4e is the best edition of D&D

For all your tabletop & board game needs.
Bah! They don't even play at physical tabletops anymore.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

4e is the best edition of D&D

Post by J1M »

1e: Genesis of an entire hobby. Deserves respect, but lethal enough that it's almost a tabletop roguelike.

2e: Can see why this was a sweet spot for some people, but if they are being honest their house rules to get it there fill multiple pages.

3.5e: Multiclassing and prestige classes were a lot of fun to read about and plan. There will probably never be a better version for theorycrafting, which usually proved more fun than the table experience.

4e: A bold shift back to wargaming roots and the only time that game design and DM workflow were the prevailing influences in development. Addressed numerous problems in previous editions. 95% of contemporary criticism was factually incorrect. Reception would have been vastly improved by two superficial changes to the PHB: retaining the appearance of a parchment tome and moving the list of level 2+ powers from the chapter on classes to spell lists in the back of the book.

4e Essentials: Bloated and reactionary response to bad faith criticism that tarnishes the legacy of 4e.

5e: The 4e rules slathered in two layers of prose to obscure them plus several detrimental changes made entirely on playerbase feels. Character building reduced to a choice at level 3. Beloved by consumers.

6e: 5e censored based on current-year social activism. Character choices divorced from mechanics.

Enough time has passed now that I think even skeptical people can look at 4e with fresh eyes, especially if they question the direction D&D is being taken by the current design team.

We often see forum posts that it was the edition most suitable to a CRPG, and that it's a shame we never saw one released. The choice to not put 4e under the OGL had a real chilling effect. I hope the increased legal awareness brought about by the 6e license drama changes that.
Last edited by J1M on February 19th, 2023, 15:54, edited 1 time in total.
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

Anything beyond AD&D 2E is DANDINO. Therefore 4E is automatically not D&D. It contains nothing of Gary, Dave, and the original creators work. None. It's a bit like calling a banana an apple. A banana is not an apple because it shares nothing in common with the apple.
User avatar
NaturalSelectionist
Posts: 14
Joined: Feb 5, '23

Post by NaturalSelectionist »

4e felt more like Final Fantasy than D&D. The one thing I liked was you weren't super fragile at level 1, but they went a little overboard and made you too beefy at level 1. Character development revolved almost entirely around combat powers, and because of that, the few 4e DMs I had always seemed to base their campaigns around combat. Or maybe the combat was just more time consuming.

I've only played one session of a 1e game, and one of the characters died trying to jump off the back of his horse to impress someone. That player quit because it was too lethal for him and the game broke up after that session.

Haven't played much 2e, seems like the mechanics were still kinda rough.

3.5 is the most fun character builder, I've had a few good games with it but it's also the system for powergamers. Worst experience was a powergaming DM who liked to insert DM NPCs that were OP relative to the already OP party. Best experience was a gestalt game where the encounters were a good match for our power level and there was an interesting mystery that gave us opportunities to put our skill points to use and roleplay a bit. It's my personal favorite but it really depends on the DM.

5e is alright, but you've basically made every decision you'll make about character creation at levels 1 and 3. Probably the best system for a slow running low level campaign, but it starts to get stale at the upper levels.

Whatever they've done since is an abomination and I don't want to know more about it.
User avatar
Ratcatcher
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 618
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by Ratcatcher »

Anything beyond 2nd Ed changes things so much. It's realy hard to find people that played those earlier editions at lenght that would consider the later ones the same game. Some do enjoy it, but usually for completely different reasons. As far as your take here goes:
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 15:40
4e: A bold shift back to wargaming roots and the only time that game design and DM workflow were the prevailing influences in development. Addressed numerous problems in previous editions. 95% of contemporary criticism was factually incorrect. Reception would have been vastly improved by two superficial changes to the PHB: retaining the appearance of a parchment tome and moving the list of level 2+ powers from the chapter on classes to spell lists in the back of the book.
This is simply wrong. The first and primary criticism levied by the old school of grognards is and always was the distribution of powers. You cannot give "per encounter" effects, as a good portion of what makes a good D&D player/group is precisely resource management. A GM is supposed to give you hint and you're supposed to use your brain to prepare for the encounter. The more you allow a character to "reset" his or her state at the beginning of a new scene, the more you stray away from the feel of the original D&D. 4th ed has been written, playtested and is usually defended by people that do not understand this basic tenet. Not saying you cannot enjoy or have fun with it. Just sayin' the feel of being isolated and approaching the end of a dungeon in earlier editions is far from being the same in 4th Ed.

