How come 4e got a wave of misinformation and disinformation when it first came out...

How come 4e got a wave of misinformation and disinformation when it first came out, so strong that the misinformation and disinformation lingers even today, while there was much less of that for 5e?

Other urls found in this thread:

dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Foe_to_frog
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because 3e fans had spent hundreds of dollars buying all the splatbooks for 3e and proved to be even more angry grognards than 2e fans, thus the irreconcilable hatred that lingers to this day and forevermore.

what are you talking about, give some examples

>the misinformation and disinformation lingers even today

The only thing that lingers is 4rrie butthurt.

"Losing the Edition War" seems to weigh pretty heavily on their minds, to the point where just seeing "3.5" is enough to trigger them.

Because people hate 4e. People at worst are just mildly disinterested in 5e.

5e isn't deep enough for anything to stick. 4e was so different from anything else up to that point that it took some time to learn the system. People who weren't willing to do that believed all the misinformation.
Building goofy and broken characters in 3.pf can be a lot of fun. Playing with a functioning combat system in 4e is also fun. 5e just feels incredibly bland by comparison.

Autists triggered by the loss of caster supremacy engaged in misinformation campaign against the best DnD edition.

Because 4e was shit, and 5e is good.

The thing that you have to understand is, most people are not very invested in a particular edition. This is why most people are playing 5e, yet the D&D fanbase has not doubled in size. Lots of people just plain switched to the new edition. Stop thinking that D&D fans are all either "3aboos" or "4rries" or AD&D grognards. I myself have played every single edition of D&D and I am currently running both 5e D&D and Pathfinder for 2 different groups. I like both games.

D&D 4e sucked because it turned martials into spellcasters. That's it. The system was stupid and didn't make sense. No one liked tracking all the powers and various other shit. No one liked tracking lingering bonuses. No one liked tracking ongoing damage. The game worked very well for what it was meant to be, but what it was meant to be was the problem. The idea was the issue, not the execution. Which makes it sad because 4e executes its goal perfectly. Some people, invariably the autistic sort who like to watch over-the-top anime bullshit, loved 4e because it let them be big damn fantasy heroes with epik powahz and blow the fuck out 90 orcs a day from level 1 (which you could easily do given that you started with 27 times as many hit points as an average orc warrior). However 4e players will outright admit there is no such thing as an "average" orc warrior, even though an average orc warrior would likely be a minion. They can only see things within the confines of the game's encounter design, further showing how divorced the system is from reality. A group of orcs jumping down from a wall 10 feet high to attack the players, would all die instantly from 2d10 points of damage. They might make their acrobatics check, but fully 50% of them would not only be unconscious, but dead. Hell, quite a few of them would be reduced to chunky spaghetti, taking over 10 times their hp in hits.

Because 5e deliberately marketed itself as a "back to old school style!" edition, and made itself as close to being an AD&D 2.0 as possible, whereas 4e dared to try and stand on its own and look at all the sacred cows it was carrying, rather than just blindly repeating everything from the dawn of the game.

Spotted the grognard.

Even now it continues

Is this pasta?

Now, were minions a bad idea? No, not necessarily. They accomplished their goal of being one-hit-kills. Except... this also was true in 3.5 where 99% of characters who hit a 5 hp orc would kill it outright. Maybe not at level 1, but that made sense. A fierce fucking orc with a 15 Strength and Constitution should NOT go down instantly from a 10 Strength wizard throwing a dagger. At least not 100% of the time. But that's how it goes in 4e. Because they are "mooks," they suddenly have the fragility of wet paper. This goes beyond being unrealistic: it just plain doesn't make sense. Heroic fantasy has its own kind of realism, and relative power level is part of that, sure. But if there's an army of orcs and they die from every single hit, what's the point of their Con score even existing? Saving throws? That's it. Also keep in mind: that fierce orc warrior has just as many hit points as a commoner. Or a cat. The whole "rats taking out the village" problem now applies to orc tribes as well. Wonderful to know.

