Have we reached the point where we can admit 4e is the best edition of d&d yet?

Come on, user, are you this new? Basically, one of the big things about 4e (and why all abilities and feats had those mmo-sounding keywords) was how you'll be able to play at a virtual table on WoTC site.
Well, apparently they trusted creation of online tools to ONE person, who apparently had no oversight at all. He later killed his girlfriend and them himself, and since he was the only one to work on the project (and there were no backups or something), virtual table idea died.
All that exists of it is character generation, I think it's still on their site, but you need a subscription to use it.

It was far from the only flaw of the edition, but it's so over the top, it's a good sign of just how inept Wizards were at making 4e.

>Caring what Geek and Sundry thinks

That wasn't my experience. From what I saw at the time, Pathfinder was flying off the shelves while the same 4th edition books sat around collecting dust until they ended up in the bargain bin.

I think the strongest evidence that Pathfinder was slaughtering 4th ed in sales towards the end was D&D Essentials. It was literally a response to Pathfinder and an attempt to win back the players that had jumped ship.

You can't lay the blame for 4th edition's failure (Yes, it was a failure. Sorry the truth upsets you but the proof is in the pudding. 5th edition would have been based on 4th and not 3rd if 4th was as successful as you say) on a botched online tools launch.

There is no 'best edition'. Opinion and personal preference is a thing.

And I say this as someone who fucking loves 4e.

PIDF, go home.

>5th edition would have been based on 4th and not 3rd if 4th was as successful as you say
Which is why 3rd was a major change from the mechanics of 2nd? Which is why 4th was a major change from the mechanics of 3rd?

Except 4e was a financial success? Both from WotC's statements and market figures we have access to.

5th isn't based on 3e. 5th edition is based on Feeling like D&D. nailed it.

5e... It isn't a bad game, but it's a game I hate because it took no risks and played it so obnoxiously safe. It has no identity, no drive, no creativity behind it. It's a bland, empty D&D shaped blob that you can project your preferred form of the game onto, and the mechanics are light and loose enough that whatever you try to do it will generally work with only minor issues.

>Bait thread, but I can't disagree other than to say that 4E is the best edition but part of the reason for that is that it is only tangentially DnD.

Bait post, 2e had "optional" war gaming rules, and the "balance" between the martials and casters was that ultimately martials would have whole armies of men to command in tactical combat.

3e abandoned that because WotC had no wargaming properties, so instead you ended up with Spreadsheets & Sorcery; the game of rolling dice to see if a fighter could successfully walk across a room, oh wow a natural 20, you walked across a room *slightly faster than you would otherwise have done*.

Actually I hate Pathfinder, I'm just stating facts. As of 2013, D&D was a distant 3rd to Pathfinder and the FFG Star Wars RPGs.

It took the launch of 5th edition to put Wotc back in the top spot.

5th edition was a winner because WotC literally did the opposite of what they did with the 4th edition launch. They listened to customers, focused on their core audience rather than trying to attract a new one and made a game that is a marked improvement over Pathfinder.

Face it. 4th edition was a failure.

Can you cite these facts? Because I've seen the opposite actually cited before. Let me see if I can dig up the sales figures.

Veeky Forums nerds shouldn't be using "how well it appeals to the normie masses" as a measure of success. That idea is disgusting.

>As of 2013
...so after 4E had stopped publishing new books, a company that was publishing new books sold more new books? Are you actually retarded?

4rries spotted.

Abandon thread.

Well, is a moron I'll grant you (as is anyone who sincerely uses the term 'normies'), but seems to just be using common sense.

You are bragging about the sales figures of a game that was still releasing new content over one which had not been publishing rulebooks for 3 years. This is the behavior of a man with donkeybrain. Especially since when 4E was still releasing books, they were outselling Pathfinder without even accounting for the massive amount of Insider subscriptions.

