D&D 4e Artwork

...

...

...

why the fuck did they get rid of this

and this

this too

oh yeah and this

Many thanks, that's the one I was looking for!

Because either 4e was badwrongfun and we're not allowed to think otherwise, or it made gnomes look too much like elves and not enough like dwarves.

That said, I think the 5e gnome isn't TOO hideous either. Certainly better than the 5e halfling... gods almighty, now THAT is fucking hideous. Seriously, what's wrong with 4e halflings?

We lost those because we lost the World Axis, because people demanded we had to have the Great Wheel back.

Ehh, the 5e version isn't too bad, but I agree these are better.

and you better BELIEVE this

>the 5e gnome isn't TOO hideous
Strongly disagree.

Because 'rarr-I'm-a-monster' was one of the most cringy-as-fuck ad campaigns ever fucking done.
And for the record, when you're swearing to the high heavens that you didn't just make Tieflings into draenei, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't tell your voice actor to do a voice that sounds just like the draenei female. Maybe.
Because they only exist because the people making the came were too fucking boring to make aasimar as stupidly over-the-top as they did the tieflings, so they just threw whatever bits of draenei they hadn't already used to make holy blue people. I have no idea what the other guy is saying, losing the World Axis is no reason to lose these guys; plus, losing the World Axis costs us nothing of value whatsoever.
Eh, every edition of dnd kinda shits the bed on this - just bite the bullet and make orcs playable, instead of pussyfooting around about rape babies and/or unbelievable idiotic hobgoblin empires.
Because for some fucking reason, we can't use any setting but the Forgotten Realms anymore, so no Eberron for anyone.
Man, by the end, Morrison's run on X-Men really got out of control.

Okay, yeah, my memory must have partially blotted that out. Still, it's bad, but at least it's not 5e PHB Halfling bad, yes?

Maybe Blizzard shouldn't have paid a Diabolus - a D&D race, mind you - to have a threeway with a Klingon and a Twi'lek and then kidnapped the result to call it a Draenei.

Except Devas only exist because of the World Axis lore for Angels. Which we can't have anymore, because Angels are Aasimon now.

Eh, I'll give you that; really, I think D&D should have been pushing Orcs and Goblinoids into the PHB for editions now.

Why did we have to get rid of Paragon Paths? They added so much, for pretty much nothing lost. Also they had some sick art, the Zephyr Blade art was fucking fantastic.

Fuck, forgot image. Damnit.

What's so dumb about hobgoblin empires?

Because everybody wants to bitch about 4e, so of course we're not allowed to have awesome stuff like Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies anymore.

Not helping is that lots of people apparently don't like Prestige Classes, and Paragon Paths are seen as the same thing with a different name.

Nothing, except the idea is A: new, and B: paired with the idea that their traditional animal-taming aptitudes has turned into full-blown eugenics and alchemical flesh-crafting.

It's not a BAD idea, it's just not "traditional", which is what most anti-4es bitch about.

Eh, they're not like Prestige Classes and they have been implemented in a slightly more subtle fashion (the three split paths of the Fighter and the Bardic Colleges, for example). But I wish they were more out there and actually defined the folks as characters more.

Also, why did they have to botch the Primal guys completely? The Barbarian went from "warrior that communes with the spirits, ranging from dumb bag of bricks to an intelligent warlord" to "dumb bag of bricks that sometimes does spirit-ish stuff", for example.

Because we had to get rid of the 4e cosmology, no matter the cool ideas that it brought in, and that means getting rid of the Primal Spirits who finally gave awesome, unique mystical backgrounds to both the Barbarian and the Druid.

Plus, y'know, Barbarians are just dumb martial characters - berserk fighters with less armor - and of course everybody wants the traditional feeling, so barbarians can't have mystical aspects to them at all, oh no, we can't just have Ranger and/or Fighter subclasses for non-magical reavers...

