Can we agree that this is a bad power?

I think it dealing full damage is a bit much, and I can't imagine how you'd make enemies hit themselves while running past them, but I think I've got a way to fix it.

Make the damage nonlethal, have the damage dealt by the opportunity attack based on their unarmed damage, and have each creature effected by this ability cause the user to lose 1 square of movement next turn. Suddenly, instead of an easy way to kill all the mooks in a room by running around, it becomes a way to damage a bunch of enemies with a slight drawback.

This would of course weaken the ability as a daily so I'd make it a lower level ability and take the ability it's replacing take its slot and be buffed up to compensate.

Because the system lacks any emphasis on playing a character. The system is entirely geared toward miniatures combat on a battlemat. There are no incentives toward taking on the role of a character.

D&D has always struggled with this (save for older editions where the emphasis was on playing a treasure hunter), but it was glaringly bad in 4e.

Can you explain why you think that's an improvement, or at all necessary?

This made me think about the first time I opened my already used copy of 4e player's handbook and just got to lose myself in the world it created. I recognize the flaws, but damn if i havent had fun with the system

So you haven't read the system. Good to know.

Or you just have an incredibly shallow, simplistic view of what playing a character means. Protip- The choices you make in a tense, frantic conflict with your life and the lives of your friends on the line? Those are a really good way of expressing your character.

So 40k is a roleplaying game too right? And Risk, Risk is my favorite roleplaying game. Oh, and Solitaire, playing the rightful heir and rounding up the courts and murdering the pretenders to the throne by raising a coup in their personal kingdoms... might be a bit of "extrapolation" but all you need is a good imagination and anything is a role playing game :^)

Partly the business about some impossible attacks (such as in the case of the Spectre or Wraith), and partly the business where the more skilled you are the more likely you are to hit yourself, and partly the business where even creatures who would have no interest in melee attacking the rogue (such as creatures using ranged weapons) are forced to try to do so with no opportunity for a will save or similar.

It generally goes against the basics of the core system's philosophy.

Its a difference of where the weight of description goes. Some people prefer to let the mechanics tell the story, and some people prefer to tell the story and use the mechanics more as indicators of the results.

> You just don't get it, man.

Please, spare us poor unsophisticated swine.

> The choices you make in a tense, frantic conflict with your life and the lives of your friends on the line? Those are a really good way of expressing your character.

God, I hope so. That's the only possible way 4e could be perceived to provide even a single, limited route in which it encourages roleplay.

I enjoy 4e, but come on, if you're going to claim the books contradict him, then by all means point out where.

shit twinkie

I've always treated Bloody Path as the Rogue doing the attacking and assumed that it's based off the monster's damage because it's a no-brainer way to scale damage.

I feel like you're taking it too literally. 4e powers are abstractions. Why shouldn't the rogue be able to jackie chan their way through enemies, doing appropriate damage along the way?

...Can you explain further? I don't really see how that relates to 4e.

All the places it talks about playing a character or telling a story? The flavourful character options that carry a lot of implicit or suggested story hooks? I'm finding it hard to understand the basis of your argument.

>can we agree

No.

>55456764
Pretty sure that, as the accuser, it's (you)r task to bring actual evidence to the table. Right now, all you have is your accusation and then your accusation again but slightly reworded. Your opinion is not a fact. How does 4e dissuade people from getting into a role? Because it doesn't hide its mechanics under twelve layers of obfuscation and has the gall to tell newbies "this is what this class is good at"? Because it handles the mechanics for you and lets you just get on with the game and getting into character?

Hahaha all of you are so goddamn wrong I am laughing in my chair.