I dunno who ever told you that our beef was the tome's "graphix" or the way it is structured, this is patently and verifiably false.

As for the "return to wargaming root", nigga the only thing 4th introduced under that aspect is a battlemap and rules to use it. You do realize it was implemented because the majority of GMs already used an abstract set of rules on playing mats, by the end of the '90, instead of measuring the distance between miniatures with a tape? 2nd Ed works just fine if you do that. Ofc having a set of rules for AoO, threatened squares and such is useful. From where do you think said rules were first generated? Congratz if your answer was "from what GMs had concoted to use since 2nd ED", here have a cookie!

The best thing those later editions introduced are the way challenges are categorized, imo. Ofc challenge rating isn't perfect, it's still leaps and bound better than what we had in the previous edition. Back then, if you wanted to compare monsters and such against the level of your party to create encounters, you only had Hit Dice, which is lousy and lame. CR allows a GM to much more easily pick from a large bracket of potential antagonists. This is good but hardly 4th ed specific. Later iterations and adjacent games integrated all that but also went back to quasi or full Vancian systems.
Last edited by Ratcatcher on February 20th, 2023, 17:44, edited 1 time in total.
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

NaturalSelectionist wrote: February 19th, 2023, 18:37
I've only played one session of a 1e game, and one of the characters died trying to jump off the back of his horse to impress someone. That player quit because it was too lethal for him and the game broke up after that session.
Play stupid games and win stupid prizes. D&D characters are designed to be normal people as per Gary Gygax's own statement. He hated what Wizards did to turn the heroes into superheroes and made that abundantly clear.
NaturalSelectionist wrote: February 19th, 2023, 18:37
Haven't played much 2e, seems like the mechanics were still kinda rough.
AD&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 while introducing the concept of class groups where classes were grouped together and they all shared a common hit dice and skill selection. Oh NWP aka skills were printed in full for the first time in the core rules. There is the matter of schools of magic being introduced etc...

When I play AD&D it's always 2E.
Ratcatcher wrote: February 19th, 2023, 18:58
As for the "return to wargaming root", nigga the only thing 4th introduced under that aspect is a battlemap and rules to use it.
We were using battle mats and maps in the 1980s. They were used in the 1970s as well. Wargaming has always been tied to D&D from the first boxed set to Battlesystem 1E/2E for AD&D. Nothing that was done by Wizards of the Woke is original. It's all ripped off from the original creators. You know the ones that Wizards shits all over in their description of older products?
We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & 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.
User avatar
Ratcatcher
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 618
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by Ratcatcher »

MadPreacher wrote: February 19th, 2023, 19:16
We were using battle mats and maps in the 1980s.
I know. And I also know there were a number of resources available to do that. What I meant is they unified those designs and gave them a spotlight in the GM guide. They also wrote a number of rules (AoO, threatened squares, 5ft step) but, as I said before, they didn't invent those. They just introduced tools that had been created by GMs previously, some blatantly stolen from conventions and AAR.

I have no idea where to find proof of that at the moment. But I distinctly remember a number of meltdown posts by different GMs stating their own systems were being used with no credit given. I should look for those, maybe.
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

Ratcatcher wrote: February 19th, 2023, 19:44
MadPreacher wrote: February 19th, 2023, 19:16
We were using battle mats and maps in the 1980s.
I know. And I also know there were a number of resources available to do that. What I meant is they unified those designs and gave them a spotlight in the GM guide. They also wrote a number of rules (AoO, threatened squares, 5ft step) but, as I said before, they didn't invent those. They just introduced tools that had been created by GMs previously, some blatantly stolen from conventions and AAR.

