How close is D&D 4e to an MMO really?

Minions had a level that often belied their solitary hit point. Due to the way 4e's math works and the rate at which game numbers increase with level, you never want to have a monster that's more than maybe two levels higher or lower than the party, minions included.

Right, what I'm saying is that this problem existed before 4e, and 4e actually offered a solution to it by using minions/elites/solos (as meh actual solitary solos tend to be) to allow a wider ranger of creature types in the "here math actually works out"-band.

But the band itself is much narrower than it ever was before. In AD&D you could probably use somewhere from a quarter to a third of the monster manual at any time. In 3.x is was about a quarter ad well. In 4e it's exactly one sixth of the book, less if you're level 1-2 or 29-30.

Worse, creatures of the same level are typically available in every "role" (soldier, brute, stalker, etc.) But only two or three flavors. If your party is of the right level to fight gnolls, I hope you like gnolls, because that's what you're getting. Sure there will be gnoll archers and gnoll shieldbearers and gnoll minions and even some elite gnoll masterminds, but the non-gnoll options are off the table until you level up some more. And conversely, if you want to have a campaign that really focuses on gnolls and gnoll culture and the ever-looming threat of a gnollish horde, you're equally fucked because most of the time the players will be too low or high level to fight gnolls.

According to the DMG guidelines, and I can attest it from experience, the game works if you stay in a +/-4 level range. Even admitting that it's not great, there are also super-easy and usable guidelines to level up or down monsters which work as long as you don't change tier.
The math issues of 4e are not as bad as many people repeat memely.

>with less practical looking weapons and armor

nigga did you ever read a 3.x book?

Roles and Global cooldowns.

Also 'Bosses' have phases a.k.a the Bloodied mechanic.

Of course it's not like an MMO.

Retards just saw that certain classes have ways to encourage enemies to hit them, and went OMG THAT MEANS THE GAME HAS AGGRO MECHANICS LIKE MY FAVORITE WORLD OF WARTARDS LOL IT'S LITERALLY AN MMO. People like that aren't worth your time.

>But the band itself is much narrower than it ever was before. In AD&D you could probably use somewhere from a quarter to a third of the monster manual at any time. In 3.x is was about a quarter ad well. In 4e it's exactly one sixth of the book, less if you're level 1-2 or 29-30.

You are applying a much stricter criteria of "can use" to 4e than to the other games. This may be because you are judging by the criteria the games themselves use, which isn't really precise.

What's "can use" in 4e is more or less guaranteed to be actually worth using, while in the other ones, not so much. A level appropriate encounter in every other D&D, if you don't personally adjust it to the party, can range from "solved in one spell" to "we can't even damage this enemy". So I feel this is a bit unfair.

As for variety... after MM3 and the Monster vaults you have a pretty wide selection every level. The MMs also give you good pointers on how to homebrew, refluff, and readjust level appropriate monsters, so even if this was a problem for your group, it's incredibly easy to fix, especially because monster statblocks in 4e are probably the most sane out of all the WotC editions.

>Roles

Are you implying previous D&D's didn't have roles?

>Global cooldowns

What does Global mean here? I usually see that used when cooldown between abilities is shared, but abilities in 4e "cooldown" discretely.

>Also 'Bosses' have phases a.k.a the Bloodied mechanic.

"When falls below half HP (or feels like losing), change tactics" had been a thing for every half-way decently designed important enemy in the history of RPGs ever.

>These same people unironically forget that 3rd edition was nicknamed D&D: Diablo edition for fucking ages.

I have that exact D&D starter kit.

It's an RPG which a massive amount of people plays with multiple players online. Seems like a MMORPG to me, user!

>IF WE IGNORE THAT IT WAS STRICTLY DESIGNED TO BE AN MMORPG WE CAN SAY IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ONE AT ALL!!!!!!

Seriously, how stupid are you people.

Not at all. Never understood this.

Play any srpg? That's what 4e plays like. Tactics ogre/fft/ffta.

Does anyone still play 4e?

Well, as someone who got into ttrpgs with 4e, my friends and I all thought it reminded us of an MMO (we had played MMOs together) and not at all the D&D we heard about growing up.

