It actually simplified fighters a bit because grappling is heavily streamlined with no separate rules at all. So it replaced a rather complex mechanic available to fighters with weeaboo fightan' magic. And it's not even the cool kind of magic that interacts with the environment, it's just punch magic.GothGirlSupremacy wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 08:13This is one aspect I fucking despise. Call it boring, but you're a Fighter. You hit or slash or whack shit. That's it. Your purpose in terms of combat performance is finding ways to hit or slash or whack stuff better and harder.rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 07:53Then we go down to the Fighter class and look at their daily abilities:
When Fighters start getting these ability lists like they're a Wizard it makes the class become lame. There's a beautiful simplicity in having a class that's all about wanting to get in there and do some damage with a weapon and that's that. Hopefully the people who championed this change choked on their Ritalin prescription.
We have a Steam curator now. You should be following it. https://store.steampowered.com/curator/44994899-RPGHQ/
4e is the best edition of D&D
- rusty_shackleford
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10507
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
- Gender: Watermelon
- Contact:
- Ratcatcher
- Turtle
- Posts: 638
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
Fighters and thieves aren't so monodirectional, not even in older editions. You're supposed to perform maneuvers, you can try and disarm or sunder an opponent. You can get smart and act in ways that incapacitate your opponents or change the battlescape. Just fucking "talk" to your GM, explain your plan and reasoning and "listen" to his answer.
Rules were broader and/or allowed GMs to decide the modifiers applied and what to roll. Nowadays NWP have been gutted out, GM fiat is considered a bad word, there are specific talents or feats regulating anything (written as to mechanically discourage performing actions, if you lack the correct one) and extended stats (bend bars, lift gates) have been excised. I dunno about 4th and 5th but Pathfinder lacks a frikin' Athletics skill or anything similar. You must make do using ability checks or reflex/fortitude saves.
They shackled creative gameplay. What we got in exchange is fighters that specialize in inflicting damage via a number of weak hits, fighters going for da bigg *bonk* and fighters gambling for a 15+ roll.
Rules were broader and/or allowed GMs to decide the modifiers applied and what to roll. Nowadays NWP have been gutted out, GM fiat is considered a bad word, there are specific talents or feats regulating anything (written as to mechanically discourage performing actions, if you lack the correct one) and extended stats (bend bars, lift gates) have been excised. I dunno about 4th and 5th but Pathfinder lacks a frikin' Athletics skill or anything similar. You must make do using ability checks or reflex/fortitude saves.
They shackled creative gameplay. What we got in exchange is fighters that specialize in inflicting damage via a number of weak hits, fighters going for da bigg *bonk* and fighters gambling for a 15+ roll.
- WhiteShark
- Turtle
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
Disclaimer: this post is not a defense of 4e.
It seems to me that certain RPGs get a lot of undue praise for 'freedom' that really translates to, "We didn't bother to write rules for this but you can make something up I guess." I suppose that's marginally better than bad rules, but I'd rather just have good rules. GM fiat is necessary when the rules fail, but ideally your system provides a stable environment for shared understanding among all parties, and the way to do that is a comprehensive framework of sensible rules. If GM fiat is the go-to rather than a last resort, one begins to wonder what the purpose of the system was to begin with.Ratcatcher wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 08:42Fighters and thieves aren't so monodirectional, not even in older editions. You're supposed to perform maneuvers, you can try and disarm or sunder an opponent. You can get smart and act in ways that incapacitate your opponents or change the battlescape. Just fucking "talk" to your GM, explain your plan and reasoning and "listen" to his answer.
Rules were broader and/or allowed GMs to decide the modifiers applied and what to roll. Nowadays NWP have been gutted out, GM fiat is considered a bad word, there are specific talents or feats regulating anything (written as to mechanically discourage performing actions, if you lack the correct one) and extended stats (bend bars, lift gates) have been excised.
That's because it's split up into Climb/Jump/Swim. What do you find is lacking?Ratcatcher wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 08:42I dunno about 4th and 5th but Pathfinder lacks a frikin' Athletics skill or anything similar. You must make do using ability checks or reflex/fortitude saves.