>Because 'rarr-I'm-a-monster' was one of the most cringy-as-fuck ad campaigns ever fucking done.
What does that have to do with gnomes as presented in the PHB2, instead of the MM?
>they only exist because the people making the came were too fucking boring to make aasimar as stupidly over-the-top as they did the tieflings
Sure, Vedic Gandalf is so much more boring then "Aasimars are usually tall, good-looking, and generally pleasant."
>rape babies and/or unbelievable idiotic hobgoblin empires
Or being a race separate from humans and orcs, or being born from the earth and the blood of Gruumsh. Weren't you just complaining that the writers were too boring?

>I really loved the artwork for Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition, so I was wondering if anyone else out there missed it too.

No, I hate it and blame it for 4e's poor reception. Everything you've posted confirms me in my opinion, except maybe the pencil sketches which make me think a little better of the dwarf and tiefling designs.

>I really loved the artwork for Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition, so I was wondering if anyone else out there missed it too.
I love it, but I don't "miss" it, in the sense that I'm still playing it.

Funin.space still exists.

The offline builder still exists.

The game PDF's still exist.

The community that played 4e was largely composed of people who at-least didn't care for 3e, and so it's unlikely that many of them would "jump ship" to 5e which is basically 3e repackaged with a new paintjob. So the community that played 4e largely exists. If anything, it's been slightly improved because the math fixes have become a true consensus, rather than something the devs still fight against to sate their egos because they don't want to admit that, yes they made some math mistakes on release.

The only thing missing is a continual release of new content, but with re-fluff-ability of what is already there, there really isn't any need, and towards the end of the essentials erra, the power-creep and content-bloat was starting to show, so it actually ended at just the right point... hell it could have ended roughly 6 months earlier and would have been literally perfect.

I currently run two 4e games, one online and one IRL. If you miss it, run one, and people WILL come. If you're nervous about DMing, don't worry, 4e is a DM's DREAM edition, requiring by far the LEAST amount of prep time to be run properly.

I'm posting some 4e Dark Sun stuff, since it's also lost to the edition

I think DS would fit 5e quite well if WotC cared about things that weren't FR

Hey, I need your opinion. I want to start a 4e game and I'm confused by the choice of books. What the fuck is Essentials line and should I use it instead of base books?

Anyone know what this monster is? Like, is it a thing they just invented for this cover?

That looks like some version of an umber hulk

>using existing settings
>not making your own
>not homebrewing settings they ignore that you liked
For srs user, RPG rules are best used as setting-agnostic. They're best designed that way too. Make a Dark Sun-like and run with it mang.

They were basically the existing classes distilled into the purest versions of their role. Strikers now do consistent damage instead of rolling for extra stuff as often, and can stack so many things to do crazy numbers. Controllers now don't even need to hit do do area damage sometimes, and have ways to ruin monsters days in DM infuriating ways. Extend the same to leaders healing/buffing and defenders hitting people for not staying put, and you get super potent and specific characters, that have fewer options (excl mage & warpriest)
IMO I find they can become imbalanced in such a way that one E-Class character may do nearly all the damage for the party, even if there were two strikers.
Can Umber hulks normally use weapons?

But I love Dark Sun. If I was to make a 'DarkSun-like' it would just be a fan Dark Sun. Why make a setting /like/ the thing I want when I want DS?
That's like telling me to make a sandwich when I want a burger. It's not what I really want, and the actual solution is for me to not be lazy and actually go make the thing I want.

I see, thanks. So it seems that sticking to base books will be fun (plus more opportunities for min max which my players love).

Gotta love a Gaj

Just make it clear to your players that you don't want to play a super optimized game, and that they should just play fun builds. Communication early and often is the best way for everyone to enjoy themselves.
Also: if you want easy games, use the Dungeon Magazines, lots of maps and adventures you can pull stuff from and either build your own or just be lazy like me and use them straight from the mags.

Well then run Dark Sun nigger. I thought the complaint here was there was no 5e DS. Which is what your post says. So I responded with what I thought you should do. And now you complain. You don't deserve DS.

