender flesh. As a standard action, make a melee attack with a light blade against a creature in range. The attack targets reflex instead of AC. At level 21, double your weapon's damage dice with this attack.

Also keep in mind that these are fighter and rogue powers. In 3.5 fighter abilities were "You get a feat from this list at level 1 and every even level and that's it." The list of feats? Usually +1 to attack with a specific weapon, +2 to damage with a specific weapon, and then the ability to lower attack to increase damage.

Raise Dead is a ritual for any class.

>Also keep in mind that these are fighter and rogue powers. In 3.5 fighter abilities were "You get a feat from this list at level 1 and every even level and that's it." The list of feats? Usually +1 to attack with a specific weapon, +2 to damage with a specific weapon, and then the ability to lower attack to increase damage.
That's more realistic and doesn't involve animu fightan moves or florid descriptions straight out of a bodice-ripper novel

>More realistic

Tell me again how this is relevant to a game involving dragons?

>So, a Save or Die?

Not remotely, its a summons that allows you to dominate people, but only for one round per encounter. So this can range from being largely pointless (if nothing is around, all you may be able to do is make the monster attack its friend) to a virtual death sentence (forcing them to run through traps, etc). Its up to the PCs to capitalize.

>A fancy description of paralysis.

The illusion doesn't paralyze you. One keeps you from leaving the illusion, the other keeps you from seeing or moving past the wall until you interact with it, pretty useful.

>>wizard
>lol

Sorry you have brain problems.

So, fighters are also casters now?

If you invest the feat to get ritual caster, yes.

It's very solid. Runs smooth, players will have various cool, powerful tricks and abilities no matter what class they're playing, and the gm will have monsters with more stuff going on than either "8 hit dice, +12 to attack, and AC 20 and thats fucking IT" or "Every spell in the players hand book 3 times a day as a spell-like ability". However, it's pretty slow, very tactical, and the ideas they had to try and put some focus on the non combat aspects of RPGs like skill challenges didn't really work. Still, if I didn't have like a full dozen really good vaguely fantasy games I'd play first, 4th would still be on my list. Though admittedly pretty far below, say, 13th Age.

I guess I found the true caster edition now

It's the DM's job to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute something to an adventure. There should be traps for the rogue to disarm and guards to pickpocket. There should be magical runes and puzzles for the wizard to decipher and, of course, there should be goblins for the fighter to cleave in half.

That's the DM's job.

Why does everyone need to be equally skilled in combat? Why is 4e so entirely focused around combat and nothing else?

Clearly you never played 2e if you think it was balanced.

>more rea-
aaaaaaaaaaand we're done here, folks.

>Though admittedly pretty far below, say, 13th Age.
13th Age has no grid tactics.

Because combat has always been the largest part of D&D, but pure wordcount. There are more rules for combat than anything else, so it's logical to expect combat to be a major component. In most D&D games, combat was the main thing, even in 3.5.

So 4e went all out on making the combat actually good, and succeeded at it.

Also, the system exists to support the GM. A good system will give players varied but balanced capabilities to let them interact with the game and the world, which the GM can work with to give each player something to do. If a GM has to wrestle with a system and go out of his way to make some players feel relevant, it's a bad system.

Your argument also falls apart given that, in 3.5, a wizard was better at every problem you list than the 'appropriate' classes, because 3.PF is garbage.

It has proximity zones. Not that much different

>more realistic
>btw my wizard can now stop time

You're right, fuck this samey gay-ass shit.

Back to 3.5, where the shit's intense and varied.

Okay, I hit it with my axe. Power attack.

Now I'll wait 20 minutes for the rest of my party to finish doing their biggest damage moves, then I'll do my biggest damage move,.

>In most D&D games, combat was the main thing
If you'd played any old D&D, you'd know that exploration was the main thing, with combat as a punishment for fucking up.

>there should be traps for wizard to disarm and guards to dominate. There should be magical runes and puzzles for the wizard to decipher and, of course, there should be goblins for the wizard to save-or-die.

Yeah, no.

It's a system descended from a tabletop wargame. Any attempt to argue otherwise is historical revisionism.

Not him, but just because it's a fantasy game doesn't mean that realism goes out the window entirely.

There has to be some consistency in the world for players to suspend their disbelief.

Please explain to me how a fighter can regenerate hit points by hitting something with his sword? It's fucking nonsense!

>Clearly you never played 2e if you think it was balanced.