I have no idea where to find proof of that at the moment. But I distinctly remember a number of meltdown posts by different GMs stating their own systems were being used with no credit given. I should look for those, maybe.
I looked it up and attacks of opportunity appeared first in AD&D 1E DMG (Premium) page 70.
Breaking Off From Melee:
At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.
Battlemats are integrated directly into AD&D 1E as on page 69 it shows both hexes and squares for front, flank, and rear attacks. There is the entire Appendix 1 that is devoted to random dungeon generation using squares.

This was continued in AD&D 2E DMG (Premium) page 84.

Retreat
To get out of a combat, characters can make a careful withdrawal or they can simply flee.
Withdrawing: When making a withdrawal, a character carefully backs away from his opponent, who can choose to follow. The character moves up to one-third his normal move-ment rate.

If two characters are fighting a single opponent and one of them decides to withdraw, the remaining character can block the advance of the opponent. This is a useful method for get-ting a seriously injured man out of a combat.

Fleeing: To flee from combat, a character simply turns and runs up to his full movement rate. However, the fleeing charac-ter drops his defenses and turns his back to his opponent.

The enemy is allowed a free attack—or multiple attacks if the creature has several attacks per round—at the rear of the fleeing character. This attack is made the instant the character flees. It doesn’t count against the number of attacks that opponent is allowed during the round, and initiative is irrele-vant. The fleeing character can be pursued, unless a compan-ion blocks the advance of the enemy.
This was further expanded on in Player Options: Combat and Tactics which on page 11 gives the rules on Threatened.
Threatened

Any square that a creature can reach with its weapons
or claws also threatens those squares and therefore
any characters or creatures standing in one of the threatened squares. The character's own facing doesn't matter-it's possible to be threatened by someone standing behind you.

Threatened characters can choose to ignore the creature threatening them and take any combat action they wish, but if they do, the threatening creature gains an immediate attack of opportunity. The following actions create an attack of opportunity for the threaten­ing creature:

• Attempting missile combat ( other than at the threat­ening creature, and only in the combat round when it first threatens the character).
• Moving away from the threatening creature. This includes move, charge, and run, but not withdraw.
• Turning so that the threatening creature is now in a rear square.
• Attempting an unarmed attack against any foe except an unarmed human-like creature.

Monsters and characters threaten all eligible squares throughout the entire round. If a character tries to sprint through the threatened squares to get by the defender, the defender gets an attack of opportunity as the char­acter runs by. If the creature being attacked suffers from a successful knockdown roll or if a critical hit from the attack of opportunity is suffered, then it must stop moving. Otherwise, it may run by the creature threat­ening it.

Unusual Monsters and Threatening

There are a number of creatures that do not have a clear front facing. Who can tell what the dangerous end of an ochre jelly or otyugh is? These amorphous mon­sters don't have rear or flank spaces, and therefore threaten any character who moves next to them.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

Ratcatcher wrote: February 19th, 2023, 18:58
Anything beyond 2nd Ed changes things so much. It's realy hard to find people that played those earlier editions at lenght that would consider the later ones the same game. Some do enjoy it, but usually for completely different reasons. As far as your take here goes:
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 15:40
4e: A bold shift back to wargaming roots and the only time that game design and DM workflow were the prevailing influences in development. Addressed numerous problems in previous editions. 95% of contemporary criticism was factually incorrect. Reception would have been vastly improved by two superficial changes to the PHB: retaining the appearance of a parchment tome and moving the list of level 2+ powers from the chapter on classes to spell lists in the back of the book.
This iss simply wrong. The first and primary criticism levied by the old school of grognards is and always was the distribution of powers. You cannot give "per encounter" effects, as a good portion of what makes a good D&D player/group is precisely resource management. A GM is supposed to give you hint and you're supposed to use your brain to prepare for the encounter. The more you allow a character to "reset" his or her state at the beginning of a new scene, the more you stray away from the feel of the original D&D. 4th ed has been written, playtested and is usually defended by people that do not understand this basic tenet. Not saying you cannot enjoy or have fun with it. Just sayin' the feel of being isolated and approaching the end of a dungeon in earlier editions is far from being the same in 4th Ed.