How many pages would your rulebook contain if you had every single rule written up that covers every situation for every different table and playstyle out there? A ballpark figure would be nice.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 09:51"We didn't bother to write rules for this but you can make something up I guess." I suppose that's marginally better than bad rules, but I'd rather just have good rules.
People are confusing GM adjudication with GM Fiat. They are two completely different things. GM Adjudication is where the GM takes a look at the existing rules and comes up with a rule that isn't covered in the book that is in the spirit of the system. It's not perfect, but neither are game designers.
GM Fiat is where the GM does something without any regard to the rules or the spirit therein.
- Ratcatcher
- Turtle
- Posts: 638
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
I disagree. I never found a system comprehensive enough to cover all the possible avenue of approach players have. I don't know if this is a 'modern' thing. I play with people that are much younger than me from time to time and I have a hard time to get them to think outside the box. For them, if something isn't explicitly stated and ruled out, it's not something a character can normally do.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 09:51It seems to me that certain RPGs get a lot of undue praise for 'freedom' that really translates to, "We didn't bother to write rules for this but you can make something up I guess." I suppose that's marginally better than bad rules, but I'd rather just have good rules.
Cue in numerous "I can do THAT?" questions, when we discuss possible solutions at the end of the adventure.
Compare it to my more mature players. Can I swing from the tapestry? Use a frying pan as shield? Can I vaporize pepper (true story)? Can I attempt an headbutt if I'm otherwise immobilized? Is the gnoll a qt? What happens if I mix movement types like run+swim and a dive? Can I throw the halfling? Can the halfling shoot while being thrown?
No, my friend. Rules always fail. And if you ever find a system of rules covering everything, stay away from that. Such systems are ultra cumbersome and hard to have fun with. Believe me, I played MERP. Modern systems have the illusion of control simply because they trained a few generations of player to think it's bad to attempt a disarm check if you lack improved disarm. Why? Do you want to eat an AoO and get a -4 on your BAB? That's against akshun aeConOm1cs.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 09:51GM fiat is necessary when the rules fail, but ideally your system provides a stable environment for shared understanding among all parties, and the way to do that is a comprehensive framework of sensible rules.
There is (was?) more to that in the past. I had fights were they used a solipsism spell to make the bottom of a ship transparent as to target a big undersea monster with mindfuckeries and depth bombs. I had running convoys fighting off raiders on the move. There's much more to combat that straight up tactical battles.
It's never the go to. You missed the point I'm afraid. Having a broader ruleset allows a GM to maneuver around issues and inject flavour in the dilemmas at hand. It doesn't permit you to wildly apply it willy-nilly nor does it justify going out of your way to inconvenience your players. The system is there to support the group as whole. Not to limit what they can do but to offer more options. No one ever questioned the purpose of the system back then, believe me. It's a modern fallacyWhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 09:51If GM fiat is the go-to rather than a last resort, one begins to wonder what the purpose of the system was to begin with.
Most of those decisions were simply taken at the same time when videogames were being streamlined. "Keep it simple stupid". Many people (eg Roguey) can explain you at length why they think the removal of extended stats is a good thing. As a GM with almost 30 years of exp, I call bullshit on that. It made the initial filling of your sheet a bit more convoluted, that's it.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 09:51That's because it's split up into Climb/Jump/Swim. What do you find is lacking?
Those stats would hardly change during a campaign but gave GM a plethora of options to design interesting challenges. A Dragon is pinning your cleric on the ground with a hugeass claw? Roll lift gates. Sure, it's not a perfect match but who tf cares?
In modern system you better be able to surmount the dragon CMB. Enjoy your 5-10% chance. Remember action economy.
As for the skills themselves, have a look at a game like Vampire and how many skills relate to movement or generic athleticism. I have little experience with 4th and 5th ed so I rly cannot argue those but Pathfinder lacks skills geared around generic feats of strength and nimbleness. Most of those are covered by class features or are simply ignored.