And of course, 4fags will squeal "noooo! stop! this is a game about the HEROES so the system doesn't HAVE to be internally consistent." Well, you'd better hope you never ever have commoners involved in any combat ever. Never have anything attack a town and start ravaging the populace, cause some dumb shit will happen there. Even a burning fog effect that dealt 1 damage a round would instantly kill every minion dead.

But enough harping on about those. The real demon of 4e is the mentality of "let's put every class on the same mechanical framework, with once-per-day abilities, even though it doesn't make an ounce of sense for fighters, then autistically defend it on forums as 'narrative' for the next five years while we erase holes in our character sheets or spend extra money on little gaming stones to carefully arrange over the dots."

Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.

>implying anyone who played TSR editions will ever be fine with WotC/Paizo shit
I think someone's pants are burning.

There was nothing wrong with how 3.5 martials worked: the interesting options just sucked. Third ed had plenty of ways for martials to be interesting. Tactical feats, weapon style feats, even the combat expertise and power attack let a martial adopt a particular "stance" in combat to make him more effective. As interesting as playing a spellcaster? Perhaps not, but there was beauty in simplicity, and that is why a lot of people liked playing martial characters. Not having to keep track of 30 different spells was nice. Now, that shouldn't have meant that they were inferior in power level. But unfortunately it did.

Then Book of Nine Swords came out, and everyone hated it. People called the martials in it overpowered. This was not the issue. The problem was that it turned martials into spellcasters. This was a foreshadowing of 4th edition, and a prime display of Mike Mearls' complete failure at game design. Unable to reconcile wizards who run out of spells, with fighters who don't, he decided to make fighters cast spells, and give them weird monk-like energy powers and 30-foot flying leaps to make them more "viable." This helped spawn the camp of roleplayers who thought that martials should be like one of the heroes in one of their cancerous anime videos: able to ignore the laws of reality for no reason besides "well there's some magic over there, but not over here, but the world is MADE of magic [???], so that means I can do whatever the fuck i want. Rule of cool, right?"

This wasn't entirely wrong. The biggest problem with 3.5 martials was their vulnerability to spellcasters' SoD spells, and the 15-minute-adventuring day. Past that, is a lot of whining about utility, which is not a martial's job outside of skills. Despite what 4e's "utility" powers claim to imply, almost all of them are related to either movement or skill use. So it's not like 4e was any different in that regard to giving martials "utility" powers. Which is good.

By the time 5e hit a lot of 3.5 players had moved on to other systems entirely and matured as gamers. The die-hard fans just stuck with 3.5 or pathfinder or moved on to 5e without complaint- the three groups seem happy enough to stay separate and there's no need for shit talking amongst themselves.

4e felt like someone taking your toy away and saying "no more books for you, play THIS now! It's really different!"

But it's fine. I kind of like 4e now. Not like, for any game... but it has its uses, like most systems.

>D&D 4e sucked because it turned martials into spellcasters

Ah yes I recall mind controlling enemies, turning them into frogs and creating creatures of fire as my 4e fighter.

Was good times.

Or print out the cards with your abilities and flip them over when they're used...........

You seem to be incredibly convinced that having a list of abilities makes you a spellcaster and not what the substance of those abilities entail.

This is your first and most critical mistake. Confusing structure with substance.

Overall, 4e had a lot of good ideas. AC and attack bonus meshed, the numbers leveled up in a satisfying way (rather than the disparate fractional base attack bonuses and save bonuses and ability DCs and spell DCs of 3.5, which became wildly unbalanced), and even if fighters weren't any better than other classes at hitting things (a problem continued in 5e) they at least performed fairly well. And 4e was relatively balanced. However, Chess is also balanced. Monopoly is also balanced. Balance by itself does not make a good game.

4e had little in the way of interesting character options. It was a linear buffet of powers to choose from, rather than the feat-based character building of 3.5. Wizards of the Coast was so shit-scared of making over-powered combos (most of which resulted from bad wording and lazy loopholes) that they emasculated feats in 4e and almost excluded them entirely in 5e, most of the feats in the latter being so shitty they need to give an ability score bonus to be effective (lol).