I dunno who ever told you that our beef was the tome's "graphix" or the way it is structured, this is patently and verifiably false.

As for the "return to wargaming root", nigga the only thing 4th introduced under that aspect is a battlemap and rules to use it. You do realize it was implemented because the majority of GMs already used an abstract set of rules on playing mats, by the end of the '90, instead of measuring the distance between miniatures with a tape? 2nd Ed works just fine if you do that. Ofc having a set of rules for AoO, threatened squares and such is useful. From where do you think said rules were first generated? Congratz if your answer was "from what GMs had concoted to use since 2nd ED", here have a cookie!

The best thing those later editions introduced are the way challenges are categorized, imo. Ofc challenge reating isn't perfect, it's still leaps and bound better than what we had in the precious edition. Back then, if you wanted to compare monsters and such against the level of your party to create encounters, you only had Hit Dice, which is lousy and lame. CR allows a GM to much more easily pick from a large bracket of potential antagonists. This is good but hardly 4th ed specific. Later iterations and adjacent games integrated all that but also went back to quasi or full Vancian systems.
It's interesting that you mention resource depletion because 4e is the first edition to address the problems of uncapped healing from items. I like what they tried to do there. They also turned magical item usage into a resource with controversial results.

I get the sense that you aren't the average 3.5e player that I was referencing in my post, because the most common complaints at the time and in retrospective reviews are misguided things like:

-an allergic reaction to the game because the wizard was labeled as having spells to control the fight and the fighter was labeled as being best suited to be at the front of the marching order

-going from choosing to use a grid to needing to use a grid was somehow oppressive

-various factually incorrect statements related to not reading entire chapters in the book ("out of combat spells were removed!", "the fighter and the wizard learn the same number of powers!")

-random complaints about trivialities from people that have forgotten a DM can make judgement calls

Having recently consumed said historical discussions again, I have concluded that many of these reactions were rooted in an unspoken dissatisfaction with martial characters being on par with casters. The power those people felt handing a character that could only basic attack to a new player was taken away.
User avatar
Ratcatcher
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 618
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by Ratcatcher »

J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
It's interesting that you mention resource depletion because 4e is the first edition to address the problems of uncapped healing from items. I like what they tried to do there.
Eh. Let's say I definitely don't and agree to disagree.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
They also turned magical item usage into a resource with controversial results.
More things I never particularly liked but I come from an age when said magic items were pretty rare, easier to lose and much more creative in scope.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
I get the sense that you aren't the average 3.5e player that I was referencing in my post
No, def no, lol. I'm not as veteran as JD is but I saw my fair share, started playing in '91 and GMing in '95. Good times.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
most common complaints at the time and in retrospective reviews
I frankly never ever read a single review about the topic. I'm simply relying the feeling expressed by most of the people I frequented back then for D&D related activities. Most of those come from irl discussions. I'd also like to add that they more or less rejected 3rd and 3.5 too, although with much less scorn.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
Having recently consumed said historical discussions again, I have concluded that many of these reactions were rooted in an unspoken dissatisfaction with martial characters being on par with casters.
Mmh. I feel the topic of roles is more important than the balance issues you name. The discussion about linear fighters and quadratic wizards is old as hell and even back in the days, we used to joke that wizards are quadratic only when it comes to bullying their party member, as many (most) of the tools a GM had at his disposal at high levels were practically and factually big FUCK YOUs, directed at magic users. Rly, try reading this.