I probably had to arbitrarily assign DC and specific rolls via fiat in Pathfinder much more than I used to in the AD&D days, simply because those older and less specific rules gave you parameters to make consistent decisions over and over, when similar situation presented themselves.
To build off of what @Ratcatcher said is that by creating all these rules in modern systems the entire game mindset shifted from "You Can Try" to "If You Don't Have X Then You Can't Do Y". All creativity on the part of the players is removed. That also kills any and all roleplaying. That's why you never roleplay when you play Monopoly or Sorry. There is no incentive for the player to actively engage the entire table with their fellow players.
Give me the low count rules of AD&D 2E and player creativity over your sterile board game shit.
Give me the low count rules of AD&D 2E and player creativity over your sterile board game shit.
- WhiteShark
- Turtle
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
This is an attitude issue rather than a rules issue.Ratcatcher wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 10:31I disagree. I never found a system comprehensive enough to cover all the possible avenue of approach players have. I don't know if this is a 'modern' thing. I play with people that are much younger than me from time to time and I have a hard time to get them to think outside the box. For them, if something isn't explicitly stated and ruled out, it's not something a character can normally do.
Cue in numerous "I can do THAT?" questions, when we discuss possible solutions at the end of the adventure.
I am confident that GURPS covers all of that with actual rules.Ratcatcher wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 10:31Compare it to my more mature players. Can I swing from the tapestry? Use a frying pan as shield? Can I vaporize pepper (true story)? Can I attempt an headbutt if I'm otherwise immobilized? Is the gnoll a qt? What happens if I mix movement types like run+swim and a dive? Can I throw the halfling? Can the halfling shoot while being thrown?
Personal issue. I don't have this problem.Ratcatcher wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 10:31No, my friend. Rules always fail. And if you ever find a system of rules covering everything, stay away from that. Such systems are ultra cumbersome and hard to have fun with. Believe me, I played MERP.
Lots of things are bad ideas in real life if you don't know how to properly do them. That said, I agree that later editions of D&D are overly punishing when attempting tasks for which you don't have a feat.Ratcatcher wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 10:31Modern systems have the illusion of control simply because they trained a few generations of player to think it's bad to attempt a disarm check if you lack improved disarm. Why? Do you want to eat an AoO and get a -4 on your BAB? That's against akshun aeConOm1cs.
This is an attitude issue. Nothing you have said here is impossible in other systems.Ratcatcher wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 10:31There is (was?) more to that in the past. I had fights were they used a solipsism spell to make the bottom of a ship transparent as to target a big undersea monster with mindfuckeries and depth bombs. I had running convoys fighting off raiders on the move. There's much more to combat that straight up tactical battles.
You're contradicting yourself. First comprehensive rules are bad, now 'a broader ruleset' is good. Which is it? Either it's good to have rules or it isn't. Rules are what give the GM and the player a common understanding of what can be accomplished and how. It's not fun as a player to set yourself up for something big only to discover that the GM has a different understanding of physics/economics/whatever from you. It's also exhausting as the GM to constantly make rulings on the fly because your chosen system is vague.Ratcatcher wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 10:31It's never the go to. You missed the point I'm afraid. Having a broader ruleset allows a GM to maneuver around issues and inject flavour in the dilemmas at hand. It doesn't permit you to wildly apply it willy-nilly nor does it justify going out of your way to inconvenience your players. The system is there to support the group as whole. Not to limit what they can do but to offer more options. No one ever questioned the purpose of the system back then, believe me. It's a modern fallacy
I see. It sounds like your problem is with specific but not noncomprehensive rules. I agree: specific and comprehensive rules are superior. Your final sentences gives away the fact that you feel the same. You took the skeleton offered you and built your own system on top of it. That means you're literally doing the designer's job for him. You don't prefer the skeleton, you prefer what you built using it as a foundation.Ratcatcher wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 10:31Most of those decisions were simply taken at the same time when videogames were being streamlined. "Keep it simple stupid". Many people (eg Roguey) can explain you at length why they think the removal of extended stats is a good thing. As a GM with almost 30 years of exp, I call bullshit on that. It made the initial filling of your sheet a bit more convoluted, that's it.