One reason was that classes all had skills issued to them in such a streamlined way, it didn't make martials and casters feel different from each other, which is a lot like third+ generation MMOs. I do think martials tend to get shafted in ttrpgs, but I don't think making everyone the same is the right solution.

The second problem, which might've been because we didn't have an experienced DM to play with, was that our vision of D&D placed combat as a fraction of the game, but building our characters and buying minis and trying to play a premade campaign, it was really difficult to see why we shouldn't just phone in the roleplaying. Like, we all wanted to roleplay walking around a city and talking to NPCs and exploring the wilderness and stuff like that, but everything about the game seemed focused on combat. I would like to blame our inexperience on this, but I've also heard WotC address this complaint before, so I'm guessing we weren't the only ones.

The third thing was cooldowns. They felt like a game mechanic. I felt like I was playing a board game, basically.

Lastly, and this is a big thing for me, if you summon a giant flood of water, what should it do? To me, ttrpg logic would say it washes people away. That's what it does in real life, it's what it does in 5e, too. In 4e? It heals your allies. Where else does shit like that happen? Video games. It's really hard to get immersed in a world when nothing behaves the way you expect it to and you end up not chanting up a burst of water from a distant plane to push your enemies off a bridge, but instead you pick up a card and say, "I use this, everyone gets some Hit Points back. What is it? I dunno." Hey, why a flood? Why not a giant meteor that heals people? Or raining steam rollers that heal people? Why not?

You know, you really can't fault this guy, because he's not wrong.

As someone who started with 4e after playing MMOs for years, I didn't feel any real similarities. And I still have no idea how the comparison even started. The few similarities they DID have were things I later found were things MMOs had taken from tabletop in general, so the argument just sounded like "4e is too much like D&D!" which didnt make much sense as a complaint to me.

>Lastly, and this is a big thing for me, if you summon a giant flood of water, what should it do? To me, ttrpg logic would say it washes people away. That's what it does in real life, it's what it does in 5e, too. In 4e? It heals your allies. Where else does shit like that happen? Video games. It's really hard to get immersed in a world when nothing behaves the way you expect it to and you end up not chanting up a burst of water from a distant plane to push your enemies off a bridge, but instead you pick up a card and say, "I use this, everyone gets some Hit Points back. What is it? I dunno." Hey, why a flood? Why not a giant meteor that heals people? Or raining steam rollers that heal people? Why not?

I'm sorry for your autism.

Damn it, it's true! I can't find a single flaw!

That's fine, but you know that's observably untrue since everyone and their mother calls 4e the not-D&D D&D. Ask anyone their opinions on D&D and most people skip 4e entirely. It actually funded another company's games. You're clearly an outlier here.

Insults would hurt my feelings in real life or a normal game of D&D, but this is a 4e thread so they actually just increase my spell attack rolls. Thanks, buddy.

>That's fine, but you know that's observably untrue since everyone and their mother calls 4e the not-D&D D&D
Where? I've seen people claim this happens a lot way more than it actually happens. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen this outside of false flag shitposting.

>Insults would hurt my feelings in real life or a normal game of D&D, but this is a 4e thread so they actually just increase my spell attack rolls.
Actually, I'm a Bard, so my insults are literally psychic attack cantrips.

It's not an MMO

It does require heavy tactical grid based miniature combat to play however. You can play theatre of the mind combats in 4E but they're very difficult to adjudicate due to all the minor abilities that shift things one square etc as well as the various aoe spells. And in either respect those combats are going to take an incredibly long time due to everyone having bloated hit points and player characters being nigh impossible to really kill. The game also expects you to have at least 5 combats in a row to challenge the group what so ever.

Hence while 4E isn't a 'mmo' it is basically designed as a tactical combat simulator and any 'roleplay' elements are just filler in-between the fights.

You can certainly play it and not have many or any combats but then you'd be ignoring the only developed part of the system at which point why are you playing 4E again?

All the people who played Pathfinder instead. All the Internet DMs, like Mercer and WebDM. There are no other people that we would both know.

I've never seen why people think a good combat system somehow detracts from roleplay. Why does having enjoyable combats stop you doing the same stuff you'd do in another game? It makes no sense to me, and my experience of 4e campaigns has been no more combat heavy than any other flavour of D&D.