4e is a shit game, and a good game at the same time. It's a shit D&D game, because it breaks from the D&D identity too strongly. It's fans defend that as progress, as slaying "sacred cows," even though 4e goes about slaying those cows in the most retarded way possible. 4e is also a good system if and ONLY if you subscribe to several assumptions that it makes.
>Because the system lacks any emphasis on playing a character.
Do you mean it lacks roleplaying mechanics? That is one of the reasons why one of the best campaigns I was ever in, was a 4e campaign. Because it stayed the fuck out of the way of the roleplaying, and got involved when we needed it (the combat minigame). You play shit like 5e which tries to shoehorn in "roleplaying mechanics" and just codifies the experience. We don't need rules to roleplay. We need rules for combat, so that it doesn't turn into a shitshow. What the fuck do you mean there is no incentive to roleplay a character, you dumb nigger? If you don't want to roleplay a character, why the FUCK are you playing a ROLEPLAYING GAME? For the sake of christ, I have seen so many games like Savage Worlds and GURPS and any other game with RP-only drawbacks/hindrances/flaws trying to ""encourage"" people to roleplay, it's like the same stupid shit mind games a college professor tries to do to get students to pay attention. If they don't want to do the thing they paid money for, then they are wasting their own goddamn time. Stop babying people. We don't need fucking roleplaying mechanics. End of story.

How does a land shark bite itself?

> All the places it talks about playing a character or telling a story?

Fluff divorced from system, not a valid argument for the system.

> The flavourful character options that carry a lot of implicit or suggested story hooks?

Totally valid, paragon paths were great for that and some of them had nifty pre-reqs to pour it on nice and thicc

> I'm finding it hard to understand the basis of your argument.

Don't have one, 4e is great, just pointing out how shitty your argument was as it was presented.

>Can we agree that whether 4e is good or bad is a subject of taste?

No, and this is a poisonous way of approaching game design.

I don't even play 4e and have no opinion on it, I just want to warn you away from that line of thinking. Fun is certainly subjective. What's good for a playgroup will obviously vary wildly depending on the group and its expectations. There are many decisions that a dev team makes during the course of designing a game that are answered based on their personal taste or what they intend (or imagine) their audience to be. But bad game design exists. It exists objectively. I don't know enough (or care enough) about 4e to argue whether it is one of those cases, but dismissing outright that it could be is a dangerous way to look at games. Dangerous to your own enjoyment and dangerous to any games you may attempt to design in the future.

Don't do it.

Do you really need an explanation? I can think of a couple of easy descriptions in a few moments.

The simplest one being, it just bites its fucking tongue.

Or perhaps the rogue baits it into biting down hard, making it thing it's going to get a bite of them... And ends up slamming its teeth together way too hard. I think it's not an uncommon thing to experience in your life, every now and then, thinking you're going to bite down on something and then not having that resistance. It's jarring, and hurts your teeth. Now imagine that with razor sharp teeth and way, way more force behind it.

Please see

...

I like it. It's decent against normal monsters, and would mulch the hell out of grouped up 4e's 1HP minions.

Or the rogue tricks it into biting something it really shouldn't be biting.

It's got legs it could bite.

Now, as to why 4e is both good and bad, let me say that 4e, within the bounds of its own little bubble, is a good game. Things function mostly as they are meant to, and the math, while somewhat broken, works better than, say, 3.5. Or 5e for that matter, although 5e threw all semblance of that out the window by removing math entirely.

But 4e relies on a shitton of arbitrary assumptions like "fighters have some weird martial power pool they draw their abilities from, and can only do their special disarm once per day." When asked, well, WHY can fighters only do their special swing once per day, 4e fans get assflustered.

>Well, well, because he's tired afterward
Then why can't he get more uses of the ability with a higher Con?
>Cause that'd break the game and be stupid, numbnuts.
...Okay
>Also, it's because he was in a certain instance when he could use that maneuver
Oh... so how come he can set off the power whenever he wants? It doesn't require a situation to be set up, like the 3.5 tactical feats.
>well, well, it's because it just happens to work out that way
So in the millions of 4e games out there, the characters just happen to choose to use an ability when it's best?
>w-w-w-w-well, no, players have narrative control
Outside of their characters? Doesn't sound like a roleplaying game to me. Also doesn't explain why it's always ONCE per day that they get into these situations. Seems like 4e's power system is arbitrary and bullshit. Wizards can get away with once per day spells because magic has its own rules unconnected from the reality we know. It's unfair, but that's the way it is. Unless you're saying martials are spellcasters (which they are in 4e, mechanics-wise), in which case they are drawing from some pool of martial power that isn't ever really explained. Also goes against the assumptions of a D&D fighter. And 4fags will just go "wahh you're just salty we slaughtered your sacred cow" as if that is an argument by itself.

