4e Appreciation Thread

...

I've loved 4e ever since I saw this power. It completely blew apart all the lies about it being some sort of obsessive tactical wargame. You might be able to play it like that, but with powers like this? They're cinematic moments in a neat package, awesome moves that aren't just mechanically fun but add a lot of impact and dynamism to the combat scenes, making them really play out like something out of your favourite fantasy movie, and I love it.

I just loved the Dragon article that introduced this guy. A demon lord so impossibly huge he can *physically* climb out of the Abyss, so monstrous that even other demon lords are unsettled by him, and so terrifying that armies of angels and devils alike have tried to stop him - and failed.

It is pulp, it is heroic, it is cinematic, it is team based.

It is great.

The only good thing about 4e was the artwork.

You're the same fucking guy going on and on about this like a broken record.

I thought the Incunabulum were an awesome race; understandably evil necromancer-philosophers who don't want to become immortal, they want the knowledge they can get from dissecting the dead, the living and the undead alike. Awesomely thematic, and I think they could have been a pretty neat PC race - I mean, this WAS the edition that gave us Shadar-kai, Dhampyr, and Vryloka PC races, after all.

Actually, anyone got any of the Shadar-Kai artwork from 4e?

...

...

...

...

...

...

>4e FINALLY gave Martials the ability to be interesting. Fighters could do stuff that wasn't variations of "I hit it with my weapon". Rogues were no longer useless due to Sneak Attack being rendered invalid against 9/10ths of creature types. Warlords had awesome flavor.

Word. This is all I really care about wrt edition wars.

I've never seen a post that was so exactly and precisely the wrong opinion.

I love a bunch of the things 4e did with elementals once the perfect symmetry of the great wheel was old news and creature origins were mechanically very minor. catastrophic dragons like says, and even the fluff of catastrophic and scourge dragons being "more elementalier" than chromatic and metalics. plus I loved the arcanians. no negative energy powering all undead? lets power them with basically everything else, and give some basic but workable fluff, and a mechanical head not to wizard class features. it was great all together. I also loved the abyssal soul genasai. I love the elemental people and while the "dark but not evil character" thing is a bit played out, the specifics of the abyssalc souls' powers and descriptions was neat and allowed for some neat stuff above even what basic elemental people are. oh even the genasai of athas were cool, and thanks to the abyssal soul fluff, could fit into any other setting, just pulling from some part of the elemental chaos that's mostly magma or sand, or ash or...even more fire.

Best system to play a wuxia game in ever. Classes become schools, levels become dan, and races just become different personalities.

None of that is what I hated about it. I just didn't like the direction it went in: a continuation and exaggeration of 3e's "this is blatantly a game" design.

Flatly it just wasn't to my tastes.

But that's not a cinematic moment, those arise naturally and can only arise naturally. That's just a collection of mechanics with a thin veneer of fluff over top.

>I just didn't like the direction it went in: a continuation and exaggeration of 3e's "this is blatantly a game" design.

Honest question: what version of D&D can you NOT say this about?

>But that's not a cinematic moment, those arise naturally and can only arise naturally.

Right, just like all cinema is improvised and spontaneous.

Nope.

That might be your preference and opinion, but it has no more validity than my own.

Also, mechanics like that existing in no way prevent the 'natural' cinematic moments occurring. You get all the benefits of both.

I'm still going to be honest and say that 4e didn't feel like D&D or at least my expectation of it. I started D&D with the 4e Red Box, so it was my first introduction to the real thing.

I've hardly been a player in any game, but I do know this: D&D 4e was powergamer HEAVEN. Point-buy was a necessity for combat as the system was combat-centric, each monster was for starting fights and being slaughtered, each character got feats and their subclasses allowed bonuses to their powers. What you wanted to do especially after Essentials was to create a martial character with the most optimized strategy at level 1 by combining racial, class, feature, and weapon traits.

It was an attempt to simplify classes and make every character choice be useful. Role-balancing was broader than 'three classes and a Cleric because we needed a healer' as it had more different kinds of healer but the Cleric was still the best in that regard.

I was weirded out by the Battlemind and Dark Sun setting. I thought it was just a forced way of making Constitution a combat thing and that themes were just strange. Now, these are my favorite things. I love the way Dark Sun uses the same races and classes and still interprets them differently. It showed me that nothing needs to be set in stone and that the setting overrules any other thematic fluff.