The out of combat structures and guidelines are solid. They do what they need to, some need a bit of tweaking, but overall they give the GM the tools they need to govern that kind of stuff. You don't need super in depth rules for out of combat, you can RP it just fine.

>And in either respect those combats are going to take an incredibly long time due to everyone having bloated hit points and player characters being nigh impossible to really kill.

The math fixes solved this years ago.

>Lastly, and this is a big thing for me, if you summon a giant flood of water, what should it do? To me, ttrpg logic would say it washes people away. That's what it does in real life, it's what it does in 5e, too. In 4e? It heals your allies. Where else does shit like that happen? Video games. It's really hard to get immersed in a world when nothing behaves the way you expect it to and you end up not chanting up a burst of water from a distant plane to push your enemies off a bridge, but instead you pick up a card and say, "I use this, everyone gets some Hit Points back. What is it? I dunno." Hey, why a flood? Why not a giant meteor that heals people? Or raining steam rollers that heal people? Why not?
Link the power in question? Doesn't sound familiar.

I should also point out that 4e is designed that the power's only set feature is the effects it has. Beyond that, any flavor it has is up to the player/DM. Pretty easy to reflavor a "healing flood" spells to healing rain for example.

>Why does having enjoyable combats stop you doing the same stuff you'd do in another game?
I dunno, totally loaded question asker.

How does that stop it being a valid question?

>Healing flood shit

Is this copypasta or are you the same autist who posted this retardation a few 4e threads back?

It's Spirit of the Healing Flood, but I don't see why that particular spell matters. Every 4e player concedes their spells behave like this, they just refute that it's retarded. Also, I could reflavor it to Healing Rain...but that was my other fucking spell and it's equally stupid.

Also, you can technically reflavor anything to be anything in any game so long as the GM is cool with it. The problem here is that in 4e the spells come prepackaged with a nonsensical flavor. No, the DM doesn't have to okay a flavor, but everyone does have to sit around pondering what the spell actually fucking does. Why, you ask?

Can it put out a fire? Can it? Yes? Why? It's the spirit of a flood! It doesn't even do the things you'd expect a flood to do! If it did, I certainly wouldn't be casting it on my allies, would I? Does it get us wet? Does Healing Rain get us wet? Maybe it gets us wet if the DM feels like it getting us wet. Can my flood push people off a bridge if the DM feels like it behaving that way?

The one question I had about 4e was whether or not I could ride my Spirit Bear, only to discover that 4e players weren't even sure what my bear's movement speed was, because the ruling was unclear.

I had a bad time.

I'm the same guy. Most people hate 4e and you 4e players sit around wondering why, and I try to explain to you why I didn't enjoy it, and every time you go, "Nah, that can't be it... I guess we'll never know lol"

Boy, if you get this nitpicky over how dumb 4e flavor is, I'd recommend staying away from any other edition of D&D. You would start foaming at the mouth just opening the first page of the Wizard spell list.

I have no complaints about 5e.

...Are you confused by the idea that magic often relies on metaphor? Water is often associated with healing, which is why those powers work like that. It's... A pretty basic thing with a lot of mythological precedent.

Yeah, I'm familiar. Leviathan does it when you summon him.

Then why is it a problem? It's magic using the theme of water in a healing context. It's not a literal flood or ordinary rain.

Because he thinks it's a video game thing, as he doesn't have a wider context to draw from, so it breaks his immersion.

Leviathan from Final Fantasy uses one water-based healing move in FFXI, the first of the two MMOs in the 15-part Japanese RPG series.

Therefore D&D 4e is an MMO, apparently.

... Dungeons and Dragons ...

... the tabletop RPG ...

... was designed to be a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game ...

... I ... What?

I can't believe you responded to me. Did you even read my post?

I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. Splashes of water restoring Hit Points, yes, that sounds like a video game to me, and not at all like anything D&D or Western fantasy related from my childhood. Hitting someone with a healing liquid in and of itself sounds like a video game thing, you should at least drink the fucking thing.

Really, it didn't bother me while I was playing the game, but I also didn't enjoy the game so it only bothers me during the autopsy. Looking at it now, I feel like it's definitely something that broke my immersion. There's nothing like it in 5e and I'm totally fine with the entire spell list in 5e. You can cast healing spells in 5e, they're not water; you can cast floods in 5e, they do precisely what a ton of water is expected to do. I feel like I could go back to 4e and DM a game and it wouldn't be like my experience was at all, but I don't know why I would.