Bites it's own tongue, duh.

Tell me what 3.PF does in that department that is gone in 4.

We're not talking about "ah nah, ah bit mah tangue" damage.

We're talking about "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH FUCCCCKKKKKKK GOD I'M DYIIIING" damage though.

So basically, you don't like meta mechanics. Cool. Thanks for expressing a personal preference as though it had some relevance to discussing the actual traits of the system.

'If you don't like metamechanics you probably won't like 4e' is the only real point you have.

Tell me what the difference is between 40K and 4e that makes 4e a roleplaying game.

>Outside of their characters? Doesn't sound like a roleplaying game to me.

...that sounds like a very arbitary description? Is L5R/The 40k RPGs not roleplaying games?

Do you know it's really easy to bleed to death if you bite half your tongue off? A lot of blood flows through there.

So you can't. You just angry they changed things.

Well, in 40k you are controlling an army. In 4e you are controlling a single guy, for one. 40k also lack a GM to set an ongoing story and lacks any non-combat rules.

I feel like listing all the differences could take a while.

We get it, you're retarded and bit off your own tongue.
Most people haven't so that's why we think that's stupid.

>55456906
You can point to your own posts all you want, but it doesn't make you right. Or relevant, actually. I honestly don't see your argument. I'm hoping you have one and I'm just missing it.

What's the difference between any RPG and 40k that makes it a roleplaying game? I think you'll find the answer is the same.

Wait...so your lack of experience with stuff makes you think it's stupid? That doesn't sound like a wise argument.

It's true, I lack experience with being retarded or biting my own tongue off.

...Are you suggesting that literally the only way someone could be aware of the potential dangers in biting ones tongue off is to have personally experienced it?

kek

Do you also think that it's stupid if people die when shot in the face? You (Likely) haven't experience that either.

Though people are more likely to choke to death on the blood than actually bleed out from the tongue it will cause blood loss.

Because the mechanics of the power are nonsensical and produce odd results and situations that stretch the suspension of disbelief. Powers being somewhat abstract is fine, but the mechanics should make the DM's job easier, not harder, and forcing them to perform mental gymnastics just to explain what happened in a manner aside from "Shut up, it's just a game."

If it was using the rogue's attack, that would make sense, but with the mechanics as is the more skilled the opponent is, the more likely they are to hit themselves, making it so that the more clumsy and foolish opponents don't end up hitting themselves while the more adept ones do. That's very counter-intuitive, and while it can be explained away as pure chance, it doesn't really help a scene for the strong enemies to look incompetent in comparison to the weak ones.

I know it's hard, but try to keep up.

I'm suggesting you've bitten your tongue so many times and learn nothing from the experience because you're retarded.

Most people aren't, so we think that's stupid.

Ahh, so you're just making stupid assumptions and using them as a basis for dumb insults. Got it.

Could you try actually contributing to the discussion at hand, though? Is that too difficult for you?

>Because the mechanics of the power are nonsensical and produce odd results and situations that stretch the suspension of disbelief.

Why? I have literally never understood this, and nothing in this thread has given me any more information. All of it seems pretty easy to explain or fluff around in context.

How is chasing a rogue going to make you do that?

>making it so that the more clumsy and foolish opponents don't end up hitting themselves while the more adept ones do.

Actually, the most likely guys to hit themselves are Brutes (Low AC for level). Soldiers are the least likely (High AC for level). So the more stupid guys ARE likely to hit themselves more.

...

...

I think 4e really showed how much of the D&D playerbase is the lowest common denominator. Well, maybe that the waves of retarded questions to Sage Advice for 5e.

They see a balanced, fleshed out and extremely tactical combat engine. They see everything neatly cut up into powers. And because they don't see the same depth for roleplaying or exploration or social mechanics they assume they can't do it.