>D&D 4e was powergamer HEAVEN

Not really when compared to 3.PF.

My opinion has generally been that 4e is the tightest D&D has ever been in terms of tactical combat. It was interesting, engaging, and relatively balanced. My primary issue with it was that while it makes for a great tactical skirmish game, the huge focus on those elements detracts from the roleplaying side of things. Even moreso than in 3.x chargen felt less like coming up like a real person with a life outside of this limited adventure and more like building the perfect special character for a wargame. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitely a fair deal outside of D&D's usual niche. I also just don't like combat that much.

So yeah, I think 4e is very well-designed, but doesn't fit great with D&D mold and also doesn't particularly fit my gaming preferences.

1st edition say an inclusion of Gygaxian naturalism and mostly focus on either genre emulation or mechanics that made sense, to Gygax anyway. Most editions prior to third were mostly genre emulators bolted on to a D&D framework.

He obviously didn't mean in the sense of movie production, but a specific spontaneously feeling of exhilaration like you get from an action movie.

Ok, but its like describing a particular power as "canned fun." Did wizards crack the code for you with that ability and figure out how to make instant joy?

I don't think there's much odd to say about that. Powers are fun to use. People like having access to effects and abilities which have a meaningful impact and interesting fluff. In prior editions, this was limited to casters, but in 4e everyone got them, and thus you also got a significantly larger variety of them as they were no longer restricted to just magic.

Well, they did work out how to let players do cool things on demand, instead of needing to wait for the buzz of rolling a 20 when you need it.

I actually really liked the inclusion of the feywild, but I didn't think the removal of the dual wheel system was to the benefit of the fluff. My preference would have just had shadow fell and the fey wilds be two of the infinently many material planes.

...

...

4e a shit.

What happened to the useful pasta that used to be that the beginning of every 4eg (which each of these turn into anyway)?

>If you are GMing, remember...
1. To strongly consider giving out at least one free "tax feat," like Expertise and pre-errata Melee Training.
>2. To use Monster Manual 3/Monster Vault/Monster Vault: Nentir Vale/Dark Sun Creature Catalog math. Avoid or manually update anything with Monster Manual 1 or 2 math.
>3. That skill challenges have always been scene-framing devices for the GM, that players should never be overtly told that they are in a skill challenge, and that the Rules Compendium has the most up-to-date skill DCs and skill challenge rules.

>D&D 4e Compendium (for those who still have Insider subscriptions): wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/database.aspx
>Compendium: funin.space
>Guide compilation: enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?472893-4E-Character-Optimization-WOTC-rescue-Handbook-Guide
>Offline compendium: mediafire.com/download/xuf1a608bv05563/Portable Compendium New.rar

>Offline character builder: mega.nz/#!IclTgDrS!ZvoRfm1yIjWTrcQHgNDLIPocd6cEO1a8B5oHjs4FV3E
>Offline monster editor mega.nz/#!5dUG3Axa!u0NSNPy2q4V-WzJg4Jy4BTM2ln-ygbpVswuJyJzjD_4(install in chronological order)
this pasta pastebin.com/asUdfELd

That's the best I can fish out of the archive, and I've no idea if the offline compendium link is still good, as that one shifts around a LOT.

...

>playing D&D 4th edition
Why would you even want to play one of the dullest tabletop role-playing games in the history of tabletop roleplaying games? Seriously, each class you play in this game to fight assorted villains, is indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the shitty art, the classes’ only consistency is their complete lack of interesting mechanics and ineffective use of the powers system, all to make spellcasters mundane, and to make martials into spellcasters.

Perhaps the die was cast when Merals decided to make all the classes fit the spellcaster framework; he made sure the game would never be taken seriously as anything but narrative metagaming, just a ridiculously dogmatic departure from earlier editions in an attempt to cement his place in the history RPG design. 4th edition might be anti-Pathfinder (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-D&D in its refusal of the mechanics that made the game attractive despite its inherent flaws. No one wants to face that fact. Now, with Fifth Edition,they no longer have to.