>Except Devas only exist because of the World Axis lore for Angels. Which we can't have anymore, because Angels are Aasimon now.

Not really. They existed because "Aasimar" was considered a name that seemed cooler to read than to say and the fact that the race didn't have much going for it beyond, "You're part celestial."

They gave them a story in much the same way they gave Tieflings one and a unique hook so that you could kind of go beyond, "I look good and I'm good aligned. I'm a Paladin or Cleric".

Hobgoblins have always been the Klingons of D&D. If anything, it's FR that conflated them with Orcs to the point where they're all dirty primitive tribesmen with superstitious shamans and no culture or technology.

I really like how with the female dwarves, they moved away from making them men in drag and made them look like short stocky women the way males look like short stocky men. And giving them long thick hair to match dwarven men's long thick beards was also a nice touch.

I've tried running 4e again ever since my group split up due to everyone moving out to somewhere else, can't find anyone but newbies who make combat take far too long. Kind of thinking of implementing a 2 minute rule on turns. That said, it's still so much fun, I can focus on the role-playing parts of the RPG since the game parts are so easy yet deep to build. Creating enemies that work in tandem with one another is so much fun.

That said, one of the reasons why I'm still playing 5e is because it's one of the few places where I won't be a GM. I do bring "radical" ideas to there which always seem to surprise, like bards not necessarily being musicians, or barbarians not being berserkers in less armor.

Yeah, that was a touch of genius. Female dwarves actually looking like women is something I absolutely adore.

Hmm... looking it over, my guess would be a Beast-Headed Giant with some sort of bug basis for its head. If you look closely, apart from that monstrous skull, it's otherwise a very humanoid figure - and it's wielding a weapon, which means it can't be an anakore, my first choice.

The Essentials classes were attempts to "simplify" the 4e classes by stripping them down to their barest bones and losing most of the diverse array of powers that the classes had relied on to give them versatility.

Think of them as "baby's first 4e class" and you're not too far off.

Seconded. Dwarves can be sexy too - shortstack is a thing for a reason, after all. You can damn well bet that after 4e gave us female dwarves who looked like this, as well as muls who weren't so grimderp, I made dwarf/human relationships a lot more common in my games.

Stupid connection keeping me from posting sexy dwarven wizardess pic...

I /do/ run DS? In 4e. I don't actually know what you we're suggesting. I wanted WotC to finish their psionic shit, and make a balanced way for defiling to be a valid thing. The problem I said was I was too lazy to do all that shit myself.
What I was confused by was why you were saying to make a DS-like instead of just doing the actual setting.

Honestly, I love 4e's fluff, even though I detest its mechanics (no, I don't think switching back to 3e is an acceptable alternative either, that broken pile deserved to be forgotten, 4e just wasn't the fix I wanted).

This one looks really awkward :T

What type of fix would you have preferred?

Mmm, tell me about it. There are very few 5e fluff things that I'm personally a fan of - and I would take 4e's fluff over most of it in a heartbeat. Seriously, screw the Ordning, screw gnolls as demonic hyena rage-zombies, and screw the return of the Great Wheel.

...

...

>Honestly, I love 4e's fluff, even though I detest its mechanics (no, I don't think switching back to 3e is an acceptable alternative either, that broken pile deserved to be forgotten, 4e just wasn't the fix I wanted).

I did enjoy 4e, but I really would have preferred something more like Star Wars Saga Edition.

I really thought that's where 4e was headed and they did take a lot from it.

I'll stop now

Like Saga Edition except going further in modernizing D&D. 4e hung on to too many of the sacred cows of D&D.

Also something that went a bit more towards the realm of making a game meant to simulate living characters in a fantasy environment; while 4e wasn't especially worse than 3rd in this regard, it didn't really do anything to case of the feel that characters were constructs meant to function in a game environment.

Essentials was Mike Mearls deliberately trying to torpedo 4e because he really loved 3e.

It's 4.5, and ignores some of the principles that made 4e really work.

I'd bed her.