Those stats would hardly change during a campaign but gave GM a plethora of options to design interesting challenges. A Dragon is pinning your cleric on the ground with a hugeass claw? Roll lift gates. Sure, it's not a perfect match but who tf cares?
In modern system you better be able to surmount the dragon CMB. Enjoy your 5-10% chance. Remember action economy.
As for the skills themselves, have a look at a game like Vampire and how many skills relate to movement or generic athleticism. I have little experience with 4th and 5th ed so I rly cannot argue those but Pathfinder lacks skills geared around generic feats of strength and nimbleness. Most of those are covered by class features or are simply ignored.
I probably had to arbitrarily assign DC and specific rolls via fiat in Pathfinder much more than I used to in the AD&D days, simply because those older and less specific rules gave you parameters to make consistent decisions over and over, when similar situation presented themselves.
The problem is that this still offers no consistency to the player. He can't plan based on your internal rules because he doesn't know them. Even assuming someone who has played with you for a long time, he still can't safely assume that your rulings will be as consistent as you believe them to be. From the player perspective, he is at your mercy. Rules are the tools by which a player knows how to interact with the world and what effects that will produce. If half of those are locked away inside the GM's head, it discourages bold action because who knows how the GM is going to rule this time.
- Ratcatcher
- Turtle
- Posts: 638
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
Answering this bit first for contextWhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 11:32You're contradicting yourself. First comprehensive rules are bad, now 'a broader ruleset' is good.
What's the contradiction here? Comprehensive and broad are completely different in meaning, unless I'm failing due to ESL. I don't need 45 specific ways to hit an opponent (feats) or detailed rules for wrestling but not a simple feat of strength going beyond what's directly covered by CMB and CMD. What I need is a system flexible enough to allow anyone to perform those, not just people that specced into disarm 3 levels before sacrificing their chance to bullrush in the meantime (opportunity cost).
You're maybe conflating my passion for the old extended stats and the more comprehensive feats we have today? Everyone had those stats back then, you must build towards talents, feats and class features. Radically different issues here.
No. This isn't how old system worked. A GM couldn't simply pull numbers from his ass, you don't make rulings on the fly, you follow design principles and broader rules. If a fighter attemtps a disarm in 2nd ed you check his size, relative to his opponent and compare weapons and (maybe) specific features. This gives you consistent set of results.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 11:32Rules are what give the GM and the player a common understanding of what can be accomplished and how.
Broad doesn't mean vague. It just means you could get more things done using eg thac0 than BaB (not talking efficiency or math here, just what you can do using one vs the other in the respective systems). Much of what you write in the above quote and here:
Can be simply explained with "bad GMing". First of all, a GM should give you an idea of the possible outcomes before you commit to any action. If the player cannot determine what a GM perceive as risks, his character certainly can. You're supposed to reach a sort of compromise.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 11:32It's not fun as a player to set yourself up for something big only to discover that the GM has a different understanding of physics/economics/whatever from you. It's also exhausting as the GM to constantly make rulings on the fly because your chosen system is vague.
If I want to attmept a bullrush and throw an orc down a pit in PF I cannot take much of the specific scene at hand in consideration, much has been already (arbitrarily) decided by the game designers, acting as overarching GMs themselves.
By the way, the issue with GM fiat was mainly born out of the organized tournament scene, when you had multiple groups playing vs adventures. Loads of drama because slight variants and interpretation of rules gave advantage to this or that group. Now we have much more 'deterministic' (allow me the word) systems. How's the current scene in Pathfinder/D&D convention? Do they till play vs adventures? No sarcasm, I have little to no idea, I certainly haven't been hearing about those in a long time.
Finally, one could argue modern system succeed precisely because there are few old school GMs around and the current generation cannot manage to rule a game in a balanced and just manner, if those training wheels are taken away. Call it oldschoold pride but I believe it firmly.
Not rly, no. Why should they think outside the box when the base ruleset punishes them for going outside their niche? A single player may have his or her attitude. Dozens of concurrent players share the same mindset currently, tho.