Wow way to abandon perspective when it's inconvenient for your argument. It never ceases to amaze me how triggered you 4rries get when "THA BEST DanD EDITION EVAR" is criticized.

Keep in mind you are discussing a product that the VAST majority of consumers weren't even aware that alternatives to it existed just a few years before those numbers were publised, and suddenly it's outselling D&D. Between editions or not,WotC managed to piss away a near total monopoly on the RPG market, one that had stood since the 1980s, in just 5 years.

Who said anything about criticism? I love 4e, but it had a fuckload of problems, both in terms of the game and in terms of its release, marketing and support.

I'm just kinda confused why you're lying, drawing conclusions based on false data, and then acting like the aggrieved party. Unless you're a troll. You're probably a troll. Damnit.

Good points about 4e:

>Clear, simple rules

>Easy to pick up

>Lots of innovation around making combat tactical, simple and effective

>Excellent balance between classes in most situations

>Books were well laid-out, understandable, high quality.

Bad points about 4e:

>Classes were effectively straightjacketed into pre-designed "builds" depending on your core stats.

>Classes were way too similar to each other.

>Effectively mandatory map play for combat.

>Problems with monster stats in the first couple versions (HP, defenses)

>Bad combinations of stats/skills/items/etc could create problems for characters.

As written it made a great introductory D+D, or a great version for more low-key, beer and pretzels groups, as long as they had someone guiding how their characters were designed to keep them effective.

I think you're mostly on point, but there are a couple of things I'm curious about.

>Classes were way too similar to each other.

Can you expand on this? I hear it said a lot but I never really understand it. I've played quite a bit of 4e and I honestly think that the various classes in it play more differently than the various 3.PF classes do. Even though it all uses the same basic format and power system, how those powers work and what they do always seems really different.

>Classes were effectively straightjacketed into pre-designed "builds" depending on your core stats.

Do you mean just in terms of the choice of features you pick from your class? Because yeah, those were stat locked, and that limited your power selection, but it never felt so narrow I'd call it straight-jacketed, unless I'm missing something?

Yeah, ditto. And while there were certainly "better" options to pick for character optimization, I played with some absolutely retarded players that managed to just pick a bunch of garbage that sounded cool to them, and they never really had issues with their picks. It is staggeringly difficult to make a useless character in 4E after placing the Array in place for your class. You might not be as crazy strong as someone who knew what they were doing, but you're still not going to be dead weight.

>I've played quite a bit of 4e and I honestly think that the various classes in it play more differently than the various 3.PF classes do. Even though it all uses the same basic format and power system, how those powers work and what they do always seems really different.

There's two sides to that -

First, you're right, a fighter and a rogue did play different from each other. But pretty much every rogue would play the same, unless they're using some other pre-designed "build" for the class.

Also, the progression paths for each class were exactly the same in terms of progression of "at-will, encounter, daily" powers. That was a great breakdown of different powers, but having them all progress the same rate was a big missed opportunity for differentiating the different classes.

>Do you mean just in terms of the choice of features you pick from your class? Because yeah, those were stat locked, and that limited your power selection, but it never felt so narrow I'd call it straight-jacketed

I would say the way it was designed was definitely a straight jacket. A wizard with Con as their secondary stat has some pretty pre-defined options vs a wizard with Wisdom as their secondary stat, or they'll be pretty sub-optimal. Maybe not crippled, but it's certainly pointing in a direction saying "this build chooses this power".

I play almost exclusively in low-op games. I look at guides to ensure what I'm taking isn't pure garbage, but other than that I choose whatever seems fluffy and fun and it works fine.

>But pretty much every rogue would play the same, unless they're using some other pre-designed "build" for the class.

I think it depends how much support the class has. With well supported classes, like the core ones, there are enough powers available that three or even four characters of the same 'build' might not actually share a single power between them. I can see your point when it comes to later classes with much less powers, like Runepriests, but having played with people playing the same class/build that I'd played previously, and seeing them do things very differently... idk. It might be to do with expected levels of optimisation, if you're optimising I imagine things are a lot more restrictive.

