Apologize

It wasn't a very good system user. 2e will always be the best D&D edition.

It also was directly responsible for ruining Forgotten Realms.

You never tried it, don't lie. It is just as much of an RPG as 3rd edition, as you can roleplay in it. The only real difference is the combat systems, where one is balanced (4E) and one is not (3E/Pathfinder). Just because you don't roleplay, doesn't mean others don't

But I've always liked 4e

I played two adventures, about 12 sessions, they were shit. It's a miniature game, you spend hours counting fucking squares in a gridmap and choosing stupid non-sensical powers("I have this really good sword move, but I can only use it once a day). The system gets in the way of the roleplaying and the resistance rolls are dumb, you basically fail 50% of the time.

>It's a miniature game
That's literally why it exists, you have AD&D and 5e now if you want more abstract combat

Here's the thing: just because there's not a specific rule for something doesn't mean you can't do it. I know it's hard for you to believe, since you came from 3e, but it's true.

You didn't need miniatures for 3.5 either. Only 4e plays like fucking World of Warcraft on a paper.

You fucking liar

THIS

>You didn't need miniatures for 3.5 either
PFFFFFT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

You can't just hate something for doing exactly what it's supposed and doing it fairly well

>The system gets in the way of the roleplaying
The system literally has now rules for roleplaying outside of the skills
How is it "getting in the way of the roleplaying" if it doesn't touch it?

He clearly has never played 4E

Don't see why, I liked it, my group liked it.

The saves were legitimately stupid though.
And skill challenges weren't explained well at all.

Nigger, I played every single D&D edition there is for years, except 5e because at that point I lost my interest in the game completely. It's not about not having a specific rule for every situation, it's about having rules that are just nonsense and forcing the players to view the game like some kind of chess with wizards instead of a RPG.

I played 3.5 for a long time and never used miniatures, I just used common sense when someone should get an AoO.

Fine, it does a really good job in being a shit game.

No, it doesn't.

You can hardly blame the system for your lack of imagination, just like you can't blame us for spotting the holes in your lies.

Go back to your tabletop Diablo.

I said no lies and I don't have a lack of imagination, but I usually want a game that allows me to present a situation in a logical way, and 4e just gets in the way, with stupid healing surges and such.

No, that would be something similar to 4e. I prefer actually good RPG systems, such as BRP, Burning Wheel and RuneQuest.

Darkie got owned, just like the old days

"tabletop diablo" was an argument against 3rd edition levied by some angry 2e players. There's a somewhat famous magazine clip floating around on the matter. It's thus kind of funny when pathfurries cry about "tabletop wow".

Though I guess you wouldn't know that because you don't play shit systems like pf and also don't play good miniatures games like 4e

>4e almost a decade old
>there will be millenial scumbags who started with it and try to argue that it was good
Anyone born after the 80's was a mistake

trips confirm

>No, that would be something similar to 4e.
Dude, 3e openly and deliberately ripped off several mechanics from Diablo. Except they did a worse job of it. One of the biggest thing 4e did was get rid of that crap.

You mean the people who didn't grow up getting lead poisoning?

Stop samefagging. It only degrades you.

Would ask the same for you

>I usually want a game that allows me to present a situation in a logical way
So any game with a non-retard DM?

>Stupid healing surges and such.
>Why can't I have/be a healbot instead of going for tactics and strategy?

But you implicitly admitted you were samefagging. So you accomplished that much.

forget apologies and just fuck Mearls

4e is my favourite edition and I started with 3.5

But then, there's always the possibility that the only reason why 4e is my favourite edition is because Pathfinder felt like such an insult

I'm sorry 4e, you were not even good a being bad. 3/3.5 was even worse than you. And 5e is more mediocre than you. You should have killed more sacred cows but in the end you were a fucking coward.

I was merely acknowledging my gained trips, if you call that "samefagging", then so be it.

Which sacred cows would you have liked to seen removed?

If you're trying to convince me you're not a jackass you're failing.

>jackass
>was the first to use racial terms

I'm the one who said "nigger" and I'm not that guy.

> Racial terms
You're on Veeky Forums.

I believe you

Jesus, man. You're just a trainwreck of a human being. You can't even shitpost right.

Multiclassing was pretty dumb too.
Themes were criminally underused. Could have made all of the setting books awesome. Instead of just rehashes....