This

>Ah yes I recall mind controlling enemies
Come and Get It

5e was designed to be as inoffensive as possible. 4e was designed to be as radical as possible. Radical change creates blowback. Inoffensive pap doesn't.

Here's your (You)

In short: 4e failed because it was too different. That doesn't mean it was good, although it did have some good ideas. The daily/encounter/at-will structure works remarkably well for spellcasters, even though it is a horrendous shitshow for martials. Perhaps the biggest sin of 4e is that its spirit continues into 5e: fighters are resource-based once again (see: battlemaster superiority dice, second wind, action surge) and ranger and paladin become almost full spellcasters (because WotC is so devoid of mechanical imagination to make those classes viable without loading them down with almost as many spell slots as a wizard).

4e will go down in history as the forgotten edition. You can claim it slaughtered sacred cows to try to improve the game, but you need to note: without its "sacred cows," there is absolutely nothing compelling or attractive about the D&D system, from any perspective. It is entirely a mistake. 4e is not a well-designed game because it tries to be D&D and not D&D at the same time; a goal it was doomed to fail at, and did.

High expectations from an obvious troll thread.

>Or print out the cards with your abilities and flip them over when they're used...........
Why should I do more work, just so that my fighter can only do something cool once per day? Why can't I do multiple cool things per day? Why is that? Why does 4e work the way it does? What is GOOD about fighters only getting to use their cool disarm once per day? How does it make sense in-world? How is deciding when to use it NOT metagaming? Why was the game designed that way instead of making martials viable without limiting them to resource economy bullshit?

Please stop reddit-spacing.

Well 5e was actually good, so it got less criticism. Also DnD doesn't make up like 80% of all roleplaying anymore or whatever the number was.

Pulling someone at you is considered mind control now?

Jeeze I guess when I taunt a bull and it charges at me I'm just a fucking druid all of a sudden.

Because it wasnt disinformation? Its practically a controlled experiment.

Mechanically, 4e fighters were the same as spellcasters. Nitpicking the fact that they can't turn opponents into toads (which didn't even exist in 4e because that would be an un-fun Save or Die ability) does nothing to change that fact.

Unless you explain why a fighter can only use steel strike once per day, I will continue to maintain that fighters are spellcasters, because there is no explanation for why they can only do it once per day.

>Please stop reddit-spacing.

Not an argument.

>Unless you explain why a fighter can only use steel strike once per day

It's really really really hard to do.

The stuff above it was, though. However, you are unable to answer any of those questions, so instead you'll just focus on irrelevant bullshit. I've made my point. I'll check this thread tomorrow to see if someone has actually made a convincing counterargument, but given the way I've seen 4rries behave on this website, I won't get my hopes up.

> (which didn't even exist in 4e because that would be an un-fun Save or Die ability)

dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Foe_to_frog

>Unless you explain why a fighter can only use steel strike once per day,

If that's your only criteria for what "spells" and "magic" are that they HAVE to be per day. And the concept of martial being something supernatural in nature and therefore equivalent to spellcasting ignoring theme and tone and what the characters ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH?

well I think that speaks for itself? Like... why have this argument? You're clearly not just interested in shitting on everything and being a pretentious twat so... yeah. Bully for you.

Then how come he can choose exactly when he manages to do it?

Because it's super fucking fun as hell to play.

And you can do multiple cool things per day, that question is pure troll.

>Because it's super fucking fun as hell to play.
No it's not. Why does limiting it to once per day make it more fun to play?

>dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Foe_to_frog
>save ends
It might as well just be magical chains holding him in place. The flavor just makes it stupider and smacks of Wizards' desperation to include polymorph while cutting its balls off. Same thing with the bodak, cockatrice, and basilisk in 5e. They are so shit-scared of actually fucking up a PC it's hilarious. Pussies.

It's because it is a game

How is that even relevant to what we're discussing?