It's like all those people are living the "When all you have is a hammer..." adage in real life.

See

Best part? All the roleplaying/exploration mechanics from 3.PF still exist in 4e! There are still social skills you roll with! There's still tracking of resources like provisions and torches!

These faggots are literally bitching because basic magic was reduced in strength and scope, with a lot of the extreme stuff locked behind slow, expensive rituals. They aren't upset that you can't talk your way through an encounter, or even roll your way through an encounter with a social skill; you can still talk (or roll) your through an encounter. They're upset that Charm is no longer there. They aren't upset that players no longer have to be cautious and track resources carefully when exploring; both of those things are still important. They're upset that Divination + Teleport is no longer an instant win.

>When asked, well, WHY can fighters only do their special swing once per day, 4e fans get assflustered
>Wizards can get away with once per day spells because magic has its own rules unconnected from the reality we know. It's unfair, but that's the way it is. Unless you're saying martials are spellcasters
This is why we get assflustered. There's this weird attitude some people have that magic just gets a free pass while not-magic has to conform to some arbitrarily autistic level of realism. As far as I've seen it's completely unique to 3aboos; I've never heard anybody anywhere bitch about Barbarians being able to shout potions out of corpses in Diablo II or Bounty Hunters having Pull moves in Darkest Dungeon. People watch Wuxia just fine, nobody calls the Labors of Hercules "total bullshit," and so on.

So you get people honest to god insisting that a wizard can shove three magic hamsters up his ass in the morning and then use them to shit lightning bolts throughout the day, and that makes perfect logical sense and everything is fine, whereas if the fighter can hit somebody hard enough to stun them three times a day, that's bizarre and nonsensical and gamist and shouldn't happen.

And for any justification you can come up with, they drill down on the autism as you did, where if he's getting tired it should be based on his CON, and if it's an opportunity thing then the game is disqualified from being an RPG, and if it requires a component he should be able to buy more, and there's really just no physical way for a dude to do something not-magic 3/day. And then you ask, hey, can the wizard shove more hamsters up there? Well then, they're all answers. No, no, there's no room. Okay, but what about once he's expended them? No, no, he has to wait until next morning. But why? Magic. But isn't that a little...? Magic.

It's a really bizarre affliction.

How does a gelatinous cube hit itself?

It's true. D&D 3.e really does cause brain damage.

Yes
No, 4e does a well enough job of that on it's own
probably, but all my experiences with 4e have been really boring and lack character.

But that's what happens if you play 4e though.

Honestly, with Dark Sun come out 4e has some REALLY good environmental and survival rules. Can't have Dark Sun without it.

The defining characteristic of a roleplaying game, to me, is that you play a consistent character and the decisions you make matter from game to game. 4e subverts this by having you replace your powers with new ones as you level up. I remember loving 4e when it first came out up until we hit the level where you get a new encounter in place of your old one with 0 support for keeping the old abilities. I had a build that was built entirely around a charge power and it was now ruined because the new powers with better damage didnt have anything similar. This, to me, is what makes 4e a good game, but a bad roleplaying game. You dont accrue skills, powers, and abilities. You follow a linear path of generic "strength", usually with one od several predefined themes and enjoy the good combat system with filler mechanica between fights. And this is coming from somebody who has exclusively played fighter in every edition to date, so I'm the exact persom youre describing who would be happy for what 4e did.

Well, glancing at its 4e statblock, it would likely be using its Slam attack.

That involves ramming a portion of its mass at an opponent. Clearly the rogue baited it into slamming too hard, causing part of its mass to become dislodged from the main body, reflected in hitpoint damage.

>no u

Even more, they don't complain about Barbarian being able to get angry only X times a day when it's caster edition.

...The system has loads of charge powers though? Especially for fighters?

Like, I can get what you're saying, I do think 4e would have been better if it had options for powers scaling rather than outright replacing them, but that seems a really odd line to draw.

Wow, apparently if you attack 'too hard' you can hurt yourself. I guess they should change how critical hits work.

Why? A critical hit is when you strike exactly hard enough. A miss could actually be a too hard swing, causing you to overbalance and fail to connect.

