Demystification of Mechanics

The same colour in MtG can do a whole lot of different things and have different strategies to deal with the opposition. I just don't see it in 4e.

I can run strong monsters with counter-magic to protect them with pure Blue, or I can pick your deck and steal your best shit, destroying your synergies in the process. Or I can defeat you by depleting your means to fight - your library - without even dealing one single point of damage. Or a bunch more ways to use just that one colour.

I can't do this in 4e. A Cleric or Warlack or whatever will just have one way to defeat the opponent with some fluff as to where exactly the 1d6+(Attribute Modifier) damage comes from and what additional effects that specific card has. If I wanted to replace direct attacks with some other kind of cards, like summons or area modifiers or controls ... I can't. I have this one deck and that's it.

This, having more restricted options allows you to design your game more tightly.

Deck building being an important aspect in CCGs is fine, but in an RPG it is a bit more about playing than building.

I mean, I know building MtG decks is fun, but at least a 4e character makes more thematic sense than a crow with a pair of swords flying around killing everything.

>like summons or area modifiers

This is literally what multiclassing does.

I could spend 1 feat as a fighter to multiclass into druid, then a second feat to replace one of my dailies with a summon.

>One of the greatest things 4th edition ever did in terms of making their game fun to play at the table, and one of the more balanced versions of D&D was to completely lift the veil on how things worked.
>The language of 4e was clear, mechanical, nearly-scientific

Previous editions didn't hide much, if anything. All 4e did was templatize everything in a lazy, simple manner that would get strained by anything that tried to explore the limited design space it had boxed itself in.

What 4e did was fail to understand the point and purpose of RPGs, and it's amazing how it managed to get so many simple things wrong but for 5e to get so many simple things right.

On one hand, I'm pretty sure you are trolling, but on the other, your post did make me think about this a bit more deeply so I guess thanks for that.

The two big mistakes you make are that you compare a solo 1v1 game with a team based RPG where you are supposed to cover and interact with your team mates, and that you compare individual classes (of which there are like 30 of in 4e) to individual colorsinstead of comparing, say, power sources or maybe roles. Comparing the entire color of blue to, say, a wizard is like comparing a single blue tribe to all the arcane classes in 4e.

You can only replace/retrain feats and powers with some of the other types. You can't, as a fighter, say "You know what, I don't need any at-will exploits - I'd rather have some more utility ones." On the other hand, MtG lets me chose how much (if any) creatures, artefacts, sorceries, interrupts and so on I use in my deck.

I didn't make the comparison of a 4e class to an MtG colour in the first place, I'm just commenting on it.

>You can only replace/retrain feats and powers with some of the other types.
... some of the SAME type, I meant. Meh.

>MtG lets me chose how much (if any) creatures, artefacts, sorceries, interrupts and so on I use in my deck.

This is where the metaphor starts getting really strained.

You could consider "at-will" and "daily" or whatever the "type" of power, like "artifact" or "creature", but I think that's actually more close to the cost in MtG. At-wills are your 0-1 cost, low mana stuff that you can always play. Yes, you can remove them, but it'll make your deck suffer in some parts of the game, so it's not a great idea to do that. 4e was trying to guarantee a stable play experience without the ability to create turn 1 instakill combos, but also stopping Timmy from overloading his deck with high cost cards with no way to play them. Because it's focusing on playing, not building.

I have made a database ripped from the online compendium that has the stats of powers in tables with columns for range/action type/keywords/etc. I could write a script in about a weekend or so that returns a class in the 5e format, with powers either displayed as a spell list, or in-class choices (like the battlemaster has). Maybe rip off home brewery for the layout/styling.

Do you think this is a worthwhile endeavor that'd improve the game in a massive way? Don1t you think this is just shallow window dressing?

It's window dressing. It doesn't actually change the game in the slightest.

Still only loses out to 3.5 in terms of building, but that's mostly due to 3.5 being utterly loaded with unintentional synergy and shitloads of options

It loses out to most point-buy systems in build freedom, but yeah, speaking of D&D it really only loses out to 3.x.

It's up for debate if that loss is worth giving up all the other benefits 4e has.