Good players never rally felt the disparity in power imo, first and second edition groups were far more synergetic and easy to put together and experienced adventurers knew the party is like a mechanism you need to make work as a group effort. The wizard is needed as much as the warrior and as much as the thief and cleric are.
What 4th Ed did is swap that balance around. I'm not arguing if it works or if it doesn't. Nor do I argue if it is fun. Again, my issue with it is mainly that the feel is different when playing.
Additionally, 4th Ed comes (again, imo) with the additional burden of unnecessary bloat in the form of races and classes that were published stupidly and willy-nilly in the years before and kept on multiplying, further moving the game away from its roots.

I'd like to make it very clear that I'm not dissing on the fact you like 4th. I may make fun about it (expect some jokes in the future) but what I'm arguing here is mainly the presented alleged critique.
I definitely believe you when you write you recently read all that and its fresh in your memory. It's simply completely detached from what I experienced and what the people I know were talking about, back then. Have a watermelon as symbol of peace, prosperity and 4th edition.
Last edited by Ratcatcher on February 19th, 2023, 23:53, edited 1 time in total.
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
It's interesting that you mention resource depletion because 4e is the first edition to address the problems of uncapped healing from items.
Your ignorance is showing since in Real D&D™ healing items were always capped. Potions of healing were loosely based upon Cure Light Wounds and Cure Moderate Wounds. Thus, the health potion was tied directly to the amount of health healed as per the spell.

Potion of Healing: 2d4+2
Cost: 400 gold pieces

Potion of Extra-Healing: 3d8+3
Cost: 1,000 gold pieces

As you can see that a Potion of Healing is only 2d4+2. A Potion of Extra-Healing is 3d8+3. I don't understand where you get this uncapped healing bullshit. Also, potions are expensive as shown above. By the way, I'm using what was listed in the AD&D 2E DMG.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
I have concluded that many of these reactions were rooted in an unspoken dissatisfaction with martial characters being on par with casters.
Nobody I've ever met playing Real D&D™ has expressed anything of the like. If anything people complain about mages being overpowered at high levels and that fighters are left behind.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
They also turned magical item usage into a resource with controversial results.
Magic item usage was always a resource that you had to track and it was accepted.

I have no idea where you're pulling this shit from because it sure as hell isn't from the rulebooks.

Did you ever play Real D&D™?
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

MadPreacher wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:53
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
It's interesting that you mention resource depletion because 4e is the first edition to address the problems of uncapped healing from items.
Your ignorance is showing since in Real D&D™ healing items were always capped. Potions of healing were loosely based upon Cure Light Wounds and Cure Moderate Wounds. Thus, the health potion was tied directly to the amount of health healed as per the spell.

Potion of Healing: 2d4+2
Cost: 400 gold pieces

Potion of Extra-Healing: 3d8+3
Cost: 1,000 gold pieces

As you can see that a Potion of Healing is only 2d4+2. A Potion of Extra-Healing is 3d8+3. I don't understand where you get this uncapped healing bullshit. Also, potions are expensive as shown above. By the way, I'm using what was listed in the AD&D 2E DMG.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
I have concluded that many of these reactions were rooted in an unspoken dissatisfaction with martial characters being on par with casters.
Nobody I've ever met playing Real D&D™ has expressed anything of the like. If anything people complain about mages being overpowered at high levels and that fighters are left behind.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
They also turned magical item usage into a resource with controversial results.
Magic item usage was always a resource that you had to track and it was accepted.

I have no idea where you're pulling this shit from because it sure as hell isn't from the rulebooks.

Did you ever play Real D&D™?
I don't know when it was first popularized in play, but here you go:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm
1 scroll of Cure Light Wounds for 25g

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wands.htm
50 charges of Cure Light Wounds for 750g

You don't even need to be able to use these items. You just need to be in a party with someone who can.
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

J1M wrote: February 20th, 2023, 01:38
MadPreacher wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:53
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
It's interesting that you mention resource depletion because 4e is the first edition to address the problems of uncapped healing from items.
Your ignorance is showing since in Real D&D™ healing items were always capped. Potions of healing were loosely based upon Cure Light Wounds and Cure Moderate Wounds. Thus, the health potion was tied directly to the amount of health healed as per the spell.