It doesn't help that the DM expected me to use my "water" to solve a riddle and was disappointed I never figured it out, but my completely honest excuse was that I had no good fucking reason to think it was actual water. I never found out if my bear was an actual bear, either. If it behaved like water, I reasoned, it would say so in the description.

I'm not the one accusing 4e of being an MMO, I'm a young D&D fan who didn't enjoy 4e and then later discovered tons of people also did not enjoy it and the MMO thing was one of their arguments, and I'm simply saying, "Hey, I had that same experience and can understand why they said that, I didn't like these things and they all seem very video game-y to me."

You can deconstruct my excuse, but it's not going to make people retroactively like your game.

This is actually a legitimate problem with 4e which I also had a problem with in the years that I played the game. I think the base 4e chassis has potential but needs a lot of polish. Which unfortunately it will never recieve because 4rries actually do think the system is basically perfect.

At root the problem really is that each class has benchmark abilities which are needed to make them functional and balanced and it is this which 'flavor text' is wrapped around rather than there being a concept which is then mechanically justified. This is a problem to varying degrees dependent on the concept in question.

It's a problem when the rogue needs an AoE ability to hit some mechanical benchmark and so he can machine gun spray with a pistol crossbow which is a totally cartoonish ability that a huge number of players will and did have a problem with. The idea of the rogue (and any other class or power source) needs to be mechanically justified. The mechanics need to match the idea and not the other way around.
Which in 4e it doesn't even work the other way around (but it could have and a hack of 4e still could but won't).

Wizard spells don't really have "flavor" though. They have a concept which is then justified mechanically, which is a source of imbalance because the concept is what is important not the mechanical benchmark being hit. There are very few spells which are meant to fulfill a mechanical niche and then some FX put on it in post production in other editions of the game. Wizard spells in every other edition of the game are overwhelmingly not simply "flavor text" which can be swapped out because then the mechanics stop making sense. In 4e many of the abilities flavor text doesn't make sense because that was never a concern for the developers, which is unfortunate.

I read your post, I'm just confused. Are you really unfamiliar with the mythic associations of healing water? Healing springs are incredibly common in fantasy fiction.

I am familiar with physical water which heals after resting in or drinking it. I am not familiar with dunking ethereal water on people's heads, outside video games, because video games are all about quick effects and they're not meant to be immersive at all.

So you have no foundation in mythology or the metaphorical basis of magic? Okay. Just making sure.

Healing springs are a common theme, the city of Bath was famous for its hot water springs that supposedly healed people and there are multiple Celtic gods associated with thermal springs and water. Also, it's a Shaman invocation, it's associated with natural spirits, so they're pretty open to interpretation as well. It's not really a spell as much as it is a primal spirit of healing than one of water.

When D&D 3e came out, there was an article published in Knights of the Dinner Table that compared it to, I am not making this up, Diablo.

It argued that the easy multiclassing meant Fighters could cast Fireball, and that the surplus of magic items made the game extremely loot-driven, which would cause the story to fall to the wayside.

4E, explicitly, doesn't have a GCD any more or less than any other edition of DnD.

>then later discovered tons of people also did not enjoy it and the MMO thing was one of their arguments

And then, presumably around the same time, also discovered those people are routinely mocked for such a fucking weak made up criticism.

Which is really bizarre when there are ACTUAL criticisms you can sue for 4e, like the map dependency, how the math made everything a damage sponge, how ass multiclassing was before hybrids happened, how ass Essentials was in general for the most part, feat taxes, lack of support for a number of classes, etc.

But no, just "lmao MMO."

...ever heard of Achilles?

…uh, honestly that sounds accurate except the fighter instead just disappeared as he was completely useless. You were literally better off with a fireball-casting wizard in the fighter role.

Baptism is also a thing that exists.

For real, I can't understand how anyone has a functioning brain and somehow never heard of the water-healing connection.

I should mention this came off as insulting, but I didn't really mean it like that. I'm actually genuinely baffled.

It's much closer to an adventure board game, though there are certainly a few influences from MMOs and turn-based strategy video games in some of the conceptual design and how certain things are communicated (not that there's even anything wrong with that in itself), but so far as structure and pacing and how subsystems interact there's just way more cardgame and boardgame to it.