>a-at least the powers were good, though!
No! The powers are dreadful and boring. As I read the core rulebook, I noticed that every class had some daily power for 2[W] damage and half damage on a miss. I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that power showed up again, with a cool-sounding name in a vain attempt to differentiate it. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Mearls' mind is so governed by the few creative ideas he has, that he has no other recourse for creating class abilities. Later I read a lavish, loving review of 4th edition by the creator of DOTA 2. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are playing D&D 4e at 15 or 16 years of age, then when they get older they will go on to play DOTA 2." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you play D&D 4e you are, in fact, being trained to play DOTA 2.

>use the house rules to fix 4e
>YOU CAN'T USE HOUSERULES TO FIX 3.PF

4e: this is why we can have nice things edition.

Sweet Jane it was nice to be a DM in 4e. I could create 5 encounters in 30m and they'd be balanced, tactically interesting fights. I could grab a module for any level and easily, easily swap out, level up or level down the monsters and use the maps, plot and background largely without any worries.

There were so many flaws with simulationism and having the mechanics so visible that disbelief was hard to achieve, but having all characters work on the same mechanical engine for balance was a dream.

I've always preferred Earthdawn or Wu Xia style "everyone, even the melee types, are channeling supernatural powers" explanations in my lore, so the Weeaboo Fightan Magic aspect of 4e powers was never a problem.

Failed? I saw no less than 4 new players pick dwarves (player were female). Hell, I had one newbie group.of 3 guys, 2 girls spontaneously decide to play a party of all dwarves from a single mine-city, it was magic as a DM.

I never saw a woman pick dwarf in OD&D, 1e, 2e, or 3.X edition, ever.

I love this criticism because it is accurate (4e was so game-y and gamist that itnwas impossible NOT to feel that all through the mechanics of play) and you acknowledge that this is simply your personal opinion and taste.

Rock on my broheim, go play something other!

That's some good pasta

FUCK DRUMPF.
FUCK 4E.
FUCK WHITE PEOPLE.

>Sweet Jane it was nice to be a DM in 4e. I could create 5 encounters in 30m and they'd be balanced, tactically interesting fights. I could grab a module for any level and easily, easily swap out, level up or level down the monsters and use the maps, plot and background largely without any worries.
I also loved this about 4e.
>There were so many flaws with simulationism
I'm generally of the opinion, that if you're running 4e, you shouldn't be trying to aim for simulationism at all. There's world emulation (simulationism) and then there's genre emulation (what 4e did.)
>I've always preferred Earthdawn or Wu Xia style "everyone, even the melee types, are channeling supernatural powers" explanations in my lore
Now, on the one hand, I LOVES me some Wuxia, I sometimes felt that if you were being true to the western mythology and pulp fantasy novels that inspired the genre in the first place, then you didn't need to jump through logical hoops to justify it (pic-related,) does that make pulp and mythology Weeb/Wuxia shit? IDK, probably not, but what it definately makes it is FUN!

At its core, 4e is about having fun at the actual table while actually playing the game.

Hi troll. Nice strawman. Nobody here said you can't houserule 3.X, just that a well houseruled 4e does something wonderful that we here very much appreciate and like. Have fun with your different system that does different things. Personally, I find that 3.PF generally works best when you run it either in E6, OR using ONLY ToB classes and psionic classes (Called magic in-setting, because what the hell else would people call it?) For the former you have to throw in some house rules to make healing a little easier, or just straight-up add cure light wounds to the Egoist power-list, and just allow people to make CLW "Psicrowns." However, even then, I personally just don't like what OGLd20System attempts to do in the first place: Simulationism isn't everybody's bag.

...

>4e is about having fun at the actual table while actually playing the game.
This.
4e's strength wasn't in online dickwaving about your build, but playing the game with other people.
Of course, Veeky Forums doesn't like it, half the people here don't play the games.

>genre emulation (what 4e did.)

But it really doesn't. Your adventures aren't going to look like something out of Howard, Lieber, Moorcock, Anderson, Burroughs or even Tolkien. They're going to look like D&D (and not even all D&D, but a specific form of D&D). They'll be a very particular kind of fantasy that only occurs in D&D (only in this D&D no less). You can include "cinematic" moves until the cows come home, but the context they're used in will always be very specifically D&D.