Oodles moreso than 3e.

Fighter, magic user, cleric, fighter-magic user (basically a slightly more durable magic user), and fighter-magic user cleric, for example, all seem nicely balanced to me. Single classed wizards and fighters can both specialize (if the wizard gets ridiculous stat requirements).

>It's the DM's job to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute something to an adventure.

Nope! I pity the new school players who think its the DM's responsibility to tailor the world to fit the character. Its the DM's responsibility to be *impartial*.

Hit points have always been an abstraction, playing it like anything else is stupid as fuck.

Because Hit Points are not, and have never been, a measure of physical health. If you actually read the rulebooks, they're described as an abstract measure of minor injuries, stamina and the will to fight. Regaining HP does not mean closing up wounds wolverine style. it can mean knocking an opponent back to catch your breath, or feeling a surge of adrenaline as your foes fall before you, giving you a push to keep fighting.

The whole 'martial healing' problem has never existed, and the fact that it was brought up by 5e's lead designer just goes to show how awful he is at his job.

Just because the original combat system was a wargame, doesn't mean that combat is something you want to happen.

This. And
>posting in a bait thread

Fuck your exploration, I have legend lore, teleport circle, and wish.

Tell me where the thing is, give me the thing, now I'm at the bad guy, now he's dead.

Not so much "punishment for fucking up" but "in dungeons, the inevitable result of monsters that are faster than you and see better than you vs slower, blindier guys with torches wandering in the darkness."

Hit points aren't meat points. Fighter presses on, giving him advantageous position from which he can detect and deflect an attack.

Alternatively, if hit points ARE meat points, fighter just straight-up rips the chunk of enemy flesh off and sticks it to himself.

Wizards don't exactly fare well against traps -- unless the DM is kind enough to have all his traps be sprung by summoned monsters.

>Alternatively, if hit points ARE meat points, fighter just straight-up rips the chunk of enemy flesh off and sticks it to himself.
Like that makes sense

Why has there been a huge bump in 4E-related trolling the past three days?

Uh yeah i played it from day one till a month or 2 after the essentials book came out and we had some questions and called the company and they said to look to the essentials book for the info and yet in that book it said these where alternative rules but the guy on phone said no they are now the official rules. In that book the rules i mention are there also if you think i am wrong about it being a power game look up old builds that had pc that where lvl 10 to 15 that could kill the lvl 35 gods in less than 5 rounds

>Is 4e really as bad as people say it is?
No.

I know it's bad etiquette to /thread your own post, but anything else that can be said about the topic has been said hundreds of times before, so...
/thread

If we're talking about meat points, it does. As much sense as meat points themselves, in fact.
Also:
>In his setting fighters aren't unstoppable, all-asimilating juggernauts

Summerfags gearing up.

>Because combat has always been the largest part of D&D

This is the problem when kids who were raised on MMOs start wanting to play D&D.

D&D is a roleplaying game. It's main focus has always been storytelling and adventure. Combat has it's place in D&D but it's not the focal point. Nor is it the only way to solve a problem or to gain experience.

4e is a tabletop MMO. I don't even think you need a DM to play 4e since everything is balanced out of the box and creating an "encounter" is just a matter of selecting monsters that fit certain roles and that meet an adequate challenge rating.

Classes are divided into roles (controller, striker, defender, etc...) abilities are homogenised so that nobody feels left out, and players see combat as the focal point of the game and a means to obtain ep1c l00t.

It's a brainless, soulless husk of the true essence of D&D and roleplaying.

>also if you think i am wrong about it being a power game look up old builds that had pc that where lvl 10 to 15 that could kill the lvl 35 gods in less than 5 rounds

You're retarded. Meanwhile, a level 3 wizard can indeed defeat and indefinitely incapacitate the tarrasque in 3.x

>D&D is a roleplaying game. It's main focus has always been storytelling and adventure. Combat has it's place in D&D but it's not the focal point.

>CustServ is bad
Very valid complaint. Has no bearing on the actual rules. Most of the people they hired to do custserv hadn't even read the rules themselves. I'm serious.
>There are people who play this game that powergame therefore it's a game for powergamers
Fallacy, straight-up.

>4e is an MMO
>using meme arguments
It doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean that I'd be a fool to assume you're serious.

Pure historical revisionism. If you look at the books themselves, they prove you wrong.