I can't deny the value other see in it, but personally I love it when an RPG rulebook is as much a technical manual as possible. Do interesting things with the fluff sections, sure, maybe have a flavoury description... But when it comes down to the rules, give it to me in the most straight forward, concise and consistent manner possible. Reading the book is something that will happen a couple of times before I stop noticing the artistry. Actually using the book is something I'm going to need to keep doing for the entire lifetime of playing the game.

I don't think the near-absolute freedom most point-buy systems use actually makes character building more fun.

4e is a game that you need to play to actually understand.

Just looking at the powers it's understandable, even if you can look closer and see the details, but it's also the case that the powers don't exist in a vacuum. They way they interact with class features, feats and other characters adds a huge amount of depth, and all those contextual things can make a choice between two different powers very meaningful, or make two different people with the same power use them in completely different ways. Some of the later classes are more restricted in build variety, but when you look at any of the better supported classes, even before things like hybrids, there's a ridiculous amount of variety. And that's without mentioning Themes, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, yet more choices you can make to add more definition to your character.

That starts going into the shaky territory of what makes character building fun in the first place. Some people like just being able to build crazy characters by combining game elements that weren't intended to be combined, some just like getting their characters to be just like they envisions them, some like trying to find ways around restrictions, and some enjoy being told what to do.

I think 4e's mixed approach is pretty good, but primarily, the character creation aspect is "slaved" to the play aspect; which makes sense, RPGs are still primarily a group thing and the part you do with the group (that you can only do with the group, at least) is playing.

>And you better like them, bitch, because we won't tell you how to make your own.
Even MtG doesn't let you put custom cards in your deck.

The more options you introduce the more likely it is that some combination of them is so much better than the alternatives that it's one of the only things worth taking. So the important metric isn't the total amount of content but the number of relevant choices available. Despite the billions upon billions of combinations there are in MtG, there are usually fewer top decks in a given format than there are good 4E builds.

Let's try to make the analogy a bit more honestly, though. Picking a role in 4E is a lot like deciding what archetype of deck you want to play in MtG, and then you pick a specific class/deck that has pros and cons that appeal to you or a theme you like. Then you can tweak the deck to your meta or tweak your class choice with specific power selections (often with a primary choice between two or three different builds for that class, and multiple powers supporting each build at each level), PPs, and epic destinies.

If you want to bring a crazy homebrew instead of an established deck then that's what the hybrid and multiclassing rules are for.

stay salty

It's funny, /tg hated 4e when it came out and now they have a huge boner for it. Contrarian edgelords anoymous.

Hating on 4e weasn't really contrarian tho...

It's more that over time the disinformation campaign couldn't keep misleading people, even if they did a good job of making a glorious mess of things on launch and during the games lifespan.

>There is a reason why cards in magic are called spells rather than cards
i'm going to be very pedantic, mostly because i'm bored and don't have anything to do right now, but this is only partially right
cards are cards in the graveyard, library, hand and in exile, are permanents when on the battlefield, and are only spells while on the stack
this is for a few reasons, but most important is that it immediately distinguishes a card's location at any one time.
for instance, 'exile target spell' or 'exile target permanent' are much better than 'exile target card from the stack', 'exile target card in play' or 'exile target card from the battlefield'
in other cases, no special name is used because you're so rarely touching those locations, or the actions already have distinctive terminology (ie, 'draw a card' can only ever mean putting the top card of your library into your hand, exiling and returning from exile are specific to that one zone, and cards in your library, graveyard, or hand are called just that)

so to sum it up, birds of paradise is a creature card in your library or hand, a creature spell after you've cast it but before it resolves, and a creature permanent when it's resolved and has entered the battlefield.
when somebody destroys or exiles it and it's put into the graveyard or exile zones, it becomes a creature card again.

First post, best and most correct post.

>tfw when you realize that 4e was superbly designed and didn't inhibit roleplay as the 'ROLEPLAY WAS YOU ALL ALONG!'

>The language of 4e was clear, mechanical, nearly-scientific, with the only things added for flavor was the flavor text like one would find on a magic card.
Unfortunately, this hurt the game in the long run.

The screencap seems to be what is assuming readers are retarded, not the developers of 4e. Why should clear formatting fuck with people that much?

Dunno, man, why are people more likely to buy a product that is aesthetically pleasing than one that is just as functional but ugly? It's, like, totally illogical that people want things that look nice.

But the idea that they're mutually exclusive is retarded.