There is a reason he said genre and not author.
The heroic fantasy genre is what D&D, especially 4e, does, and it was inspired by those authors.
Next, you'll say Stormlight Archives isn't heroic fantasy for reasons.

>But it really doesn't. Your adventures aren't going to look like something out of Howard, Lieber, Moorcock, Anderson, Burroughs or even Tolkien.

Right, to emulate those you'd probably want to seelectively ban some classes (i.e. fireball throwing wizards don't really fit with Tolkein, but an all-martial party, maybe with a Bard totally does), and limit play to certain tiers.

"Heroic fantasy" is a 3e era asspull to handwave the fact characters become fantasy superheroes (but not in any way that actually reflects myth or legend).

You would also need to complete change the fundamental assumptions of how characters operated on a mechanical level, how adventures were structured, and what their arc as characters would look like.

Yup.
>Of course, Veeky Forums doesn't like it, half the people here don't play the games.
Actually, I've found that, at least at certain times of day, 4e has one of the healthier 4e communities. The best online games of 4e I've run started not on any forum, or on roll20's "find a game" function, but in Veeky Forums's gamefinder threads. Granted, a LOT of the 4e community here is/was driven by Tohoufag, who hasn't been here in a while, which is a blessing and a curse.

>Your adventures aren't going to look like something out of Howard, Lieber, Moorcock, Anderson, Burroughs
IDK what kind of 4e games you've been running, but this is EXACTLY what 4e does when run right. Granted, if you run it with an OGLd20 mindset, it is just going to do OGLd20, but worse.
>or even Tolkien
Woah dog, a game can feel like action pulps, or a slow exploration of a hyper detailed world, but not both. 4e does NOT do Tolkien, but that's okay. One game does not need to do everything, because then it will just do everything poorly.
> They're going to look like D&D (and not even all D&D, but a specific form of D&D). They'll be a very particular kind of fantasy that only occurs in D&D (only in this D&D no less). You can include "cinematic" moves until the cows come home, but the context they're used in will always be very specifically D&D.
You see, relative to my experiences, this describes the entire OGLd20 oeuvre. [Insert genre]d20 does a thing, and only that thing, and that thing is very much self-defined by the experience that [insert genre]d20 gives players... it just so happens that d20 dominated the marketplace for the better part of a decade, and most living gamers today started during that decade, so it's an really popular.

4e is the best system I've ever found for running pulp-action. The only real concession you need to make is accepting that it's going to be TEAM-based pulp, and not solo-wank-pulp.

>You would also need to complete change the fundamental assumptions of how characters operated on a mechanical level, how adventures were structured, and what their arc as characters would look like.

I don't think that is needed, unless you want to emulate the books themselves. Even then... For example, Aragorn going from ranger->leader of the fellowship->king actually fits pretty well within the heroic->paragon path->epic destiny path.

>but not in any way that actually reflects myth or legend
You're right, mythological heroes were MUCH more powerful than 3e characters outside of mages.
Fortunately, 4e characters on the whole do reach those heights.

Yeah, nah. This is turning into a my opinion > your opinion discussion. I'll never get a 4e fan to admit that their game is anything less than perfect when they've dug their heels in so I wont bother.

If you can't do solo, you can't do pulp. Full stop.

>solo-wank pulp

YOU MEAN THE MAJORITY OF THE GENRE YOU KNOB-END?!

No. The arc of characters in fantasy fiction is typically much flatter in power. Conan doesn't jump in power at all during the course of his adventure, neither does Elric. They start out as capable individuals in stay that way.

No. Characters in D&D are weird when it comes to power accumulation. They become incredibly durable, and really good at killing fairly small numbers of things at a time, (or a lot of things over a much longer period of time owing to stupid durability) but still wind up bound by some bizarrely human limitations (like still largely moving at the same speed they ever did).

>No. The arc of characters in fantasy fiction is typically much flatter in power. Conan doesn't jump in power at all during the course of his adventure, neither does Elric. They start out as capable individuals in stay that way.

Ah, I see your issue.

Well, considering your power is mostly relative to the challenges you face, this isn't a problem. 4e gets the criticism sometimes that "you are fighting the same orc 20 levels later, but with more stats!" and in this case you can actually do that, if you want.

>If you can't do solo, you can't do pulp. Full stop.