Or do you believe the number that shows on the dice is directly related to how hard you swing your sword?

Please note that the examples you gave are all from video games, and the primary complaint people have about 4e is that it is too similar to video games.

>4e isn't an RPG because it lets you retrain the occasional ability
Well it's a new complaint, I'll certainly give you that. In an ocean of stale piss, I suppose some fresh piss is a welcome change.

>Posting dead Robin Williams Genie to meme
That's sad. That's a trademark 4e braindamage hallmark alright.

Yes, Sure, At least compared to other DnD editions

So if people are going to defend 4e in this thread, then defend Paragon Paths.

They're just a limp-wristed leftover mechanic from 3.5e advanced classes, and because you don't actually get to a Paragon Path until level 10 you're most likely going to spend a shit ton of time to actually reach it if you're starting at level 1 "But muh grind!" I want to play a tabletop RPG, not a fucking MMO.

>Wuxia
>Labours of Hercules
>video games

>Wow, apparently if you attack 'too hard' you can hurt yourself.
>Imagine being so Amerifat you can't comprehend physical exercise.

You sure explained a lot. Oh boy was that informative.

Also sharks do not have tongues. They have basihyals. Which does not move from its natural position.

What are you fucking snorting? Theme, Paragon Path and Epic Destiny were one of the best things 4e added. Adding a unique element to your character in each tier, letting you further customise them and often add some really cool fluff detail in the process.

In my experience, this attitude you're expressing ruins player enjoyment and starts more pointless arguments than what you're railing against. The fact that you unironically used words like "poisonous" and "dangerous" only gives it that final touch of ridiculous hyperbole.

I feel like that one's actually pretty easy: It slams itself into the ground trying to hit you.

Come to think of it, most critters that wouldn't be great at hitting themselves are lunging with a body part, so ye old throw selves at target and hit wall maneuver arguably works better for them that in does the weapon mooks.

And that's relevant to a fantastical landshark how, exactly?

Especially since I've seen more than one piece of artwork showing a slavering tongue between their jaws.

Obviously. When I roll a 1, my fighter decided to be retarded and swing in the opposite direction. When a roll a 20, he gets super serial. When I roll minimum damage, it's because my fighter didn't really feel like putting in any effort. When I roll max damage, then he decides to swing SUPER DUPER hard!

I mean, it's not like dice rolls are meant to abstract stuff like glancing blows, hitting the enemy in a fleshy bit vs. an artery or organ, or any of the other two-thousand variables that make up combat.

Damn, you had to go and out yourself as a fucktard.

Of COURSE attacking 'too hard' can injure you. Go outside. Learn a sport. Pick up martial arts, fencing, whatever. Anything other than sitting on your ass.

> I guess they should change how critical hits work.

A critical hit is attacking very /well/, not necessarily very /hard/, to think the contrary makes me think you don't even know the systems you're arguing about.

>Wow, apparently if you attack 'too hard' you can hurt yourself.

Have you never suffered muscle strain or pulled something? People can literally pull the muscle off bone if they do stuff wrong.

>4e has no meaningful roleplaying mechanics!
>What other game does
>Uuuuuuuh

spot fucking on

Didn't 4e have 1 Opportunity Attack per turn as a rule?

Fucking what? PbtA, WoD, Fate Core, off the top of my head. GURPS, before I hit submit.

>land shark

Also most natural predators including humans. Do not extend the tongue they have to bite a live pray. If they did. We would have a lot more tongueless lions, bears ect.

The fact the rogue makes it happen by what? Dodging. Bs. They would just bite the air. Does the rogue just grab the tongue and make it happen?

Per turn, yeah. Not per-round (So you can Opportunity every guy running past you but not the same guy twice)

I don't think so, according to the phb, it says.

A critical hit deals maximum damage, and some
powers and magic items have an extra effect on a
critical hit.

Which basically means you hit as hard as you possibly could.

Weird, I looked through the monster manual and none of the slam attacks for any of the monsters include a damage to self component. What an oversight.

>[GASHUNK intensifies]