Potion of Healing: 2d4+2
Cost: 400 gold pieces

Potion of Extra-Healing: 3d8+3
Cost: 1,000 gold pieces

As you can see that a Potion of Healing is only 2d4+2. A Potion of Extra-Healing is 3d8+3. I don't understand where you get this uncapped healing bullshit. Also, potions are expensive as shown above. By the way, I'm using what was listed in the AD&D 2E DMG.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
I have concluded that many of these reactions were rooted in an unspoken dissatisfaction with martial characters being on par with casters.
Nobody I've ever met playing Real D&D™ has expressed anything of the like. If anything people complain about mages being overpowered at high levels and that fighters are left behind.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 23:27
They also turned magical item usage into a resource with controversial results.
Magic item usage was always a resource that you had to track and it was accepted.

I have no idea where you're pulling this shit from because it sure as hell isn't from the rulebooks.

Did you ever play Real D&D™?
I don't know when it was first popularized in play, but here you go:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm
1 scroll of Cure Light Wounds for 25g

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wands.htm
50 charges of Cure Light Wounds for 750g

You don't even need to be able to use these items. You just need to be in a party with someone who can.
It's hilarious that you quote DANDINO 3.x not Real D&D™.

The potion of healing from AD&D 2E is a single use item while the potion of extra-healing is 3 uses of 1d8+1. The at cost for a scroll of cure light wounds that has 1-6 spells on it 300 gp, for a single spell, just to create it. Using standard mark up of 50% each spell on that scroll would be 450 gp. That makes the cost of a single scroll be between 450-2,700 gp. For a scroll of cure moderate wounds it's 400 gp base and the scroll of 1-6 spells costs 600-3,600 gp. A scroll of cure serious wounds is 600 gp base and the scroll of 1-6 spells costs 900-5,400 gp. Finally, a scroll of cure critical wounds is 800 gp base and for a scroll of 1-6 spells costs 1,200-7,200 gp.

As one can see that you're completely ignorant of Real D&D™. Healing in Real D&D™ is a resource that has to be managed. It costs a ton of money to buy magical healing items like potions and scrolls. Oh did I mention that fighters, rangers, and paladins can't use scrolls at all? That's right. One entire group of classes cannot use a scroll for healing. Only priests, wizards, and bards can use scrolls at low levels and that takes a skill check.

It's hilarious that you whine about Wizards shitty writing of DANDINO and not Real D&D™. So your entire argument is about how bad the various iterations of DANDINO are. I would recommend that you change your OP to state that you are talking only about DANDINO due to your complete ignorance of Real D&D™. :king:
Last edited by MadPreacher on February 20th, 2023, 11:46, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GothGirlSupremacy
Posts: 113
Joined: Feb 6, '23

Post by GothGirlSupremacy »

There comes a point in your life when it dawns on you everything after 2nd Edition sucked and will continue to suck.

4E in particular was so shitty that it fooled others into thinking 5E was good.
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

Oh @J1M ignores OD&D starting with the White Box up to D&D Cyclopedia.
User avatar
Ratcatcher
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 618
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by Ratcatcher »

MadPreacher wrote: February 20th, 2023, 07:28
Only priests, wizards, and bards can use scrolls
I'm a bit out of touch with some of the manuals. I distinctly remember Thiefs getting "scroll use" too, once they hit level 10.

But maybe that was a D&D thing at it never got ported to Advanced?
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

Ratcatcher wrote: February 20th, 2023, 11:29
MadPreacher wrote: February 20th, 2023, 07:28
Only priests, wizards, and bards can use scrolls
I'm a bit out of touch with some of the manuals. I distinctly remember Thiefs getting "scroll use" too, once they hit level 10.