Explain what a "solo" character can do in any other edition of D&D that they can't in 4e.

>Conan doesn't jump in power at all during the course of his adventure, neither does Elric. They start out as capable individuals in stay that way.
Yes, because those are novels, not interactive rpgs.
You also don't have stats to measure out Conan's progress, but he is measurably more capable and takes on greater threats as the series progresses, which can be compared to the progress of a 4e pc. He doesn't start out a incredible leader of men in the first novel, but after leading a pirate force, numerous militias and a rebellion, is highly skilled at it by the last Howard novel.
Hell, he even learns how to invoke Jaebel Sagg somewhere along the line, and that is not something he knew how to do.

>assuming I'm arguing in favour of another edition of D&D

Every. Single. Time. As though the only alternative to 4e were more D&D.

Fine. Since they're basically editions of D&D. using Labyrinth Lord, drop in Sine Nomine's Solo Heroes supplement, or use Scarlet Heroes. Solo pulp in D&D.

Okay, what can solo heroes do in games other than D&D that they can't do in 4e?

He's always challenged by skilled men at arms, and never eclipses them the way a D&D character will eventually (in b4, oh but that's just a matter of restricting level advancement! no, it's a matter of a fundamentally different assumption of what it means to grow as a character).

user, the topic of the thread is pointedly D&D.
If you want to bring up something else, you should make a new thread.

Function solo. That supplement there is designed to make it so a single character can take on modules single-handedly.

How is "function solo" defined? What capabilities a person "functioning solo" wield?

>solo-wank pulp

>YOU MEAN THE MAJORITY OF THE GENRE YOU KNOB-END?!
You are aware that D&D is a group experience right? While solo-wank is a big part of a lot of novels, making a concession so that a social game can be enjoyed socially is not a bad thing.
>'ll never get a 4e fan to admit that their game is anything less than perfect
Perfect? Good god no. It requires some core math fixes, and tax-feat giveaways. It does a specific take on a specific genre extremely well: Pulp action, but it's a group-team game, so it's group-team pulp. If I want to make my players feel like the protagonists of a fantasy movie from the 80's, I'm going to use 4th. If I want to make my players feel like living breathing real people in a world that runs on fantasy logic and could go on just fine without them, then I'm going to run something else. Granted, personally, I happen to really like running the former, and my players seem to really like it too... also I've noticed that lots of newbies who've been exposed to fantasy media but not D&D yet are looking for that too until someone tells them "you're wanting the wrong kind of fun.
>They become incredibly durable
Only if you're doing HP as meat points, which is just silly. Otherwise, their ability to bullshit-protagonist-shield otherwise lethal blows into lucky misses and near-glances for longer more drawn-out action scenes increases... which is VERY genre appropriate.

You should try running a game of 4e in a more 80's fantasy movie type setting, under the conceit "allright, we're making the protagonists of a fantasy movie/series/novel, come up with a unique character independent of mechanics, and we'll find a ruleset that can be fluffed into that," and you might be surprised how well it works.

Yes, there are warriors his equal that he encounters (and defeats, no exceptions).
The same applies to 4e, because the GM is the world and there are plenty of examples of warriors equal and more to the pcs.
It's sorta besides the point.
You are trying to use the ttrpg conceit as an argument against it for some reason. The game is based around the ideal of the heroic party, if you want to force the game to run against it's core ideals, that is you fucking up, not the game.

>Fine. Since they're basically editions of D&D. using Labyrinth Lord, drop in Sine Nomine's Solo Heroes supplement, or use Scarlet Heroes. Solo pulp in D&D.
But I don't want to play a solo game... I want to get together with friends, share some beers, and adventure together in play-pretend-land.

Google it and read it yourself. It's completely free.

>You are aware that D&D is a group experience right?

Yeah, god forbid we expect characters to be able to act with autonomy and agency rather than as though they're all attached at the bloody hip.

So let me get this straight, your definition of pulp is now limited to 80s movies? Gah. Piss off you smug cunt. Stop spreading disinfo like the 3e grognards I'm sure you've whined about. Admit it plays more like a game than a pulp novel.

>Google it and read it yourself. It's completely free.

I want you to express it in your own words.

Why are you dodging the question?