I'm still in the process of learning GURPS but I don't think so. In any case, GURPS has other issues, chiefly, it's a much harder game on the players. You def need to knowWhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 11:32I am confident that GURPS covers all of that with actual rules.
much more about rules and ruling when playing GURPS than playing D&D. Also, this is a bit OT, we were confronting different editions of the same game. I could have chimed in Exalted, that one definitely covers all I wrote about with rules.
Even if that's the case (and I'd have to see you actually play a game requiring constant doublechecking of rules and tables), you'd need to find other players/GMs sharing the same mindset. I dunno about you but finding people that spend their free time casually reading gamebooks is quite hard. I'm usually doing the explaining to a good portion of my player groups.
Yes but the player characters are the heroes of the story. I'm against having the world revolve around them but dramatic moments, larger than life actions and pushing human limits to the extreme? Yes please. That's the whole point of the game, else we'd be playing chess.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 11:32Lots of things are bad ideas in real life if you don't know how to properly do them. That said, I agree that later editions of D&D are overly punishing when attempting tasks for which you don't have a feat.
Yes ofc. If you have the "Depth charge creations" class feature or, for the second example, if the whole party and the enemies have shot on the run, fly by attack and spring attack.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 11:32This is an attitude issue. Nothing you have said here is impossible in other systems.
I take it that you're ignoring page 486 of GURPS 4E Campaigns then.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 11:32I am confident that GURPS covers all of that with actual rules.
Let's look at pages 492-493 of the same book.The GM is the final authority. Rules are guidelines . . . the designers’ opinion about how things ought to go. But as long as the GM is fair and consistent, he can change any number, any cost, any rule. His word is law!
Even Steve Jackson, who has been in the RPG rules writing business for 53+ years, knows that his rules don't cover every situation. That's why he says that GM's word is law and that the GM's rules have more hold than what is in the actual books.SETTLING RULES QUESTIONS
In any question of rules, the GM’s word is law. The GM decides which optional rules to use, and settles any specific questions that come up. A
good GM discusses important questions with the players before deciding – and a good player accepts the GM’s decisions.
The GM should know the rules thoroughly. When the rules do not cover a situation – or when a decision about the “real world” is needed – the GM can use several techniques:
By your own statements in this thread this makes GURPS to be a bad system. Are you sure you want to keep going with this?
/me just looks at WhiteShark with an amused smile on his face.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 11:32It's also exhausting as the GM to constantly make rulings on the fly because your chosen system is vague.
How many rules systems have you played? I've been a GM for well over 50 now since I started playing in 1984. I can safely assure you that no system is comprehensive and covers every situation that might arise in a game. I have yet to see a single rulebook that addresses the problem of using African Swallows, strapped with 1 ounce of C4, as a limited guided missiles against moving targets on horseback and other forms of transportation. Do you know of a rules system that does?
It's interesting how people are willing to overlook some things and fixated on others. Combat lasting a minute per round, for example.
6 seconds a round. 1 minute per turn.
- Ratcatcher
- Turtle
- Posts: 638
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
J1M wrote: ↑ February 22nd, 2023, 00:47It's interesting how people are willing to overlook some things and fixated on others. Combat lasting a minute per round, for example.
No, he's right. 2nd ed AD&D had 1 minute long rounds. Do note tho that this is due to the smallest unit of time being the segment, of which you had ten in a minute, iirc.
edit: this ^ is mainly used in 1st edition. I cannot remember any segment long effect in 2nd.
I will wait for @MadPreacher, to chime in as he's much more knoweledgeable on those older editions, I played extensively but haven't used the rules for the last 7 years or so.
- rusty_shackleford
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10507
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
- Gender: Watermelon
- Contact:
It's the six second round with multiple attacks that's silly. 1 minute might be a bit long, but it's still significantly closer to reality than 6 seconds.
e.g.,
How many full non-feint attacks can you count in the first 60 second(happenstance, but makes for a nice comparison) fight? Not very many, actually.