I've never been much of a grid-and-minis guy so it's not at all my cup of tea regardless, but I still 'get it'. It's not as if there are *no* good ideas in the mix.

>and that the surplus of magic items made the game extremely loot-driven, which would cause the story to fall to the wayside.
Not gonna lie, this bit actually matches up with my 3.X experiences pretty well for most of the games I've been a player (my high school had like four forever-GMs and as a rule they were all sorts of lackluster without quite stepping into full 'bad').

The source of that issue is similar to the source of GMs calling for too many rolls: people take a subsystem and end up trying to make it the driver of everything and then supplement that with GMing, rather than using it as just another tool in their toolbox. In one case the skill system, and in another the wealth-by-level assumptions and how it's designed to be a universal pillar of character progression.

>How close is D&D 4e to an MMO really?

Not at all. It's a meme, if plays like any vidya it's one of the Tactics games. However, the people who hate 4e don't really care, so long as they have easy memes to spew. They'll repeat this stuff forever, no matter how false it is.

There was a guy in another thread trying to clam that, because some 4e fans would like to see an updated version of 4e, an edition of D&D, all 4e fans hate D&D.

>It's Spirit of the Healing Flood

Here's your problem. Spirit of the Healing Flood doesn't summon a flood of water. It summons a SPIRIT that spreads its symbolic influence, drowning foes on dry land and healing your friends.

When 6e comes out will we stop getting 4e bait threads in favor of a 5e vs 6e edition war?

No, 4e SPECIFICALLY was designed to be ported over to computers as an MMORP). That's why the deign is so stultified and gamelike. It seems like a vidya because it was meant to be easily ported to a vidya, and the murder-suicide put a stop to that, which is why it's been abandoned. They got tiered of trying to pump out more books with more powers, because the way they designed the game was to limit player input and maximize required purchases.

...No? It was designed to integrate into an online tabletop, and maybe be adapted into an MMO later. Get your facts right.

not as long as
exists.

>No, 4e SPECIFICALLY was designed to be ported over to computers as an MMORP

You mean it was meant to be easy to play online. Do you know what an MMORPG is? It's a massively multiplayer only rpg. As in, there are thousands or millions of people playing. It's also a term generally reserved for videogames with a single persistent world.

>It seems like a vidya because it was meant to be easily ported to a vidya

Playing D&D online does not make it vidya, no matter how hard you reach with this.

>because the way they designed the game was to limit player input and maximize required purchases

Opportunities for player input are identical between editions, and, surprise surprise, every edition of D&D has tried to maximize purchases. It's a business. Books with more class options in 4e are the same shit as books with more class options in 3.5 or 5e - opportunities for WotC to make money.

People will always defend things they like, especially if most of the criticisms of said things are outright lies.

I don't know why people don't attack the actual flaws of 4e. Like, it's legitimately a hard system to use if you don't want to at all use a grid, and want a full theater of the mind experience. All the MMO crap and shit about fighters being wrong in 4e because they have 'powers' is absolutely retarded.

>But the band itself is much narrower than it ever was before.
From a pure mechanical perspective.... if you can't do the simple math of leveling up or down a monster, then yes, but from a fluff perspective, there were a LOT more options, because that "mummy" you were fighting could be a number of different potential opponents with a simple element swap, NAD-swap, and perhaps a little tweaking in attack-rider-effects. Yeah, you probably wouldn't want to throw the same monster refluffed two different ways at the party in succession, but as long as you aren't so autistic that a monster's stat block having the name "X" attacked to it means it NEEEEDS to be "X" and only "X" then this was never a problem.

Yeah, you needed to familiarize yourself with the monsters within the challenge band of the party, but once you are, the same named oger who's a solo in heroic tier, can be a elite/normal in paragon tier, or a minion/super-minion in epic tier.

I've been DMing 4e for many years now, and it's literally never been a problem... then again 4e is a DM's DREAM edition, and I'm forever DM, so I'm biased.

You can defend it without being a cunt. I don't understand how internet people haven't learned this. All the prickness does is turn people away from any already dying game.

Of course it wasn't like an MMO.