>You are trying to use the ttrpg conceit as an argument against it for some reason. The game is based around the ideal of the heroic party, if you want to force the game to run against it's core ideals, that is you fucking up, not the game.

It's designed for one GM one player, you dingus. He asked for an example. Other games can function with disparate or varying compositions of party because they're not obsessively designed around the function of a team that needs to be treated as a single organism to not break.

Is someone seriously saying "4E characters can't solo anything!" as a legit criticism?

I don't know too many tabletop RPGs where it's just the DM and one player.

>Make my argument for me, please

No thanks. Either make it yourself or gtfo.

Because I don't want to go to the effort of summarizing the mechanics for you.

I told you what it does, the particulars don't fucking matter.

I for my point for the first quotation: that conceit is an arbitrary sacred cow that has nothing to do with the genre. Why can't games be run with two, three, four, etc. participants? Why design them around the expectation of five?

WHAT FUCKING ARGUMENT IS THERE TO MAKE YOU THICKY? The supplement lets a single character function in lieu of a team, this is something it can do that 4e can't, and something closer to the pulp genre than 4e. The particulars don't bloody matter and I'm not going to reproduce the mechanics here.

>I told you what it does, the particulars don't fucking matter.

Of fucking course they do. A game can make the claim "it plays as well with 1 player as with many!" but without the mechanics to back it up, it's just a claim.

Make a fucking example then.

Look fucko, if you tell someone to "google it", you're either being a lazy pathetic sad sack of moldy rocky mountain oysters, or got nothing.

Make your point with big boy words and thoughts, or don't bother saying anything.

You literally can't, though.

>Is someone seriously saying "4E characters can't solo anything!" as a legit criticism?
No we've got two passive-aggressive parties hurling bullshit at each other, waiting for the other side to make a concession that they can twist and tear into to "win" the argument and digging themselves into ever deeper bullshit to avoid making a concession themselves.
In other words, it's a microcosm of politics.

Ah.

Cause I mean

Why the fuck would I want to play a solo game of tabletop RPGs unless I was doing a quick oneshot to explain the rules of the system to a newbie? They're mainly all team games, and goodness they can work decently enough should you have a smaller or larger party than the "optimal designed", it just requires more work on the GM to actually tailor the encounters and shit to the party.

It changes the damage mechanic to be based around knocking hitdice off critters rather than hitpoints, scaling back monster damage in a similar fashion, and adds a fray die meant to account for the possibility of missed attacks (to reduce the chance drastically of spending a round doing fuck all) finally adding in a mechanic that lets you asspull your way out of impossible situations at the cost of hitpoints, failing if the damage it causes would knock you dead.

God fucking damn. For a fanbase that spent a fucking decade characterizing their detractors as being a bunch of myopic weirdos unwilling to try new things, you fucks sure are unwilling to bother looking outside your bubble.

Solo games have their benefits. They're easier to coordinate, you can focus more on a the development of a character, they move quicker, and they're less likely to get bogged down in inane Monty Python jokes.

>Yeah, god forbid we expect characters to be able to act with autonomy and agency rather than as though they're all attached at the bloody hip.
Lone 4e characters aren't useless. They can do lots of things; they just can't handle encounters intended for a group.
>Admit it plays more like a game than a pulp novel.
Only if you're defining pulp such that solo focus is a inseparable defining trait, which would pretty much universally make for a bad game.
>The supplement lets a single character function in lieu of a team, this is something it can do that 4e can't, and something closer to the pulp genre than 4e
Is a solo TTRPG something the community is clamoring for? Really? If I wanted a game that provided actually fun 1V1 action, I'd probably just run Legends of The Wulin, re-fluffed into whatever genre, but if anything, the solo focus making everyone generalists that do the same thing (and inevitably making one party member the BEST ad doing that same thing) is one of the biggest weaknesses of Legends of The Wulin.... well that and shit editing but I'll save those complaints for a more applicable thread.

Uh.

There's nothing there that can't be done to 4E.

>It changes the damage mechanic to be based around knocking hitdice off critters rather than hitpoints, scaling back monster damage in a similar fashion, and adds a fray die meant to account for the possibility of missed attacks (to reduce the chance drastically of spending a round doing fuck all)

In 4e, you can just use lower level monsters/minions (this covers HP, damage and miss chance), and many attacks have miss effects anyway (instead of the fray die). Overall, mechanically they don't really give an edge to a solo character that can't be expressed by just making him higher level in 4e.