4e was not ugly though.
The layout was the best in the industry, the illustrations (at the start) were on point, the text was pleasant, the page decorations and flourishes were nicely done and added weight to the pages.

I think I agree that it was a bit dry. I do like the yellowed-paper feel of 5e, and the sometimes sketchy line-art of 3rd. The very bright colors and sleek boxes do make it feel a bit too modern, even if it's functional.

That said, it was nowhere near bad.

4e's power formatting was ugly. It made for very clean design, but it didn't feel like an RPG. It felt like you had different hotkeys you were mashing for powers.

You can argue about this all you want, but the large number of 3e players who jumped ship to Pathfailure prove otherwise.

>4e was not ugly though
The art direction was shit, and the format of powers was ugly as sin.

All you're doing is expressing an aesthetic preference, not an objective criticism. And as this thread shows, others clearly disagree.

>It felt like you had different hotkeys you were mashing for powers.
Of course.
If you're a retard who has never played boardgames.

>All you're doing is expressing an aesthetic preference
You caught me!

>And as this thread shows, others clearly disagree.
Yet enough agreed that 5e returned to natural language format over 4e's power card format. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the simple fact of the matter is that those who share my opinion drove the new edition, and presumably that will continue into 6e.

Thing is, board games tend to give themselves more presentation.

Yes, we're well aware that 5e's design was ruled by nostalgia and appeal to the lowest common denominator. Your point?

Your edition lost the edition wars, bucko. Pathfinder's success and now 5e show that you're in the minority. I'm merely explaining WHY people didn't like 4e, and here you are getting assblasted.

So you're using an argument from popularity rather than having an actual point? Thanks for admitting it.

It would help if you would detach yourselves emotionally from the discussion. I'm explaining to you why 4e lost the popularity contest even though it was better designed than 3e. For all its mathematical rigor (ignoring specific failures that were present throughout the edition), it still lost to the abysmal Pathfinder and the bland 5e. How, one might ask, did this occur? For one thing, the 4e team failed to convince 3e players to switch. One of the reasons this failed was because of power formatting. When every power does X damage + Y rider and maybe Z forced movement, everything looks the same.

This might be irrational, but humans are not robots, and if you want them to be interested in something, you need to appeal to their aesthetic sensibility.

You said looking at game cards makes you feel like mashing hotkeys.
No matter the context, that makes you a retard.

>How, one might ask, did this occur?
Shit marketing.
Nerd always ignore marketing, even though it's everything.

The unique situation with the entrenched 3.5 fanbase is also a factor people consistently ignore.

I wasn't interested in 4e with or without the marketing, but I'm willing to play it. I'm not particularly interested in 5e, either, but I'm willing to play it. The aesthetic and playstyle of the OSR is far preferable to me than the modern number-crunching, powerbuilding nonsense that dominates modern D&D.

As someone who thinks that 4e was needless maligned, here are my thoughts on the matter.

Wizards shot themselves on two fronts.
One: 4e was kept behind a paywall. One that was easily mounted or subverted but a paywall all the same. In retrospect, it's easy to see how and why the SRD contributes a lot to the popularity of the game.

Two: Wizards let new of the new edition out too early, let others control the narrative. They cut off Paizo, who were able to scaremonger their way into convincing you that YOUR SHELF will be INVALIDATED by HASBRO. So come buy our game where nothing is different, and yet somehow everything is worse.

Three: Wizards were pushing their digital tools early on, which would have been great... except that the digital tools weren't ready. And in the case of some of them, never were ready. We NEVER got the virtual tabletop as a full release.

And the minor fourth: some 3e core classes didn't make it into the PHB. I'm gonna throw this out there: I don't think this tanked them, but it didn't help.

So with these things in mind, I think the way you could fix this if you had a time machine is obvious. Wizards should have stayed quiet until everything was ready to go.

Then one day, it's a blitzkrieg of new edition. New, Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition! Coming soon to your FLGS! We've made the game better, we've made the game more exciting, we've included epic levels in the base game! It's on shelves, next month! We're release the SRD, next month! We're already working on new issues of dragon and dungeon, that you can get right on your computer, starting next month! And the first few? Three issue of dragon, three issues of dungeon, for free. Right to your computer.

Now you'll see I don't mention the digital tools in that pitch. Because that's the sort of thing that WotC needed to have had their hands on before talking about it. And they should have contracted it out rather than try to do it themselves.