The fact that there are 3-4 distinct builds, maximum isn't an endorsement of "huge diversity" - especially when those boil down to spamming a few specific powers over and over again.

>there are enough powers available that three or even four characters of the same 'build' might not actually share a single power between them
>three or even four characters of the same 'build'
>of the same 'build'

Good point, there's very little chance that you could actually make that many versions of an archetypal rogue that don't share a few powers in common.

I'm failing to see how this is a problem.

If you're content with characters being about the same each time you play, it's not.

You realize that that's part and parcel of traditional D&D and 3E was the one that fucked that beyond repair by not thinking about class roles, right?

Loading up CBloader, let's check that. There are... five different sets of rogue features, 3 Dex/Cha, 1 Dex/Str, 1 Dex/Int. Now let's check the level 1 encounter powers, and see how many there are which rely on each stat.

We have 7 that rely purely on dex, 3 that rely on Cha, 3 that rely on Str and 1 that relies on Int.

The latter one seems to fall into the same trap mentioned above, some classes not getting the same amount of support... But even then, as a Dex/Int rogue you have a choice of 8 level 1 encounter powers. Well, 6, since glancing at it they're a ranged variant. But even then, you could make six members of said class and never take the same level 1 encounter power twice.

And that's for the least supported build of, admittedly, one of the better supported classes in the game.

And how many additional splatbooks does that require?

4th edition was the best version of 2.5/3/3.5's "MUH BUILD" Diabloclone gameplay.

I'm not sure why this is relevant? I have no idea, anyway. The only thing you really need for 4e as a player these days is cbloader.

When there's 1 specific build that's pre-designed per class at a time, that isn't "variety".

...But there isn't. There's one set of features and, as demonstrated, a huge variety of powers you can choose from for each of those sets of features. And that's even before feats, multiclassing, themes, paragon paths, epic destinies, magic items...

>Handbook that Rogue Came In
>Martial Power 1&2
The first book everyone should have, and since you're only using splats for powers, you can pretty easily just download a PDF and write the power you take. And only Martial Power had two, the rest are simply a single book per power source.

Or, you can download CBLoader or use your Insider subscription to have access to every bit of published character options.

I don't think you know how 4E works.

I think we can all agree that each and every edition of D&D has aspects that are fun and well designed.
>2E is not too difficult to learn, character creation is quick, and until the higher levels of play most of the classes are pretty well balanced and capable
>3E has tons of options and an incredible depth of customization possible, allowing for incredibly diverse and interesting characters to fit nearly any concept
>4E has really well-balanced tactical combat, all classes are just about equal in strength and usefulness in and out of combat, and monsters are quite condensed and easy to run
>5E is simple to play, class archetypes are pretty nifty, advantage and disadvantage are a great way to do away with fiddly modifiers, bounded accuracy is pretty solid, and magic items are finally optional and the game math works just fine without them

The best edition of the game would include all of the best things of every previous edition, but that's pretty hard when some of them are mutually exclusive. Fast character creation is great, and so is having a huge number of starting character options, but you can't have both.

There's also the fact that every edition has large, glaring flaws that come with the territory. 2E has rather limited options and it's hard to evolve and change after your race/class is chosen. 3E is horribly imbalanced and you need an Excel sheet just to track where all your feats and spells came from. 4E doesn't do enough to distinguish the classes from one another and there's a lot of feat taxes and magic item treadmills going on. 5E has very little content and casters once again become the gods of the system, easily keeping up with the warriors in terms of damage while being far more useful outside of the fight.

I run two games using a heavily modified 5E as a base. Weaken utility magic, give martials out-of-combat utility options, add more mid and high level content for everyone, revamp monster statlines, that sort of thing.

Or you're just pretending criticisms don't exist.