Ultimately, the difference between an edition like 3.5 and an edition like 4e is that one was highly simulationist and tried to treat the rules as the actual physics of the world, and one was more abstraction-based. Many of the differences are in the language; 3.5 and 5e use 'natural' language, whereas 4 used mechanical language. Most of the mechanics actually work the exact same way, 4e just went for a more concise, mechanical tone because it wanted people to refluff and modify everything (in fact, many of the things people praise in 5e are ripped precisely from 4e, they're just named differently). Even its core setting, Nentir Vale, was designed to encourage this - it was vague and spacious, with lots of room for players to build their own story elements, themes, and lore onto the skeleton of the setting, a sharp contrast with hugely detailed worlds like Forgotten Realms and Eberron.

There's no right or wrong here. If you prefer the natural language, you prefer the natural language. If you prefer the opposite, you prefer the opposite. The problem is unfortunately that people can't just leave things at that - in particular, people that felt betrayed by the perceived changes from 3.5 decided that they needed better reasons than "it's not written the way I like" to hate something, so, well, the invention of 4e as the MMO edition was born.

>It seems like a vidya because it was meant to be easily ported to a vidya
But all those encounter and daily immediate interrupts and reactions would be really annoying to make work in a real-time video game like an MMORPG.

When everyone attacking is a cunt, of course you're going to be a cunt back. 4e fans have heard the same false arguments over and over, usually from people who either know they're being disingenuous or people who actually have no experience with the system and just go with what they've heard.

The MMO thing is a lie. Stuff like the game having less social mechanics are a lie. Why should 4e fans pretend they aren't? Why shouldn't they call out the people who perpetuate this shit?

The funny thing about the MMO argument is, the primary proof people use is that classes have abilities they can use that can be used a certain amount of times per encounter or day.

This, however, is true in literally every single edition of D&D. You have [x] many Divine Smites per short rest, you have [x] many spell uses, you have [x] many stance activations, etc etc etc. The only difference, practically speaking, is that 4e put those abilities in a sorta boxy format with all their workings laid out in a standardized order.

Shit, the Battlemaster, probably one of the most recommended fighter paths in 5e, is often praised for its many options and versatility. And it's literally a bunch of fighter powers from 4e stapled to a 5e fighter.

Not if you play 4e apparently. Everyone else is wrong regardless of why they don't like the system, and they're vicious assholes to anyone who suggests actual problems, or utterly dismissive at the very least aggressive.

Sure you aren't talking about the 3.PF hate bandwagoners?

see
This DESU

So does your argument not count for them when everyone goes in 3.PF threads and shits the place up.

Given that I've basically never see that happen? There was a little shitposting in 5e threads a while back, but 4e threads almost universally get shitposted into the dirt. It's not at all an equal trade.

>Take thing that fanboys will do on Veeky Forums for literally any controversial system
>Declare that people that disagree with you are "worse" or that it applies universally to them
>???
>Win argument

People, 4e fans, have stated in this thread that the game has flaws. They've even pointed some out. None of them have attacked people for stating legitimate flaws. There are even people here noting that a lot of stuff is just a matter of opinion.

But if your dislike of the system can only be expressed as "it's MMOshit" then of course they're going to dismiss you. They've heard it a million times and it's been disproven a million times. I mean, just further up in this thread, a guy is saying he disliked how a certain spell worked because it didn't behave how he thought it should, and it sounded like videogame mechanic to him. It turned out he'd just read the spell description wrong (or not read it at all), and it had no reason to behave the way he thought it should.

4e fans have heard this shit over and over. They are tired of lies like "well, there's less social mechanics!" and the like being thrown around, even when the people throwing it around don't necessarily know it's a lie.

Did you not see the starfinder thread. Have you not seen the screen shot of some of the worse players of PF and applying them to all of them, have you not seen the "have you tried not playing D&D meme that only ever gets posted for 3.PF stuff?

It never seems to be a matter of opinion when people don't prefer the more sanitized power cards of 4e to the style other editions use. Then they are playing badwrongfun.

I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread, or any recent 4e thread, say that a critic is wrong for not liking the way a system does something. I have seen them say that they're wrong for thinking a system does [x] thing when it doesn't. Which is a perfectly fine thing to say, because that's not opinions, that's facts.