Now compare that round to the (1e) DMG:
It's a shame that such explanations do seem to be missing from the 2E DMG.
I actually prefer other systems like Rolemaster over AD&D as I find AD&D to be too abstract, but it did at least try to explain why the rules work the way they do.
[edit]
And again, it's another knock against post-TSR D&D which moved from the heroic to the superheroic. Goes in the same pile as e.g., Legolas skating down stairs using a shield while headshotting orcs, it doesn't belong in western fantasy which is why it feels so wrong.
e.g.,
How many full non-feint attacks can you count in the first 60 second(happenstance, but makes for a nice comparison) fight? Not very many, actually.
Now compare that round to the (1e) DMG:
Seems a bit similar to me. It's not saying "it takes 1 minute to swing your weapon".One-minute rounds are devised to offer the maximum of choice with a minimum of complication. This allows the DM and the players the best of both worlds. The system assumes much activity during the course of each round. Envision, if you will, a fencing, boxing, or karate match. During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During one-minute melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possible several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the 'to hit' number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever. Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical -- a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered -- it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. With respect to most monsters such damage is, in fact, more physically substantial, although as with adjustments in armor class rating for speed and agility, there are also similar additions in hit points. So while a round of combat is not a continuous series of attacks, it is neither just a single blow and counter-blow affair. The opponents spar and move, seeking the opportunity to engage when an opening in the enemy's guard presents itself.
It's a shame that such explanations do seem to be missing from the 2E DMG.
I actually prefer other systems like Rolemaster over AD&D as I find AD&D to be too abstract, but it did at least try to explain why the rules work the way they do.
[edit]
And again, it's another knock against post-TSR D&D which moved from the heroic to the superheroic. Goes in the same pile as e.g., Legolas skating down stairs using a shield while headshotting orcs, it doesn't belong in western fantasy which is why it feels so wrong.
AD&D 2E PHB page 122.Ratcatcher wrote: ↑ February 22nd, 2023, 01:03J1M wrote: ↑ February 22nd, 2023, 00:47It's interesting how people are willing to overlook some things and fixated on others. Combat lasting a minute per round, for example.No, he's right. 2nd ed AD&D had 1 minute long rounds. Do note tho that this is due to the smallest unit of time being the segment, of which you had ten in a minute, iirc.
edit: this ^ is mainly used in 1st edition. I cannot remember any segment long effect in 2nd.
I will wait for @MadPreacher, to chime in as he's much more knoweledgeable on those older editions, I played extensively but haven't used the rules for the last 7 years or so.
A round in AD&D 2E is 1 minute long with 10 rounds equaling a 10 minute turn. AD&D 2E got rid of segments.If an encounter escalates into a combat situation, the time scale of the game automatically goes to rounds (also called melee rounds or combat rounds). Rounds are used to measure the actions of characters in combat (or other intensive actions in which time is important).
A round is approximately one minute long. Ten combat rounds equal a turn (or, put another way, a turn equals 10 minutes of game time). This is particularly important to remember for spells that last for turns, rather than rounds.
It actually does say what you can do in a combat round in both the PHB page 122 and DMG page 76.rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ February 22nd, 2023, 01:14Seems a bit similar to me. It's not saying "it takes 1 minute to swing your weapon".
It's a shame that such explanations do seem to be missing from the 2E DMG.
The attack is merely the only opening that can be seen during that entire minute. The number of attacks increases as a warrior levels up and is seen as his ability to get more shots in due to experience. It's up to the player and DM to narrate the action appropriately.When making an attack, a character is likely to close with his opponent, circle for an opening, feint here, jab there, block a thrust, leap back, and perhaps finally make a telling blow.
For the record all of the page references are from the Premium editions.
- WhiteShark
- Turtle
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
>run a couple 4e battles against myself to remember the rules
>have fun
>inspiration strikes
>go on 4e Discord
>ask if anybody has actually tried using 4e as a pure skirmish game or if that's just a meme
>everybody says that it would take too many rules changes and be boring
>somebody suggests D&D Miniatures Game 2.0 instead
>look it up
>mfw it's just 4e with lower HP totals and fewer powers
Wow... so many changes had to be made...