You may as well say 3.5 sucks because the best classes (spellcasters) play that way under your logic.

Okay, wow.

Wow.

I'm gonna leave this one alone.

The explanation in the book is that dailies are taxing in some manner. Maybe Steel Strike is physically exhausting, or it could be especially hard on your weapon and repeated use would break it. It could also consume some sort of resource, those daily smoke bombs the rogue was dropping don't grow on trees, he has to make some more during the next extended rest.
As for martial encounter powers, they're typically flavored as being especially tricky. You could use them again in the same fight, but without the element of surprise it wouldn't be any more effective than a basic attack. It's much easier to avoid an attack you've already seen once.

Wow okay spaz.

I mean if you absolutely wanna be in a game of rocket tag one bad roll and you're dead that's fine?

I dunno why that's fun to you but having per day abilities is terrible.

>You're clearly not just interested in shitting on everything and being a pretentious twat so... yeah. Bully for you.
Um... yeah, I'm not just interested in shitting on everything. Only 4e and it's fucktarded mechanics. The powers system was not an achievement in game design, it was a cop-out to avoid an actual design challenge. It was a road bump in how D&D was meant to be, and there is nothing it does that 5e doesn't do just as well if not better.

I like 4e

that's the only argument needed. If the system fits the game I'm running I'll use it. I think 4e has its uses.

We don't have to convince you to like it. We don't want to play with you anyway. You're a huge faggot.

That's not an argument. FATAL is a game. Does that mean it's mechanics are good for roleplaying?

>I don't have an argument so I'll say "oh wow just wow" and take up three lines to make my post more visible and take up more space.
k

So, unless someone can do everything they do all day everyday with no limits, they're a spellcaster?
3.5 monks are spellcasters? 3.5 barbarians are spellcasters?

>You may as well say 3.5 sucks because the best classes (spellcasters) play that way under your logic.
It's a balancing factor for wizard spells being powerful. Also there is an in-world explanation for why spells cannot be used infinitely: it drains magical energy from the caster, which takes time to renew. This is accepted in-world and the characters are aware of it. Hence why it is acceptable for them to plan around it. 4e has no such explanation for why martials can only do things once a day. If it's because it tires them out, then why not make it based on Con? D&D wizards get bonus spells per day if they have high Intellect.

As someone who bought too many splatbooks, can confirm.

They don't get bonuses based on Con because only spellcasters get bonus spells and fighters aren't spellcasters.

He's arguing against narrative gameplay design altogether. Your argument is pointless

>Maybe Steel Strike is physically exhausting
Then you should get more uses of it for having a high Constitution. Period.
>or it could be especially hard on your weapon and repeated use would break it.
Then I should be able to take out a different sword and use the ability again. Easy.
> It could also consume some sort of resource
What resource is that?
> those daily smoke bombs the rogue was dropping don't grow on trees, he has to make some more during the next extended rest.
Except, by RAW, you could lock that rogue in a basement and he could make those smoke bombs out of nothing for 10 years. Wow, rogues can spontaneously create matter. Looks like they are spellcasters after all.
>As for martial encounter powers, they're typically flavored as being especially tricky.
Yet they can choose exactly when they use them, with 100% rate of success. Hm. If they are so good at using the power why can't they do it again until they've taken a breath.
>You could use them again in the same fight, but without the element of surprise it wouldn't be any more effective than a basic attack. It's much easier to avoid an attack you've already seen once.
So every single encounter power is some kind of sneak attack or feint?

Because it's a tabletop game of make-believe with rules not a simulation, Dolylist vs Wastsonian approach.

>reddit-spacing

Go back to /pol/, we've been doing this on Veeky Forums longer than you've been alive.

>I mean if you absolutely wanna be in a game of rocket tag one bad roll and you're dead that's fine?
Nice false dichotomy you fucking mongoloid. I'm sorry, the basilisk should do petrification damage, so if you're a level 20 fighter you're immune to it and can have a staring contest with it out of your sheer bad-ass-ness. That would be SOOO epic, wouldn't it. I bet that greentext would get lots of upvotes on Reddit, wouldn't it?