Remember, stating why something is not a bad thing is not the same as saying you're wrong for disliking something.

No, the primary argument is that in 4e you have set roles for classes

Which is something you pretty much always had in D&D, they just didn't explicitly tell you. There's a reason why the 4 roles in 4e line up perfectly with the classic four classes. Hell, the roles you see in MMOs originally came from party roles in early D&D. So it is technically accurate, but it's also kind of fucking stupid because it's something that MMOs have in common with all D&D except perhaps 3.5

Look at this thread. Nobody is saying the power cards are better or that you're wrong if you prefer other systems. For the most part, they're saying it's an aesthetic difference anyway.

They're saying that the way 4e does things is not bad. If you take that as an attack against you, that's really your fault.

Not this thread

>MMOs have in common with all D&D except perhaps 3.5
And there, you nail it on the head. Except that's not a legitimate excuse if you play 3.5 or 4e, unless, of course you're a 4e player and say it. But anyone else even mention it? Flame and rage.

The first link you have there is explicitly true though, and it's not making fun of you, it's making fun of Paizo... Which is fair game, because Paizo is a giant bag of dicks and even people who love Pathfinder know this

>ike, we all wanted to roleplay walking around a city and talking to NPCs and exploring the wilderness and stuff like that, but everything about the game seemed focused on combat. I would like to blame our inexperience on this, but I've also heard WotC address this complaint before, so I'm guessing we weren't the only ones.

This, I think was an unfortunate side-effect of 4e's presentation. Iv'e been playing since AD&D, and I can tell that in reality, there's no more emphasis on "out of combat" vs "in combat" roleplay in any edition than any other. But, the way 4e laid out its stills definitely made some people feel like combat was the thrust of things. It didn't for me, especially since I recognized how deceptively small many changes were, but I can see this.

>That's what it does in real life, it's what it does in 5e, too. In 4e? It heals your allies.
Ah, okay, you... I feel like you should probably have read the Shaman class description, as well as the spell description, rather than making assumptions based on the name of the spell. The Shaman class was based around the idea of summoning myths and totemic spirits. Spirit of the Healing Flood is meant to represent the shaman summoning a spirit associated with the healing, soothing properties of water. It doesn't actually summon water.

This seems like a very specific problem that arises from misunderstanding one class.

That's because when 4e fans discuss the game, they're talking with other 4e fans. If a non 4e player has a complaint or criticism, regardless of how justified or real it actually is, 4e players immediately turn into lunatic trolls.

The first quote is a response to an image of an actual ability that was copied from 4e into another system. The second quote is NOT stating that the cards are the superior format, it's highlighting the hypocrisy of people criticizing the limited uses per day format while praising the exact same thing in another system. The third post, again, isn't saying one format is better than the other. It's just a joke regarding the post it quotes, which demonstrates that there's the same amount of room for creative interpretation in either system.

I don't quite see what you're trying to accomplish here.

I'm discussing it with you, and the only one here making baseless accusations or acting like a troll is... well, it's you.

Hmm

Maybe you're right, but it really depends on what "justified or real" complaints and criticisms you're talking about

I guess the post directly above yours is somehow 'lunatic trolling', as is any defense or statement regarding 4e? Because that's what I'm getting from you.

Fucking LOL. Let's be clear here bigot. You are the one who is outdated. You are the one who doesn't belong in the hobby. You are the one whose view is tolerated less and less every day so fuck you and your outdated ideas of what is normal and OK.

I don't need you judging me and I reject your ability to do so. But I will fucking judge you - you fucking hateful bigot. The hobby will be better off when people like you are finally driven away and the rest of us can be free to be who we are instead of playing shut up for you.

Every day is one day closer to you being driven away. Every day your fucking view is less tolerated for the hateful shit that it is. And you got nothing to say in response to any of this other than to just insult me and say hateful shit like "you're acting like a troll".

I got none of that for you pal. Not one fucking bit. Because I want you alive and well to see the day you no longer have a place in this hobby and you are the one stuck looking from the outside in as everyone else has a good time.

You know what? I was feeling pretty down in my first post. But I'm feeling pretty good right now. Fuck you bigot, you are the one that is wrong and outdated. Not me.

This is the most bigoted use of the word "bigot" I have ever seen. And I've read fanfiction on tumblr