Anyway, question for @J1M: have you ever played 4e online, and if so, what VTT did you use/do you recommend? I ran a campaign six years ago or so on Roll20, which is decidedly lacking. Right now I'm messing around in MapTool and trying to decide whether to go with an existing 4e framework or continue writing my own scripts. I've heard many good things about Foundry, but unless I install a different OS on my laptop I can't use it right now.
>have fun
>inspiration strikes
>go on 4e Discord
>ask if anybody has actually tried using 4e as a pure skirmish game or if that's just a meme
>everybody says that it would take too many rules changes and be boring
>somebody suggests D&D Miniatures Game 2.0 instead
>look it up
>mfw it's just 4e with lower HP totals and fewer powers
Wow... so many changes had to be made...
Anyway, question for @J1M: have you ever played 4e online, and if so, what VTT did you use/do you recommend? I ran a campaign six years ago or so on Roll20, which is decidedly lacking. Right now I'm messing around in MapTool and trying to decide whether to go with an existing 4e framework or continue writing my own scripts. I've heard many good things about Foundry, but unless I install a different OS on my laptop I can't use it right now.
@WhiteShark
Discord is the new Reddit?
I've only ever played 4e at a real table. Enjoyed it more as a player, which is why I never tried to run a game with a VTT. Also why I think it could work as singleplayer game.
Discord is the new Reddit?
I've only ever played 4e at a real table. Enjoyed it more as a player, which is why I never tried to run a game with a VTT. Also why I think it could work as singleplayer game.
4e is too much of a tactical boardgame. And I LIKE tactical boardgames. But it isn't D&D, really.
And your comment about 5e is wrong. There's no 4e in it. It's a weird stripped-down hybrid of 3rd and 2nd.
And your comment about 5e is wrong. There's no 4e in it. It's a weird stripped-down hybrid of 3rd and 2nd.
As someone that has been playing since AD&D, you're wrong about 2e being "refined". 3e did that and 2e did not. It was still a hodgepodge rules-wise.MadPreacher wrote: ↑ February 19th, 2023, 19:16AD&D 2E mechanics are very much refined over what was in AD&D 1E. It cleared up a lot of the prior confusion in the rules...
You are correct about the second part, though.
- rusty_shackleford
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10507
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
- Gender: Watermelon
- Contact:
3E didn't refine anything, it was just MTG ported to RPG rules and it sucks.
Diversity of THOUGHT is a strength, the leftist kind of "diversity" is brain-rot for gullible suckers. And, no, it won't end. Purity spirals never do.MadPreacher wrote: ↑ February 19th, 2023, 19:16Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.
As for inclusivity, I accept gamers and gamers only. Hipster douches, retards, and demented weirdos can stay the fuck out and cope or rope.
Last edited by Rand on October 22nd, 2023, 15:22, edited 1 time in total.
Lol. What the fuck, man?rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:173E didn't refine anything, it was just MTG ported to RPG rules and it sucks.
Poe's law just popped up hard here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)
I legit can't tell if you're shitposting/trolling or batshit insane.
Given that I played MTG and 3e, and I know MTG mechanics has zero to do with the mechanics in 3e...
Wait, no. I STILL can't tell.
- Shillitron
- Turtle
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Feb 6, '23
- Location: ADL Head Office
GothGirlSupremacy wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 08:13This is one aspect I fucking despise. Call it boring, but you're a Fighter. You hit or slash or whack shit. That's it. Your purpose in terms of combat performance is finding ways to hit or slash or whack stuff better and harder.rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ February 21st, 2023, 07:53Then we go down to the Fighter class and look at their daily abilities:
When Fighters start getting these ability lists like they're a Wizard it makes the class become lame. There's a beautiful simplicity in having a class that's all about wanting to get in there and do some damage with a weapon and that's that. Hopefully the people who championed this change choked on their Ritalin prescription.
Old post but I agree.