Behold, either a braindead Paizo fanboy, or a troll. I'm not certain which is worse.

> 4E doesn't do enough to distinguish the classes from one another

As requested earlier in the thread, can you expand on this? Is this just everyone using the AEDU power system, or is there something else to it?

>every edition of D&D has aspects that are fun
I'd agree with you except for the part where I didn't enjoy any aspect of 5E whatsoever. It's like that game was tailor made to piss me off.

Or someone who actually played 4e.

That's not a criticism, that's just straight up bullshit that nobody who played the game would ever say.

In other editions your rogue only gets to pick between two-weapon-fighting feat chain and pretending the wizard's spells don't obsolete being a skillmonkey.

Played for years. Yes, it's absolutely true.

Given the "arguments" that you are putting forth which are laughable untrue as the various people that have and do play 4E are explaining to you? Yeah, definitely not.

I don't believe you at all.

So far not a single one's been disproven.

...

Try playing it yourself then.

>Hello, fellow 4E players, I am also a 4E player and have logged over a thousand hours in my Dungeons and Dragons Online play-tracker. How about them Daily Powers?

I did.

Yeah, 1 -2 builds per book - even giving specific "builds" in the books.

Way to prove I was right.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about at this point, other than talking completely out of your ass?

>someone HAS to take specific powers if they take Brutal Scoundrel/Artful Dodger! Those other powers don't exist at all!
Way to prove you're an idiot who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about, I guess.

>complains about power options that can be used to better a certain build's theme
>clearly waiting until level 5 to be allowed to trip something without impaling yourself on their spear is more flexible

>The fact that they labelled and designed specific builds is totally meaningless

>SO MUCH VARIETY... of 2-3 different options. For the most supported class in the entire game. And if you're an Avenger or an Artificer, fuck you.

>For the most supported class in the entire game.
That's not Fighter or Warlord.

Except that's a lie, as proven in the thread?

Sure, some less supported classes have it hard. Runepriests are one of those badly off, with four powers per choice and only two of those that fit their stats for most things... But they still have three sets of features, those powers do meaningfully different things and you have all the other customisation mentioned above.

No, being locked into a fairly specific progression for 30 levels with 1 "paragon" and 1 "epic destiny" (ie, maybe 3 bonus powers each along the way) isn't variety.

It's still 2nd edition without Players' Options (or like one page of C&T)

But you aren't. I have no idea where you're even getting the idea, because its flatly not true.

Even in the *least* supported classes in the game.

And, as an aside, that's still more actually choice within a particular class than you got in 3.5.

If you're defining variety by whether fucking retarded 3.X multiclass monstrosities can exist, of course 4E isn't going to look like it has variety. Question is, why should I give a shit about what you're saying when it's obvious you've only played 3.X and have zero understanding of what D&D is outside of 3.X?

But that's not B/X.

It absolutely is true. Stat focuses and progression pretty much limit you to the one path in most cases.

There's basically 1 choice you're supposed to take, 1 optional "generic" power and 1 that's the wrong option for your build.

>every class in the game has distinct options
>every class in the game has options to make them distinct from another member of that class

So, you taking power attack at 1st level or were you going archery with point-blank shot instead?

...Except the above example of the least supported Rogue build had six encounter power options at level one. Others had nine. What are you even talking about?

Are you assuming optimisation? Because if you're doing that you're dumb, since we already acknowledged that but also pointed out that in low optimisation games, you can generally choose whatever looks cool and still have a functional character.

>Actually blowing spell slots on knock and find traps in AD&D
>Thinking you can use knock anywhere with a mile of people in 5e
The only reason to dual wield in 2e was if you hated life, the only reason to dual wield in 5e is if you don't feel safe about your ability to hit the first time, and you likely have something better to do with that action.

The only classes that's true for are all Y shaped, and even then most of them are supported enough for it to not be an issue.