Themes were poorly used in general, there were themes that should have been classes, like wilder, and classes that should have been themes, like vampire.

I was fond of 4e multiclassing though, even if in the end, much like 3.5, the vast majority of multiclassing was done for optimization purposes

a non-retard DM can get around shitty systems like 4e, but a non-retard DM with an actually good system can provide an experience much richer to his players.

>Stupid healing surges and such.
>Why can't I have/be a healbot instead of going for tactics and strategy?

I will just let this guy respond to why 4e is a shit game:
youtube.com/watch?v=8LIB5MVCXuk

Are you talking about 3.5 or 4e?

I started with 5e. All I know about 4e is a bunch of memes about it being too MMO-y. Can someone explain what 4e's actual deal is? How does it differ from other editions?

It balances mages and martial by using a "powers" system, where things are defined as either "at-wills", "encounter" or "daily" abilities. It is the most balanced version of D&D, but requires a bit more combat time as a result. It also simplified certain unwieldly rules like grappling

Basically 4e is much more combat focused and it circumvents most "save or lose" type shit by having the primary conflict resolution mechanic be dealing damage to enemies.

However on a superficial level classes are "the same" in that they get the same type of power at the same level (of course powers are completely different) so...

Truth.

All memes about 4e are true. Don't let 4rries deceive you.

4e was an excellent tactical skirmish wargame that suffered from reliance on hilariously expensive miniatures and trying to reinvent what D&D was. It's a damn shame; if it were a standalone game, it could've done well, and I adored a lot of the new races, classes, and setting stuff.

It also got me into tabletop and so scarred me that I've exclusively been playing rules-light storygames ever since.

Nice lie. Also its almost like they wanted to do that because of the popularity of said game. That is what you retards get by funding and making WoW popular. Others see that shit and jump right on.

The classes are much more standardized. Every class (sort of) gets the same progression: at-will powers, encounter powers, daily powers, utility powers, and they gain new encounter, daily, and utility powers at certain fixed levels.

They got most of their class features at 1st level, though they chose a specialization at 11th level and 21st level that granted them new features.

There was a lot of variety within those molds, though. The classes were divided into four roles (defender, leader, striker, controller) but the different ways they fulfilled those roles and dabbled in others gave each class a unique flavor. The fighter, the swordmage, and the warden were all defenders but you played them all completely differently.

3.5 was all coy about "no seriously you can play without a grid! Now read these detailed and mandatory rules about AoO, cover, areas of effect, movement..." 4e just embraced it and built its combat rules to work with a grid.

It stripped away and modified a lot of the out-of-combat rules to make it more freeform like earlier editions. Exploring a dungeon or solving a puzzle actually involved thinking about how best to solve problems instead of trying to guess the magic solution to the problem the DM planned out ahead of time because the game requires so much goddamn energy to run, as in 3e. (5e is better about this.)

To this day it's the most DM-friendly edition. The 4e DMG contains some of the best advice on running a game I've ever gotten in terms of making interesting and engaging challenges both in and out of combat.

4e is not, and never has been, WoW on paper

It's Final Fantasy Tactics on paper, with heavy grid focus, small parties, rounds that consist of every combatant getting a single turn, with reaction features that can activate on the turns of other combatants, be they enemies or allies, but not your own.

Murder-Suicide is a hell of a way to go, 4e.
As a miniature wargamer, I feel like I should apologize. D&D minis are terrible in all aspects except for corporate brand recognition, and there are so many more, better alternatives.

Points of Light was a good setting

>trying to reinvent what D&D was
No, it just no longer tried to hide the direction D&D had been going in by that point and focused on making the best of that.

>reliance on hilariously expensive miniatures
What are you talking about?

> That is what you retards get by funding and making WoW popular.

Stop projecting, cuckboy.

One of my biggest gripes with 4e was that it took the stuff 3.X did with bloat and didn't react harshly enough (5e is almost right). It was a decent attempt but it has little nostalgia for me because I recall all the awful furry races it added and the pointless classes simply to fill the stupid role system. I'd be perfectly happy with the roles existing had they not been labeled and every power source not had to have one of each type just for "completeness". Balance isn't a problem but senselessly filling out round numbers contributes a lot to the "blandness" people felt. Take away the labels for the roles and some of the bloat classes and it becomes far less crass. A false choice or a poorly fleshed out one really is the apple that spoils the bunch.