3E solved this problem with feats. Fighters get stuffed up the ass with feats and they matter a lot with how powerful you are and what you can do.. but fundamentally in combat.. You whack shit with a sword, that's it. Classes that are optimal as dips is totally fine.
When I play BG3 and my fighter has more actions and abilities to cast than my wizard.. eh.. Big reason I hated Pillars too. The whole "EVERY STAT MATTERS, EVERY CLASS DOES STUFF" and rogues having 200 dash / backstab / teleport abilities, it just feels like MMO trash - isn't a fun experience especially in party based combat.
Last edited by Shillitron on October 22nd, 2023, 15:24, edited 1 time in total.
Can't delete this site fuckup.
Last edited by Rand on October 22nd, 2023, 15:22, edited 1 time in total.
- rusty_shackleford
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10507
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
- Gender: Watermelon
- Contact:
Rand wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:20and I know MTG mechanics has zero to do with the mechanics in 3e...
- Shillitron
- Turtle
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Feb 6, '23
- Location: ADL Head Office
Rusty has notoriously shit taste in anything gaming related. He's not trolling unless you pin him into an unwinnable argument.Rand wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:20Lol. What the fuck, man?rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:173E didn't refine anything, it was just MTG ported to RPG rules and it sucks.
Poe's law just popped up hard here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)
I legit can't tell if you're shitposting/trolling or batshit insane.
Given that I played MTG and 3e, and I know MTG mechanics has zero to do with the mechanics in 3e...
Wait, no. I STILL can't tell.
Well, whichever retard wrote this is definitely following the current "Wizards Rules of Shitty, Stupid Game Design and then Continuously Lying About It", because everything in that post is either bullshit, stupidly wrong, or delusional nonsense.rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:21Rand wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:20and I know MTG mechanics has zero to do with the mechanics in 3e...
Last edited by Rand on October 22nd, 2023, 15:25, edited 1 time in total.
- WhiteShark
- Turtle
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
The issue isn't really whether it's D&D but whether it's an RPG at all. I agree that it suffers terribly from dissociated mechanics which make coherent descriptions of the fiction difficult. I've been toying with the idea of embracing all the mechanical weirdness as features of the game world and knowable by its inhabitants. For example, treating a 'mark' as a real in-fiction phenomenon and the Martial power source as not being truly mundane. It makes the world feel game-y, but in 4e it was going to feel game-y anyway and at least this way there's no disconnect between rules and fiction.Rand wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:104e is too much of a tactical boardgame. And I LIKE tactical boardgames. But it isn't D&D, really.
I haven't played much 5e, but from what I've heard it inherited the abominable skill challenge system from 4e without the label. The Battlemaster Fighter is another definite case of 4e influence.Rand wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:10And your comment about 5e is wrong. There's no 4e in it. It's a weird stripped-down hybrid of 3rd and 2nd.
- rusty_shackleford
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10507
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
- Gender: Watermelon
- Contact:
That was written by Monte Cook, the guy who designed 3E.Rand wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:24Well, whichever retard wrote this is definitely following the current "Wizards Rules of Shitty, Stupid Game Design and then Continuously Lying About It", because everything in that post is either bullshit, stupidly wrong, or delusional nonsense.rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:21Rand wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:20and I know MTG mechanics has zero to do with the mechanics in 3e...
- Shillitron
- Turtle
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Feb 6, '23
- Location: ADL Head Office
I'm in the same boat from a table top experience.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:25I haven't played much 5eRand wrote: ↑ October 22nd, 2023, 15:10And your comment about 5e is wrong. There's no 4e in it. It's a weird stripped-down hybrid of 3rd and 2nd.
If BG3 is a faithful interpretation of it though. I can safely say that it's pretty shit and I miss 3.5 / 2.
- rusty_shackleford
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10507
- Joined: Feb 2, '23
- Gender: Watermelon
- Contact:
The main benefit of 2E was the unending supplements of mostly high quality. 3E also had quite a few supplements(probably more than 2E) but the quality was all over the place and typically rather niche and/or of dubious usage.