4e was pretty much meant to be the pulpiest, big damn heroes D&D edition, and that's precisely what it does. Not really simulating per se, more akin to creating very, very pulpy stories.

Sure, but it does that in a lot of ways that really highlight the fact these characters are figures in games. Things like enshrining class roles, or structuring the game extensively around such a rigid power system, or the sharp divide between player character design and monster design.

What I'd imaging for a pulp game that doesn't do these would be something along the lines of Savage Worlds.

Fair enough, I guess. To be fair, 4e is full on Strategy RPG, and it kind of has to acknowledge it's a role-playing GAME for that to work properly.

Very much this. 4e is pulp hero game, and it does it VERY well. It actually is easier to house-rule/refluff it out of fantasy easier than it is to house-rule/refluff it out of the pulpy feels. I LOVE this about it, but honestly, this may be why people were so disconcerted with it. If you're expecting a specific non-pulp feel, and you get 4e pulp, I can see how you'd feel upset.
>enshrining class roles
Personally I'd call this honesty and openness about already existing class roles
>or the sharp divide between player character design and monster design
This, mechanically, is actually my favorite thing about 4e. The fact that PC's and PC-obstacles are built on fundementally different chassis REALLY underlines the fact that the PC's are the big damn heroes, or at the very least, are fundementally different from the mundanes of the world. Honestly, if you want a game in which the PC's fundamentally FEEL like heroes, you kind of HAVE to build them on a different chassis. In-fact this is the one spot where I find that
>Savage Worlds
fails to deliver on the promises of pulpy heroic escapism. In that sense, it's a bit more simulationist than heroic, because everyone is built off of the same chassis; true, there's a difference between Wild-Cards and non-wild-cards, but a GM is kind of obligated to REGULARLY throw wild-cards at their players if they want to keep challenge on-par, so that kind-of waters down the "special-nes" of being a wild-card.

That, of-course, does NOT mean that every game HAS to make the PC's feel like larger than life pulp action heroes.... just that there totally SHOULD be a game out there that does, and in my experience, that game is 4e. SW is more of a simulationist game that more groundedly simulates characters living in the same setting in which your favorite pulp movie/novel occured.

Each does different things: the key is knowing what things you want your campaign to do, and picking the right tool for the job.

Essentials was also a move to stop everyone running over to Pathfinder, which was literally marketing itself as a refuge for 3e players who were "betrayed" by WotC daring to put out a new edition instead of keeping on with 3.x forever and ever.

and like a bunch of irrational jilted women, you all went over to Paizo who'd fuck you and let you call them daddy.

Okay, as someone who really likes 4e, and HATES 3e and its OGL clones, I think you're being a bit unfair to the 3.X fanbase who jumped ship to PF.

For the better part of a decade, the majority of all games released were OGLd20 games. If you lived in a small town with one game store and one book store, it was fully possible that literally the ONLY TTRPG's you saw during that period were OGL games. This was also when the hobby saw the BIGGEST influx of players to date from the unrelated event of the internet going from a secret clubhouse to THE FUCKING INTERNET. You combine these facts, and you have an entire generation who started on OGLd20, grew up on OGLd20, played nothing but OGLd20, and were expecting more OGLd20. Hell, Wizards even released SwSaga as a sort of soft-preview for 4e, which quite disheartened me because it looked like just more OGLd20, but I can imagine being one of those OGLd20 kids reading through SwSaga and expecting 4e to be 3e-but-fixed, rather than something completely new (and in my opinion, wholly better.)

If you feed a child literally nothing but McDoubles from the moment they start eating solid food, and raise them in a town in which every restaurant serves only variations on the McDouble, you can't spite them for spitting out steak the first time they try it and declaring that they hate steak. Similarly, their opinion doesn't mean that Steak is bad, or that McDoubles are good, but you honestly can't spite them for having that totally understandable opinion given the circumstances of their relationship to food.