No. Stop being retarded. I'm sorry if you can't handle your character being in danger, or the kind of tension that creates, but it IS fun, and has been for the millions who played 3.5 and AD&D. Sure a lot more fun than flipping cards until they're all flipped then LONG REST TIME and get it all back. What a pointless fucking ritual.

It's not like 3.5 so it sucks.

>I like 4e
>that's the only argument needed.
Okay. Then run it, and stop participating in an argument about it's design.
>I like 3.5
>that's the only argument needed
Is equally valid.

>can confirm.
Get off this fucking website. No one cares what you "can confirm."

Then why can't my in-shape fighter do something tiring more often than an 8 Con fighter?

What, hitting Enter after every line like an obnoxious dumbass?

>Being this easily triggered

>by simple spacing

Yeah, that's an underaged /pol/ for sure.

>I don't need to have internal consistency in my rules because it's a GAME and therefore nothing else matters
My rules-set that does have internal consistency and associated mechanics is superior to yours, and more fun.

Because it's fun for players to have agency.

Because it would ruin the narrative. 4e is an action movie, not a simulation.

>Having more than 8 con.
Con is by far the worst stat in 4e and with the exception of specific builds and a few feat requirements there's 0 reason to ever raise it above 10.

That's how you format written information, your posts also use paragraph saving, but you have more words per paragraph.

I've been playing this game since before you were born. I started playing AD&D in '95. Don't fuck with me, faggot. I don't even go on /pol/.

>Because it's fun for players to have agency.
They have "agency" in every single other D&D edition. 4e powers do nothing to change that one way or the other. Unless you consider metagaming to be "agency." Agency is a buzzword and I doubt you even know what the fuck it means, dumbass. Unless you think it means "lol I rolled a nat20 so I get to do whatever I want because of rule of cool." Players get control over their CHARACTER. However, their CHARACTER has no fucking clue that he can only use steel strike once a day, because there is no in-world explanation of it. Thus you are metagaming (i.e. not roleplaying) when you use any of those powers. That is why 4e is NOT a roleplaying game. It's a storytelling game, and a shitty one with overcomplicated, slow-as-fuck combat at that.

>D&D 4e sucked because it turned martials into spellcasters.
>Mechanically, 4e fighters were the same as spellcasters.

Am I the only one whose going to ask "and this is a bad thing because?"

Everyone else seems to be arguing against the idea that fighters are spellcasters in 4e. I want to know why we should even care that they are, if they were?

>Don't fuck with me, I'm a newborn baby who just got here from /pol/

look kid,

it's nothing personell.

Perhaps you should try

lurking a few years

before getting all triggered

about a common practice

on the board.

Perhaps try

Coming back

once you are over

18.

>4e is NOT a roleplaying game. It's a storytelling game
ha...hm.

>Agency is a buzzword
Too much bait on the hoot m8, it'll sink to the bottom

Because martials are stupid and have to suck because the jocks bullied me in highschool.

Yeah I can see why it's the worst stat when you don't even get extra uses of an ability that tires you out.

There is no reason to hit enter after quoting a post, or for every line. Double spacing is just a waste of space.

>Because it would ruin the narrative.
Why would using an ability more than once, ruin the narrative?
>4e is an action movie, not a simulation.
I didn't know action movies had a group of characters fight four different level-appropriate encounters in a contrived area, rest for 8 hours, then do it again, ad nauseum. Good to know I've been watching the wrong movies. Too bad that guy in Die Hard could only shoot a gun once per day, otherwise he would have beaten those terrorists!

This and
a really aggressive ad campaign that shat on the old fanbase.

Yet you still have the mindset of the child you were when you started.

It's true, though. Agency is a load of shit. It's a meaningless buzzword. 4e powers do NOTHING for player agency.