> finally adding in a mechanic that lets you asspull your way out of impossible situations at the cost of hitpoints, failing if the damage it causes would knock you dead.

This one, however, is interesting. Using Surges or Action points as Fate points would be an interesting optional rule in 4e.

>God fucking damn. For a fanbase that spent a fucking decade characterizing their detractors as being a bunch of myopic weirdos unwilling to try new things, you fucks sure are unwilling to bother looking outside your bubble.

FFS man, I'm going to read that shit when I get home, but I didn't want to spend an hour to verify your own fucking claims. You can't expect someone to download and read a PDF just because you are afraid to explain something because somebody may find holes in your explanation.

I could not fucking roll my eyes any harder man. It's not a matter of "what the community is clamouring for" it's a matter of "genre emulation" you said it went for genre emulation, and an obsessive focus on tactical teamwork is definitely not in-genre.

...just read the fucking supplement. It's not something that would work with 4e.

Because actually getting a group together is near impossible for many of us?

>This one, however, is interesting. Using Surges or Action points as Fate points would be an interesting optional rule in 4e.
I've been doing this for years. A surge can be spent at any time to re-roll a single die roll. I DO have to rebalance the number of surges that classes get, and it increases the value of certain feats, but overall it has improved the experience of my party. Surges are your "protagonist juice" and letting them be spent that way opens up the possibility of throwing fewer more-powerful encounters that previously otherwise couldn't be defeated, while still working the usual decreasing-resources-adventuring-day assumptions.

>In 4e, you can just use lower level monsters/minions (this covers HP, damage and miss chance), and many attacks have miss effects anyway (instead of the fray die). Overall, mechanically they don't really give an edge to a solo character that can't be expressed by just making him higher level in 4e.

This works more elegantly than that. It fixes action economy issues, and it prevents you from mathematically overhwhelming every challenge effortlessly.

Using these damage mechanics, you do the lifting of an entire party pretty handily.

>You can't expect someone to download and read a PDF just because you are afraid to explain something because somebody may find holes in your explanation.

Alternate suggestion, you could just take it on faith rather than requiring a comprehensive mechanical breakdown. Is it really that inconceivable that there are games that do some things better than 4e that you'd automatically assume such a claim is an attempt to bamboozle you without comprehensive proof?

Your entire argument is predicated upon a single supplement built for one system that wouldn't work for another system, and that's proof that similar changes couldn't be made to work with that other system?

Really?

Are you incapable of making changes or house rules on your own and require shit to be printed and published in order for you to use it?

Please explain to me how similar changes could not be made to 4E. Don't hide behind your supplement that you had to be shamed into explaining why we should even care about it and how it wouldn't work with 4E, I've got an entire bookcase full of shit that wouldn't work with 4E, that doesn't mean that 4E can't do similar stuff.

The important bit is the end result. You seem to be under the impression that a similar supplement for 4E cannot be made when it bloody well can.

OH WAIT. Someone DID spend the time to think about it.

Look man, if you wanted to say "I don't think 4E would work as well to be modded for single-character games as well as other editions of DnD or RPGs due to how the mechanics work", that's fine and your opinion, but you've got some shitty justification for it and a shitty attitude on how to share it.

Learn to social skills, and how to play online.

Except that someone's example is going to result in a string of whiffed attacks and a player character that can't be meaningfully challenged.

4e couldn't be changed in such a fashion because it's a complicated game with a lot of moving parts, you'd have to overhaul the thing from scratch rather than drop in some mechanical changes.

>Look man, if you wanted to say "I don't think 4E would work as well to be modded for single-character games as well as other editions of DnD or RPGs due to how the mechanics work", that's fine and your opinion, but you've got some shitty justification for it and a shitty attitude on how to share it.

No. My point is that 4e is not a pulp game designed around emulating expectations of the pulp genre. It is a D&D game game, designed around emulating expectations of the D&D game and doing them well. It's entire design philosophy was looking at how people played D&D 3.5 (as a game of fantasy super heroes centered around set-piece battles) and then making it function well at that.

t. Probable Neet

You try coordinating a group of actual adults with actual lives.