Because in those books? The things you pay for, the things which took the game design effort to create? Combat is the largest part of the system.

I'm the kind of faggot who loves weird and wonderful indie roleplaying games. Games with no combat, games with light rules, abstract mechanics and all of that stuff. I enjoy that sort of thing.

But I also like D&D. Because sometimes I don't want narrative complexity. Sometimes I want to hit orcs in the face with a sword. That's what D&D is for. That's the niche it occupies and does well, and that's always been the case.

>None of them allow you to see into the future, walk on water, transform into an animal, talk to spirits or anything else that's actually interesting.

All of those things are in 4e.

The first is 90% of the Prescient Bard's Schick.

The second is a ritual.

The third is an at-will Druid power.

The fourth is a Shaman power.

In nearly all RPGs ever, combat is the only part of the game where you have to spend most of it watching how awesome other people are. That's why a focus on combat makes sense. That does not imply 4e's slow, tactical combat is good.

>a tabletop MMO

Did you know that words mean things? You just contradicted yourself.

>There has to be some consistency in the world for players to suspend their disbelief.
Consistency and realism are very different things, even if realism generally implies consistency. Depending on the setting, there can be dozens of ways to explain martials performing superhuman feats.

>It's main focus has always been storytelling and adventure. Combat has it's place in D&D but it's not the focal point.

You can't really believe this.

>Nope! I pity the new school players who think its the DM's responsibility to tailor the world to fit the character. Its the DM's responsibility to be *impartial*.

You couldn't be more wrong. The DM is not a computer that just rolls monsteres attacks and deteremines what loot players get.

The DM's job is to make the game FUN for the players. All the players. Part of that entails making sure that everyone is appropriately engaged.

>That does not imply 4e's slow, tactical combat is good

Fuck you nigga I love it

All other games pale in comparion to 4E's wonderful combat these days

Except SoS

Publish the fucking game Jimmy

The top three combat systems in RPG's, IMO, are Song of Swords, Legends of the Wulin and D&D 4e. They all work completely differently, but each does a great job of achieving their goals.

Oddly enough, they also pretty cleanly map on to the old GNS labels, with 4e as Gamist, Song of Swords as Simulationist and Legends of the Wulin as Narritivist.

>The DM's job is to make the game FUN for the players. All the players. Part of that entails making sure that everyone is appropriately engaged.

No.

The GM's job is to simulate a setting. The imperative to find and create the fun falls on the players.

It's the players job to make a character that fits the setting and pitch for the game, not the GM's job to make a pitch and a setting that fits the characters. This is probably the worst mentality Dungeon World and its ilk have contributed to the hobby.

Which is one of several major reasons why I'd play it before fourth.

The GM's job depends entirely on the group you're playing with. I agree with the other guy, but you're free to play it the way you want and that your players enjoy.

Man, Legends of the Wulin is so great. I was so happy when I got my physical copy, even though I'm sad that the company that made is/was so profoundly awful and fucked up and shitty that there will never be a single supplement or future print run.

Yeah there have always been lots of rules for combat (most of which were optional) but that doesn't make it the focal point of the game.

You can play D&D different ways. A hack and slash dungeon crawler is just one of those ways.

It makes no sense for warriors to be able to do half the Naruto-tier shit they can in 4e.

I want to play a high fantasy game not Final Fantasy: the tabletop game.

>Everyone plays the game the same way I do.

You can't really believe this.

>Physical copy of LotW

I am so fucking jealous

>You couldn't be more wrong.

Nope, I'm right. People like you would be fucking eaten ALIVE in OSR-land. The DM is not there to be a nursemaid. He presents the world and the scenarios.

>The DM is not a computer that just rolls monsteres attacks and deteremines what loot players get.

The DM presents the scenario and milieu, and portrays NPCs and monsters, builds the world, etcetera.

>The DM's job is to make the game FUN for the players.

The players' job is to approach the campaign and use his abilities and the factors of the environment to progress and thus have fun. The DM is never obliged to engage in this favoritism nonsense.

When you learn that in a good RPG, actions have consequences, and that players are responsible for their own PCs' survival, they become drastically more engaged and entertained.

Play some OSR or pre-WotC D&D nigga, for once in your life. It won't kill you.

Note: endorsement of pre WotC or OSR titles as being non babbymode does not imply other RPGs or later editions are babbymode, I love all D&D editions, etc.

Is this "babby's first 4e bait" week?