I love martials being good. Hell I love even playing martials in 3.5. I only recently started playing a spellcaster in 3.5 at all. Nice strawman though, keep beating it and projecting your own insecurities.

>captcha a throwback to the good old days

How so? Because I don't accept overly contrived bullshit for the sake of flat, bland game with zero interesting mechanics?

>love even playing martials in 3.5. I only recently started playing a spellcaster in 3.5 at all

So you confirm you don't actually know what you're talking about

See you tomorrow friendo!

This, pretty much.

>D&D 4e sucked because it turned martials into spellcasters.
No, you retard. 4e was amazing because it turned martials into spellcasters. That was its greatest strength! It gave them something to do beyond "Well, I'll hit him with my sword again, I guess" every round.

>A group of orcs jumping down from a wall 10 feet high to attack the players, would all die instantly from 2d10 points of damage.
Well, yeah. That's as it should be. A 10 foot fall is an entire building story; that's easily enough to cripple a person, and during a fight that'd be fatal.

>So you confirm you don't actually know what you're talking about
I DMed for a group of 3.5 players that included spellcasters for a good 4 years. Nice try, though.

>It gave them something to do beyond "Well, I'll hit him with my sword again, I guess" every round.
So did 3.5. You can say that the options were kinda shit (and they were), but that doesn't make the statement any less true. Stop strawmanning.

>You can say that the options were kinda shit (and they were), but that doesn't make the statement any less true.
They were all-around worse than "Well, I'll hit him with my sword again, I guess", and as result functionally non-existent.

If an option is complete shit, it's not really a true option.

Tell me how a 3.5 Monk's Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, Empty Palm, and if they take it Stunning Fist do not make them spellcasters, since these are all abilities that are limited per day (or per week)
Same with the rogue's Defensive Roll. Once a day. Obviously a spellcaster, there. Explain why they can't make more than one defensive roll a day otherwise, since a once per day ability has to be a spell.
A first level barbarian can rage once per day. This is obviously a spell. And he even gets more casts as he goes up in level, just like other spellcasters! Tell me how the barbarian isn't a spellcaster that doesn't get a single spell multiple times.

>options are shit and aren't worth using
>"I-It's exactly the same as 4e where Martial characters have pages and pages of different options!"

People shit on Martials in 3.5 because everything other than two-handed power-attack builds were shit. Grappling is a broken mechanic that doesn't even work on most enemies. Trips are invalidated by 6th level when flight becomes an option. Disarming doesn't work against anything that isn't a fellow human.

Sword+Board does so little damage and +2 ac is shit in the end. Two-Weapon Fighting is only worthwhile if you're a rogue, and even then it's still shit because of the huge Dex requirements just to pull off an extra 1d6+1 damage, at best.

Having options is not the same as having RELEVANT options. Saying you have 500 flavors of shit-flavored ice cream doesn't make any of it any more enticing.

>I didn't know action movies had a group of characters fight four different level-appropriate encounters in a contrived area, rest for 8 hours, then do it again, ad nauseum.
Guess you haven't been watching any the last decade

The reason 4e sucked had nothing to do with its using narrative powers instead of agency powers, it had to do with it being a very deeply flawed boring system to play, with faults that while they do have various house rules and fixes, ARE present in the system itself, yet its fans vehemently insist aren't there, or aren't a problem.

The combat system pre-MM3 [and possibly even after ] is an overcomplicated padded-sumo slog.

There is way too much focus on movement, positioning, ongoing effects, class roles, and so on in the system.

Non-combat abilities are basically non-existence even for most Utility powers, barring a handful of Skill Abilities in PH3 and the godawful Ritual System, which is both too monetarily expensive and too slow to cast to be practical in play.

The Skill System ended up making most characters feel samey by about level 10.

It somehow manages the impressive feat of requiring even more bookkeeping then 3.X.