I don't think they were as entrenched as everyone thinks. Before 4e might come out, everyone was basically saying "3.5 kinda sucks, but it's D&D and we like D&D."

Paizo stoked that flame pretty damn hard by basically inventing this fiction that the D&D police were going to kick down your door, burn down your bookshelf and shoot your dog.

If you can't understand that people who don't buy into your sense of aesthetic can be smarter than a bag of rocks, then you my friend are both a retard and a faggot.

You having your wires misaligned is not a "sense of aesthetic".

Meanwhile, your autistic insistence that everyone who fails to share your opinion is a moron is not a sign of intelligence, no matter how much you wish otherwise.

>as seen from Monte Cook's ideas about ivory tower game design
functional illiteracy alert

We're not saying people who disagree with 4e's aesthetic are as dumb as a sack of rocks. We're saying that you, specifically, are as dumb as a sack of rocks.

>some 3e core classes didn't make it into the PHB
for me it felt like that they were so arrogant about their success that they assumed they would sell me later manuals with gnomes or druids.
The fact that the manuals were smaller contributed to this feel.

Gnomes were, are, and always will be lame and swapping them out for Tieflings was the correct call.

For you. I prefer them to Tiefling because for me tiefling are emo snowflakes.
But that's beyond the point. It FELT they were trying to exploit the fanbase selling half of the shit for the same price.

See

Huh. Your dumbshit point I already read didn't convince me the first time, but saying "See >>" and then reposting it really didn't seem to do the trick a second time.

You, specifically you, are a moron.

user, the races and classes in 4e's PHB1 were the most popular ones from their data gained from who played what at conventions and general interest on their forums for all of 3.5's run.
No one played gnomes (or kobolds) except for That Guys.

Fancy that, your complete non-point, baldfaced assertion also failed to convince me, regardless of how many times you posted it. As evidenced by the existence of my counterposts. Although I'll admit it's pretty stupid to keep feeding you replies, seeing as how it's such a complete waste of time.

Tieflings could end up kinda emo snowflakeish, but Gnomes were taken out for the same reason Half-Orcs were taken out - giving them a bit of a refluffing and allowing them to be more than what was expected of them. Much like the Bard, the Sorcerer, the Barbarian and the Druid, the main thing about 4e's delaying in releasing those "core" classes was coming up with a distinct identity for them and how to represent that mechanically. The Bard took on leader properties, rearranging the battlefield to his will, while the Barbarian went from "dumb angry stupid guy" to "tribal warrior who channels spirits".

Yeah, I see with this attitude ended very well.

These are all nice explanation but people just seen less for the same price and felt ripped off.
You don't have to explain this to me, I believe you. But many did not feel that way.

It's important to remember that 4e was actually financially successful. While it didn't meet expectations, it didn't exactly tank the company.

But you've chosen this one pocket issue (my favorite race didn't end up in the PHB) and decided that this was the sole thing that did them in.

A big one there was the Sorcerer, which has always been int he Wizard's shadow as "Wizard but less".

>this was the sole thing that did them in
>And the minor fourth: some 3e core classes didn't make it into the PHB. I'm gonna throw this out there: I don't think this tanked them
C'mon, user, at least engage with the argument as it exists.

Hell, most of the classes in the PHB2 from previous editions really benefit from not being first out the game.

The PHB Fighter is kinda "eh" but still leagues better than the 3e fighter, but the PHB2 Barbarian comes out swinging as a solid class. Same with the Bard and Druid. Hell, the druid had the benefit of they'd started to figure out how controllers should work.

If we're talking notable examples, the Monk took until the PHB3 to come out and it came out as the monkiest monk to ever monk, with a very distinct fluff identity too. And it came out after the Brawler Fighter.

>many
The only thing I saw anyone ask about was the Barbarian.

The Fighter is one of the best classes in the game, dude. In fact, most of the best classes in the game are PHB classes.

PHB fighter means "with only PHB options" in this context.

>What do you think, Veeky Forums?

I think everyone knows why Tekken is more popular than Virtua Fighter. The only people that don't think so are Virtua Fighter players and there like what, 20 of them?

Apply this logic and you'll understand why 4E failed and is a failed set of ideas.

This wasn't a sentiment I saw expressed anywhere.
I mean it, anywhere. The "less classes per dollar" was literally not a thing I saw. Not even in this cesspit of terrible arguments.