>D&D is a roleplaying game. It's main focus has always been storytelling and adventure.
As someone who mainly plays games focused entirely on adventuring and storytelling, I can tell you that you're completely full of shit.

Uh, dude.

Those are waaaaaaaaaaaay different from 4e's grid.

If something takes up the majority of the wordcount, it's safe to assume it's the largest and most important part of the game. If it isn't, then the designers fucked up and wasted a lot of effort.

see

>You can play D&D different ways. A story focused exploration game is just one of those ways.
Do you see why the assertion that
>It's main focus has always been storytelling and adventure
Is open for debate?

All of this literally boils down to "Your opinions are wrong"

This seems like an oddly binary approach on both ends of this argument to an issue that most DM's don't treat as such and it's confusing me

Most DMs don't do the Dungeon World thing where everyone builds a setting together on the first session, but I'm also pretty sure DMs are supposed ask their players "hey what kind of campaign do you want to play" before they pick the setting and come up with the quests

>The GM's job is to simulate a setting. The imperative to find and create the fun falls on the players.

Wow... I sure hope I never have to play with you as my DM. Sounds aboout as enjoyable as going to the dentist.

If your players aren't having fun, 9 times out of 10 that's your fault as a DM. It's literally your only job.

>You can't really believe this.
Oh fuck off with that shitty argument. If you try hard enough, you can use any system to run anything. That doesn't mean, however, that some systems aren't blatantly designed to be used for specific types of games.

Ignore the OSRfags, they're quick to trumpet their pure and right way of playing roleplaying games whenever they're given the opportunity. Just let them stew in their pit of nostalgia.

Adventure, maybe. Storytelling? HELL NO. Intentional stories are a wholly optional part of an RPG. There will always be a plot or story or whatever that emerges organically. And chances are, it will be at least as good as the most masterful piece of storytelling fiction ever imagined.

>>Everyone plays the game the same way I do.

No, dipshit, it's the fact that the books are 85% combat rules and exploring dungeons. Storytelling can be a part of a campaign, even a major part, but the game and mechanics are built for killing dragons.

>Depending on the setting, there can be dozens of ways to explain martials performing superhuman feats.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever convince a major 3e fan with a grudge against 4e that this is the case.

3rd edition hinges on the simple premise that magic is special, and nonmagic is not special. This is built into everything: items, creatures, terrain, obstacles, and even classes. A magical beast is special, a normal beast is not. A magical item is superior to a mundane item, 100% of the time. Magical terrain and obstacles are powerful threats, magical spells always trump material items, and magic itself is a free resource that replenishes daily without any penalty and requires no significant effort whatsoever.

And of course, this applies to classes. If your level 20 fighter attempts to leap 30 feet in the air, that's wrong. He's not magical, and therefore he's not special. Jumping 30 feet in the air is special, so he can't do it. Nevermind that a level 1 mage could cast a spell to leap 40 feet in the air, that's different. That's a special ability that can do special things.

That's why you get the "weeaboo animu MMO shit" response whenever you discuss 4e, because it breaks a fundamental tenant of 3rd edition. 4e allows everyone to be special and do special things, even if they don't cast spells. Clearly, that is wrong, heretical, bad, no good, terrible, and utterly ruining all that is good and decent.

Doesn't matter if your epic level fighter is basically the psychotic offspring of Heracles and Gilgamesh bumfucking and letting their kid be raised by wolves until he could throttle Tarasques with his bare hands, benchpress adamantium golems, and bludgeon ancient red dragons to death with his cock. To a certain subset of players, he will always be a noncaster, and therefore never be special.

>but I'm also pretty sure DMs are supposed ask their players "hey what kind of campaign do you want to play"

You really don't. The DM tells them what he has prepared. Depending on improvisation level of course.

Why do you think that "making the game fun" means handholding the players and fudging dice rolls etc...

A fun game should be challenging and the possibility of death should be real.

Dark Souls is a fun video game for that very reason.

Literally, the only reason people play D&D is to have fun. It's not a competitve game like MTG or Starcraft.

As the DM, you're in the driver's seat. You've got full control over the setting, the storyline, the ambiance, and even the rules. If the players aren't having fun, chances are, you're doing something wrong.

This lingering tendency is possibly the most toxic effect of 3.5 on roleplaying as a hobby.

>tfw you'll never bludgeon ancient red dragons to death with your cock.

Why even live?

SCREENCAP THIS MAN