They want to keep eating their McDoubles, and they are willing to pay for it. As I pointed out here their love for McDoubles in no way forces us to eat McDoubles or stop eating Steak....

Just leave those poor 3.X-raised kids alone. They will never know the joys of systems outside the OGLd20 purview: that's deserving of sympathy and pity, not hatred.

I love the fact that you can't imagine someone who likes PF/3.5 has played anythign else. Your conceit about your own games blinds you to the fact that some people enjoy the games for what they are and are still capable and have played many other games.

Perhaps it isn't PF and 3.5 that caused the brain damage you claim it's players have, and it's just that you're short sighted, self-involved, stuck up assholes instead. It's a much more likely scenario.

>[autistic screeches from the bearded female dwarf grognards]

you raise a valid point, but the number of people who have only played OGLd20 games and continued to do so outnumbers the people who have tried multiple systems and prefer OGLd20.
People have different tastes. Just because you like spongecake more than carob doesn't mean most people haven't tried carob.

>you can't imagine someone who likes PF/3.5 has played anythign else
I could see how you could read that, but no. If we're to continue down the metaphor of meat, it's no more implausible than someone genuinely loving McDoubles. Hell, both in and out of the metaphor, I've been known to enjoy a McDouble from time to time: I just have a lot of resentment for a damn decade where all anyone was serving was McDoubles. I'm not talking about individual angry outliers on the internet yelling their opinions into the void of image boards, forums, twitter, and comment sections, I'm talking about large market segments that actually spend money on game books. The simple fact remains that there was a significant period of time when MOST games were 3e-in-all-but-name published under the OGL, and you had to go out of your way to find and play something else. The fact remains that the largest money-spending segment of the TTRPG market began playing during that exact period. Maybe you branched out, maybe you didn't, but this huge demographic, for the most part, did not, or at-least did not branch out early enough to be able to enjoy anything else. Hell, personally, I have no problem with WoTC pandering to this block: me and my friends already have what we need to play our games, and most of us haven't actually spent money on a game book since the 90's, (thanks piracy) so I fully acknowledge that, from a making money perspective, our opinions should NOT matter to a publicly traded company.

Finally, if you really are one of the fabled 3.X megafans who branched out, what non-3e-esque games have you given what you consider to be a fair chance? How many years did it take you to give one a chance? Which of these do you count among games you like? These are not attacks, but genuine curiosity friend.

>their love for McDoubles in no way forces us to eat McDoubles or stop eating Steak....
Except they would go into 4e threads for the direct purpose of shitposting them into the ground. And carry on their edition warring IRL, spewing disinfo to anyone who would listen.

>Because 'rarr-I'm-a-monster' was one of the most cringy-as-fuck ad campaigns ever fucking done.

No it wasn't.

The hell is wrong with that leg, and why is he offering it to the lizard-person to eat?

>Except they would go into 4e threads for the direct purpose of shitposting them into the ground
Shitposting is unavoidable on the imageboards.
>And carry on their edition warring IRL, spewing disinfo to anyone who would listen.
I've experienced very little of this IRL shitposting. Maybe get out more, and surround yourself with more mature people.

>4e art
>every dwarf woman was thicc
>every other woman was either lithe and svelte or busty with hips for days
>All the art featured woman built to fuck in some capacity
>All the dudes were either wise and sagely or rip/tear mode engage
>compared to 3e and 5e art where females look like shit and guys look like chumps

>I've experienced very little of this IRL shitposting
I've seen it a few times, more from diehard 3.PF people who really had no idea what 4e was about.
It's mostly an internet thing, tho.

And all of that makes 4e art bad... how?

Where are you getting this idea that I'm saying it's bad?

I kinda wanna bring out the fact that they kept badassery on all levels. The Ranger's art, going ultimate rip and tear mode - it's a woman there. And some of the guys honestly looked damn good, too, the Virtuous Paladin in Divine Power coming to mind.