>Can you expand on this?
Sure. In my experience it came down to three aspects:

1) Like you mentioned, the AEDU system felt arbitrary and didn't fit particularly well for certain power sources. Arcane might have done better by having more Daily powers instead of Encounter, as a callback to older editions, whereas it makes little sense for Daily Martial abilities to exist in the first place. Psionics does get a pass though for being wildly different and better for it.

2) Every class within a role has a passive that does the same thing, although sometimes in a slightly different way. Strikers get a damage bonus of some sort, Defenders mark nearby enemies, Leaders get a healing power that consumes an ally's Surge, and Controllers get something that lets them crowd control their enemies.

3) Some powers are either exactly the same or nearly the same and appear on multiple class lists. I remember seeing an at-will attack power that was on three different class lists with different names but the same rules. In addition, a lot of powers tend to be just pure damage with perhaps some minor effect that's rather generic and not especially tied thematically with the class' identity.

Personally I think every Power Source should have handled AEDU differently. Martial should be just At-Will and Encounter powers, no Daily powers, but they get more Encounter powers and can mix and match their uses in battle. Arcane should be just At-Will and Daily, with more Daily powers and perhaps some kind of recharge mechanic with different conditions based on their Role. Divine should be a mix of At-Wills, Encounter powers that are martial maneuvers, and Daily powers that are spells, with their Channel Divinity as a rare magical Encounter power ability. Primal would have their At-Wills determined by what Daily rage/shape they enter.

That's okay, you're allowed to have a different opinion. I love Advantage, not everyone does and that's okay.

Mage hand is a cantrip, user.

>2) Every class within a role has a passive that does the same thing, although sometimes in a slightly different way. Strikers get a damage bonus of some sort, Defenders mark nearby enemies, Leaders get a healing power that consumes an ally's Surge, and Controllers get something that lets them crowd control their enemies.
Is this a criticism? Especially given that as you said, each of these ends up getting applied often in a different way. Especially the difference between the various Defender's method of marking targets.

>I remember seeing an at-will attack power that was on three different class lists with different names but the same rules
Which then gets modified by class features, combat styles, and feats, especially class-specific ones. A power that inflicts 1[W]+(Stat) damage and slides the opponent 2 squares can do just that - or, in the hands of a Fighter with proper feat support for it, can send that same enemy back twice as many squares thanks to bonuses to distance AND knock them prone at the same time.

Mage hand doesn't open locked anything and doesn't disable traps.

Wrong on both counts.

>Have we reached the point where we can admit 4e is the best edition of d&d yet?
That point was in 2008. It briefly ceased being the case until DM's learned how to deal with essentials, but it's back again.

One of the things I like about 4e now is that with its emphasis on maps and minis, on movements and area attacks, it's got a lot in common with board games. It works as a pretty good bridge between tabletop board games and tabletop RPG.

>5th edition would have been based on 4th and not 3rd if 4th was as successful as you say)
Why did 5th have to be based off of another edition at all, instead of.... you know.... being a new edition that actually innovates? That's the most insulting thing about 5e. Not that it isn't 4e, I wouldn't want it to be 4e any more than I want it to be 3e..... I wanted it to be something new, but it wasn't.

This doubly sucked when the playtest packets had so much promise. Which was all scrapped in favour of things that were safer and more familiar.

It's a great example of why fuck open playtesting. I can almost guarantee you that 90% of the feedback was, "This is all interesting and stuff, but... what if you just merged memories of old editions together instead of doing something new?"

>merged memories of old editions
>editions
>plural?

What editions? I Count a sum total of one edition making up the genetic code of 5e.

Memories, not anything necessarily concrete.

How is that a bad thing?????

>5th isn't based on 3e

>You can use your action to control the hand. You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial. You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it.
Mage hand does not open locked anything unless you have the key or are an arcane trickster.

>4th isn't based on 3e

5e did keep some 4e stuff in char building, like how it did skills.

He did say UNlocked