Its just a really, really, really bad system. And not bad like 3.X, which is also awful, in the sense of being an overcomplicated unbalanced piece of shit, but awful in the "This is really fucking boring" sense. And I'm sure someone will respond to this with a bullet-point greentext explaining why exactly I'm wrong, but I really don't care. 4e lost and no similar games are heading for the mainstream anytime soon, so any discussion of its merits or lack thereof is an autopsy, not a quality debate. Those who enjoy it are free to continue doing so, but in my own experience its quite possibly the worst RPG I've ever played.

Pic unrelated, its David Bowie.

>Unless you explain why a fighter can only use steel strike once per day

It's a mechanical conceit of the game to allow big ballbuster abilities in a way that makes their use memorable and useful for the player. It's once per day use means the player needs to often wait for an opportune time to use it, which narratively is supposed to be the character waiting for an opportune time to strike. It's a different take on how the narrative and mechanics interact, but it's not inherently weirder than barbarians getting angry in very specific increments of six seconds or how how hitpoints work.

Your issue with minions also shows your same issues with this different narrative structure. Minions let you run an encounter that doesn't work in 3.5, a big boss guy with a bunch of mooks around them. You could certainly try it, but with how borked 3.5's CR system is and how AC scaling works, the mook guys would likely never hit the PCs, and chewing through them would just increase the amount of book keeping and time wasted with everyone involved. Minions fix this by keeping the attack and defensive stats on par with the player while cutting the HP bloat.

There also is an average orc warrior, the raider, and its not a minion. In your scenario with a group of orcs ambushing the PCs, it's likely them who are doing the jump ambush on the PCs.

I remember making this image crop.

The advantage 4e martials have over martials in every other edition of D&D is the same advantage that MTG had over War or that Agricola has over Shoots and Ladders. If you never make choices as a player in a game then you aren't playing.

Why do we keep having these threads. How many more times can you keep saying "I hate 4e"? It's dead and like 10% of people still play it. Must you keep shitting on the corpse?

Why the fuck don't 3.x Barbarians get bonus rages for Con?! 3.x = verisimilitude broken forever. What a garbage game where Conan has to be a wizard.

>Except... this also was true in 3.5 where 99% of characters who hit a 5 hp orc would kill it outright. Maybe not at level 1, but that made sense.

Except attack and defence didn't scale for shit with those guys so before long they'd only be hitting on 20s. Minions actually kept pace with PCs.

Do you all remember that awesome action movie where the cool hero immediately dies when he confronts the villain due to getting poked by Finger of Death but then his nerd friend saves the day by casting Wish with a bunch of diamonds resulting in the situation being immediately resolved by deus ex machina?

But then to stay safe he takes an eight hour nap in his mobile extra dimensional mansion before paying a priest to bring his dumb jock friend back to life?

Such a solid flick.

>Too bad that guy in Die Hard could only shoot a gun once per day, otherwise he would have beaten those terrorists!

Die hard is basically the perfect example of 4e's healing surge system. It allows people to get more and more beat up over the course of the day without walking into each encounter with 'I am a soft breeze away from falling over'. You have the ability to get worn down without removing the risk of early battles.

>and too slow to cast to be practical in play.

1 minute it too slow to be practical? As most rituals were 1-10 mins.

>Non-combat abilities are basically non-existence

That's because skills were supposed to be the bread and butter of non-combat. You know, those things you get trained in for non-combat?

Except for the eight hour nap part, you've basically described Willow.

4e tried to be something different than 3.5e. 5e is trying to be as innoffensive as possible.
And it turns out that people get upset if you slaughter sacred cows.

4e would have been infinitely better received if it launched as "D&D Tactics" or another name that empasized its reliance on grid-based tactical combat, instead of the theater of the mind.
That said, I really enjoyed 4e because I come from a wargaming background instead of a rpg background.

See, I really disagree with this idea that 4e would have been better if it came out as D&D tactics. How would that have really helped? It would have removed most of the brand power of being the new D&D edition, it would have required a brand split to keep D&D going and it's honestly not very good as a wargame (As PCs and NPCs run on different rules so PC vs PC combat gets rather alpha-strikey).

It's an RPG first an foremost, just one that has a strong tactical side.