Furthermore, the fluff stuff for 4E was among the worst the game had ever put out. I would be happy to give 4e a try after all these years away but there's really nothing there to sweeten the deal other than the lovely DM aids.

There's no martial controller, unless Essentials (which I skipped) added one. That might be the only example, but still. certain rogue builds could do controllery stuff though.

Fluff only really matters if you only go by pre-fab modules; making your own worlds, you can modify lore to fit your desires; hell, you can even bar any use of the furry races if you can't stand them so much.

You can also limit classes players can use to suit your own world, people do it all the time (most common I've heard is no Monks or asian weaponry)

It's an odd combination of criminally underrated and highly popular.
Even though it's not an RPG, it's easily the best thing WotC/Hasbro put out under the D&D IP.
But they earned their negative publicity with that shitty smear/ad-campaign. People tend to resent ad hominem.
It's fine to tell it like it is, but 4e wasn't really an alternative to 3e so at the end of the day it was just bitching.
You reap what you sow.

Wait, how is it not an RPG? Please explain.

there was an essentials ranger variant that was a controller, I think called a scout?

It's the first taste you get and along with the language choices in how 4E was presented were as big a reason for the negative reaction as anything else if not more. Roles and stuff like Raven queen in the PHB in particular comes to mind as unforced blunders.

There's no roleplay in 4e.
It gets hamfisted at times, but everything is rollplay.

Still, props to WotC for redoing pic related so well.

Original D&D is great but AD&D 2nd edition is the best Fantasy RPG.

Huh? When I played and DM'd there was plenty of roleplaying. Maybe you just had a shit DM?

IIRC there were no rules for it, which is how it should be. I hate the "i roll perception to find hidden doors" of later iterations of the game and it's the biggest legitimate gripes OSRfags have.

what's wrong with the Raven Queen?

i stand corrected. anyway it never really stood out to me as a major problem. The real issue was how terrible some of the later classes were, and they never got fixed with supplements

2nd edition is probably the second best edition, after 4e. the top three are probably 4e > 2e > BECMI, shuffled around for personal preference

I still don't get why people bitch about the Raven Queen. She is literally the divine version of a carrion bird and is basically the Morganna with the name changed.

4e deserves it if only for shitting on Dark Sun and ensuring that the 5e incarnations and beyond will be ruined and pumped full of setting breaking trash like Tieflings. Stupid shitty primordial shit holy fuck you RUINED IT

BUT I WANNA PLAYA DRAGONBORN/TIEFLING/WARFORGED IN EVERY SETTING WAAH WAHHHHH

DRAGONBORN AND TIEFLING ARE IN THE PHB!!!! COME ON >:(

Thanks 4e

>IIRC there were no rules for it,
Skill Challenges.
">i roll perception to find hidden doors"
>

You should really try games other than D&D.

They bitch because she wasn't in 3.5.

Sounds like a player problem and not a system problem, something that can be solved by a competent DM. If a DM doesn't want a certain race or class in their campaign, they can put their foot down on it, all roleplaying systems go on about how the DM is the final arbiter of the game

>You should really try games other than D&D.

when will the dungeon world meme end?

What's wrong with either of those races?

Objectively they're no worse than orcs or elves.

Of course but that shit doesn't belong in core rulebooks. Having to have to untrain bad habits and take the candy bar away from some know-nothing newbie is gonna seem arbitrary in a system that is rules on the rules-rulings spectrum.

(You)

Once new shitposters start to think it's old-hat.

this thread reminded me why i hate 4th ed

I've DM'd many different systems for new players, and the special snowflake syndrome of wanting to be everything at the same time is a near-universal trait regardless of most systems (including most past versions of D&D). Again, player problem not solely attributable to 4E

You should really try games that do not have the word 'dungeon' in the title.

No really.

What makes either of those races worse than orcs or elves?

Because the memes from butthurt grognards tainted your view of a good roleplaying system?

Don't put it in the core rulebook. Even good players make worse characters with these cliched awful abominations.

>dungeon world meme
please, the idea of people playing dungeon world is probaly the one thing that triggers the autists here even more than the idea of people playing D&D

G U R P 'S
U
R
P
S