This.
Everyone and thing had a chance to look awesome and be heroic. Don't talk about how you want everyone to feel like they have a place and can be the hero, do it, show it, and let your actions speak for themselves.
White Wolf has a long history of being edgy, counter culture progressives, but I think they spend too much time talking about it rather than letting it show in their work as a natural part of the world they are crafting.

>Personally I'd call this honesty and openness about already existing class roles

Not really, it took something that was kinda sorta there if you squinted (fighters and wizards were expected to be very capable of dealing damage in 2e, clerics weren't exactly slouches either, the closest to a non-striker in 2e was bizarrely the rogue, 4e kinda hammered each into a niche artificially) and exaggerated it for the sake of making them components of a tactics game, which by the way is not conducive to having characters feel like something out of a fantasy novel (try running something meant to feel like Conan or Elric when the game is designed around the expectation of a full party of complimentary support).

>Honestly, if you want a game in which the PC's fundamentally FEEL like heroes, you kind of HAVE to build them on a different chassis. In-fact this is the one spot where I find that

SW does this quite elegantly with the wildcard rules. A wildcard will function fundamentally differently from a regular character.

>fails to deliver on the promises of pulpy heroic escapism. In that sense, it's a bit more simulationist than heroic, because everyone is built off of the same chassis; true, there's a difference between Wild-Cards and non-wild-cards, but a GM is kind of obligated to REGULARLY throw wild-cards at their players if they want to keep challenge on-par, so that kind-of waters down the "special-nes" of being a wild-card.

It fails to deliver on the promise of players being larger than life pulp heroes because they mop the floor with everything that isn't a wildcard, necessitating the occasional wildcard? What kind of dumbass claim is that? That's like claiming that 4e fails to deliver on heroic fantasy because you have to throw the odd dragon at players to threaten them.

You don't need to be the sole group of special characters in the universe to be special. It's like I'm talking to a living example of what 2e grognards claimed 3e players to be.

>try running something meant to feel like Conan or Elric when the game is designed around the expectation of a full party of complimentary support
It's about as close as you can get if you want to run a game with your friends. I immagine there are other games that can run solo-pulp games, but A: they'd be less effective at giving everyone an opportunity to shine for a GROUP-pulp game and B: you'd be playing a solo game... I mean grats, but that's kinda sad and masturbatory.

... I mean come on... you can't imagine teamwork being pulpy? Some pulp is team-based, and some pulp is solo-. Strange how the former lends itself to a group game better than the later. Strange.

>they mop the floor with everything that isn't a wildcard, necessitating the occasional wildcard?
This doesn't necessitate the OCCASIONAL wild-card, this necessitates every meaningful encounter be a wild-card. That's quite different. 4e has mooks too: they're called minions, but the difference is, in 4e, while they're almost certainly going to be defeated, they meaningfully deplete the party's resources in the form of daily powers and healing surges. In SW, they just waste time between the REAL encounters.

SW isn't a bad game, and it delivers on a lot of things, both intentional and unintentional, but it doesn't deliver on pulp-action. It's mostly simulationist, but with streamlined enough rules to be genre-broad, and to run combats quickly. It offers many, Many, MANY qualities that a game may want, but PC exceptionalism is not one of them.
>what 2e grognards claimed 3e players to be.
Except we were complaining less about PC exceptionalism, and hyper-customization encouraging special-snowflake-ism... which honestly it did. IT just took us a while to realize that that's not necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing that 3e did was promise special snowflakes, then build everything off of literally the exact same chassis, thus undercutting THAT promise, and delivering literally nothing.

So, a question for those who liked the female dwarves of 4e:

With such artwork as inspiration, do you think a culture of dwarven amazons would be impossible?

Likewise, what about a noble dynasty of muls (remember, 4e muls aren't sterile) whose origins lie in an ancient wedding-sealed pact between a human king and a dwarven princess, before either race knew it was possible for them to interbreed?

It's fantasy, anything is possible and is limited only by your imagination or personal restraint.