Because Tekken actually has characters?

True, but a lot of those classes benefited greatly from later additions. A good number of the PHB powers, feats, and class features varied wildly from really great to solid shit the later additions like the Power books smoothed out the classes and allowed things like the Fighter and Warlord to become the powerhouses that they rightfully should be.

Because 4e released on the sega saturn for home consoles, which is what the majority of the US and European markets were playing on rather than going to arcades - which itself can be blamed on urban areas not being designed around mass transit.

I think your analogy has some problems in it, dude. I don't think 4e didn't experience the same level of success due to lack of trains.

When choosing your analogies, it's important to select things that make sense.

For example, if you want to compare a fighting game with mainstream success to something with more niche audiences, a better comparison wouldn't so much be Tekken to Virtua Fighter.

I'd be Street Fighter to Tekken.

I sad gnome or druid.
I was thinking more about the classes, actually.

>This wasn't a sentiment I saw expressed in the echo-chambers I frequented back then

I mean, definitely, but the Fighter could feasibly ruin a few days with just the PHB from the get go. But yeah, the Power books smoothed out the points where they weren't nearly as good.

Running a 4e monster
>Look at its statblock
>Done

Running a 3e monster
>Look at its feats
>And its spell-likes, spells per day and such. God help if someone damages its casting stat. Why the fuck does the monster have all these spells?
>Look at any effects its weapon has, oh hey this weapon does something
>Look at the special rules for its type
>Seriously why the fucking FUCK does this monster have FEATS? What's this two-weapon-fighting chain bullshit? Just say "Attacks twice with each weapon on a full attack"
>Spill coke on a handbook as you look up its spells again
>the fuck is a yellow dragon?

>while the Barbarian went from "dumb angry stupid guy" to "tribal warrior who channels spirits".
Wasn't this what it always was?

Yea, they definitely could. A lot of the Fighter's best stuff comes from the PHB, the best powers, the best PPs but, some of the worst stuff does too. Same goes for things like the Warlord and Cleric. I think the Cleric actually gains the most from PHB2 and beyond since it gains all those Radiant allies and cheese options that make the Radiant Mafia so ridiculous.

I think they tried to make it that way in some bits of the previous editions but failed to give any real mechanical benefits which correlated to it. Instead, the class boiled down to just a rage-guy and his just barely past realistic abilities.

188 iq checking in. 4e was awesome and 3e was shit, been playing since '85, was a DM and player. I've played every edition extensively. This nerd fight never ends and really, some of you are just looking to troll. I want to sperg out on you all so hard rn but I'll decline. One, you never learn until you're in your thirties why these arguments are almost frivolous and secondly, the ones dedicated to trolling you won't stop until they derail the thread.
3.X SUCKS AND ALWAYS WILL, CRY CRY HARDER FANBOYS
Whew, had to get that off my chest.

Ah yes, famously pro-4e echo-chambers like "Veeky Forums.org/tg/"

This is the reason I love 4e so much. The work put onto the DM is minimal and if I want to make cool monsters and things, they give me easy rules and I really only have to put in as much work as I want to. It allows me to focus on more interesting things like making a combat more than just a monster or ten, crafting a fun and malleable story, and detailing the npcs and setting.

Of all the salty fucks in Veeky Forums, 4rries are the saddest.

Newfag, where is this pasta from? Google failed me

>what is a tortle

I can see you're a deluded fuckface too. Furry shit has been in every edition.

>188 iq checking in.

I'm 47, hardly new. I just wrote it, asshat. Please enjoy it as immensely as I did writing it for you windbags.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand 3.PF. The rules are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the rules will go over a typical player's head. There is also Monte Cook's design outlook, which is deftly woven into the rules - feat design draws heavily from ivory tower design, for instance. For fans to understand this stuff; they have to have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these mechanics, to realize that they're not just fun - they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike 3.PF truly ARE idiots - of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the mechanical complexity in the build "Chuck The Ruby Knight Vindicator," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratch their head in confusion as Wizard of the Coasts genius design unfolds itself on the pages. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a d20 tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only - and even then they have to demonstrate they're within 5IQ points of my own (preferably lower) before hand. Nothin personnel kid

If you actually are some 47 year old dude getting this worked up over D&D editions then please just fucking log off.