Yeah, the entire thing just emanated a larger than life thing. They made sure everyone looked reasonably attractive, everyone looked considerably badass in several ways, and everyone felt they could be anyone, not in the sense of "even a chump can be a hero" but rather "a hero can come from anywhere". It was just so damn cool.

That's all really interesting, honestly. And 4e's stuff is so loose you can just go with it. My favorite take on Dwarves and Muld was basically Humans as not!French/not!Italians, Dwarves as not!Germans/not!Czechs/not!Slovaks, and the Muls as the not!Swiss.

>zorro
>the shadow
>green beetle?
>spiderman noir?
Where is the rocketeer? Who is everyone else?

>With such artwork as inspiration, do you think a culture of dwarven amazons would be impossible?

Sure. I've never done pure Amazon cultures, but my 4e Dwarves were totally a matriarchal society. The women led domestic affairs and the most elite warriors were the Royal Guard, a mostly female force that faced off against legions of demons and elementals that managed to get past all other forces in the Underdark tunnels.

The Dwarven religion was also originally centered around an Earthmother figure who urged them to tunnel upwards until they finally emerged on a mountain top and adopted Moradin as their Skyfather god who entered into a symbolic marriage with the Earthmother. To this day, it's Dwarven women who select those that wish to be their mate (they usually choose several) and the would be suitors have to compete with each other to gain her favor.

>Green beetle
Green Hornet, retard. Kato next to him.
The Spider is the last one.

He's called green beetle in my country. Not everyone is from fatland. Thanks anyway.

>savage worlds
>simulationist
Hoo boy. You've never touched shit like Silhouette Core, GURPS or HERO, have you?

Your country is stupid then becuase a Hornet is not a Beetle, and clearly his symbol is a hornet. Also I'm not American and in my country is called Green Hornet (translated).

Yeah, and? I could argue that hornet is a female name in my language (much like ladybug), so they "adapted" it to beetle (a male name).
It is retard, but it is how I came to know him. It is not like we call Pokemon by their japanese names either.

Were are you from?

HUEland.

>You've never touched shit like Silhouette Core

I fucking love Silhouette. It's the kind of simulationist stuff people always seem to be clamoring for, but has enough optional "genre effects" that it really can accommodate the fantasy stuff too.

mmm, odd, I'm from Galicia (Spanish region literally adjacent to Portugal) and in the north of Portugal they call them vespão (masculine) to hornets instead of vespas (femenine) to wasps. In Gallego we call them similarly (avespon and avespa and in Spanish avispón and avispa), dunno if that's the actual Portuguese or was adopted from Gallego/Spanish though.

Actually I may have made me a fool. Hornet is indeed a male name (zangão). Confused it with wasp (vespa). Still, here in HUEland they went for green beetle. Zangão is not a good name for a hero, stylisticly speaking.

Minor query; how do you think a Rampaging Brute character could be pulled off in 5e?

Just multiclass a Berserker Barbarian with a Champion Fighter and take the Great Weapon Fighting Style, Proficiency with the Maul, and the Charger, Durable, Great Weapon Master, Savage Attacker and Tough feats?

Stupid connection not letting me contribute some more art...

Color me surprised, another guy from HUEland here, in a fucking 4e thread no less.

literal cagot

I found the 4e artwork annoyingly posey. Everyone looks like they're posing for a camera.

>Because everybody wants to bitch about 4e,
Shut up faggot. People bitched about the game because it dumped a load of new shit that no one wanted or asked for, and when called out on that you all said "LOLOL WELL AT LEAST IT'S MORE BALANCED THAN 3.5 THEREFORE YOU HAVE TO LIKE IT" then threw a huge fit and shit your pants. Paragon paths were just PrCs and archetypes with a different name, they weren't anything new or original. "Le epic destiny" just play a fucking prestige class. LOL. 5e has all of the shit they added and is way better than 4e, and you fags can't get over the fact that D&D is selling better than ever, with Pathfinder in second place, and you morons trailing a distant third. Actually, I think even Starfinder and World of Darkness are ahead of you now, in terms of active games on roll20.