But maybe that was a D&D thing at it never got ported to Advanced?
They can, but my statement was about being able to use them at low levels. Wizards and priests can use scrolls from level 1. Bards get it at level 2.
User avatar
rusty_shackleford
Site Admin
Posts: 8917
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by rusty_shackleford »

I rarely see any criticisms laid at the feet of 4E that don't equally apply to the other editions of WotC's D&D.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 15:40
The 4e rules slathered in two layers of prose to obscure them
However, this is a valid criticism of 4E: it was described in terms that belonged to a board game. You are correct in your overall point that there is something you could abstract from the other editions to make 4E, but much is lost in the process. How many pages of the rulebooks are dedicated to exploration, economics, intrigue and so forth? The PHB chapter on "Adventuring" is SEVEN pages long, followed by a 40 page long chapter on combat.
Why do the spells no longer feel like they were created by wizards solving their problems but by someone who was making a combat-based miniature game? Every single spell available to level 1 wizards in the PHB is for combat. Just a rough estimation, about 95% of the spells listed for wizard in total are combat spells.
AD&D 2E PHB has 45 first level spells in the wizard spellbook, 29 of which are purely utility spells. 4E gives the Wizard 15 first level spells, again, all of them are for combat.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 15:40
A bold shift back to wargaming roots
RPGs are not, and never have been, wargaming. Even the material it's based upon — Chainmail's "Man-to-Man" rules — were not wargaming, they were something entirely new.
This was Gygax's response to when he was asked about D&D's wargaming roots:
There was no medieval board wargame nor any miniatures game rules for me to reference when I wrote the Chainmail “Man-to-Man” material. I made them up as I went. Of course I had a lot of knowledge of medieval military history, weapons, and armor to draw upon.
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/view ... 98#p508698


Pillars of Eternity might as well be the 4E-inspired video game you're looking for as it was designed with the same exact mindset that led to 4E being created.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

rusty_shackleford wrote: February 20th, 2023, 19:23
I rarely see any criticisms laid at the feet of 4E that don't equally apply to the other editions of WotC's D&D.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 15:40
The 4e rules slathered in two layers of prose to obscure them
However, this is a valid criticism of 4E: it was described in terms that belonged to a board game. You are correct in your overall point that there is something you could abstract from the other editions to make 4E, but much is lost in the process. How many pages of the rulebooks are dedicated to exploration, economics, intrigue and so forth? The PHB chapter on "Adventuring" is SEVEN pages long, followed by a 40 page long chapter on combat.
Why do the spells no longer feel like they were created by wizards solving their problems but by someone who was making a combat-based miniature game? Every single spell available to level 1 wizards in the PHB is for combat. Just a rough estimation, about 95% of the spells listed for wizard in total are combat spells.
AD&D 2E PHB has 45 first level spells in the wizard spellbook, 29 of which are purely utility spells. 4E gives the Wizard 15 first level spells, again, all of them are for combat.
J1M wrote: February 19th, 2023, 15:40
A bold shift back to wargaming roots
RPGs are not, and never have been, wargaming. Even the material it's based upon — Chainmail's "Man-to-Man" rules — were not wargaming, they were something entirely new.
This was Gygax's response to when he was asked about D&D's wargaming roots:
There was no medieval board wargame nor any miniatures game rules for me to reference when I wrote the Chainmail “Man-to-Man” material. I made them up as I went. Of course I had a lot of knowledge of medieval military history, weapons, and armor to draw upon.
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/view ... 98#p508698


Pillars of Eternity might as well be the 4E-inspired video game you're looking for as it was designed with the same exact mindset that led to 4E being created.
I agree the presentation could have done a better job of easing the existing players into the more codified approach. I would have preferred if the book appeared more like a collection of medieval parchment manuals.

However, your comments about level 1 4e wizards are simply incorrect. It's a common mistake, and I am guessing one that comes from people not reading page 3 of the wizard class entry.

-Wizards start with 4 useful non-combat cantrips that can be used an unlimited number of times per day. In practice this is significantly more than 3e because although wizards start with a dozen or so cantrips, half of those are combat abilities, they can only cast 3 per day, they must be prepared in advance, and there is pressure to prepare cantrips that deal damage.

-Wizards also have ritual casting and start with 3 rituals (non-combat spells) from the rituals list.
Last edited by J1M on February 21st, 2023, 04:55, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
WhiteShark
Turtle
Turtle
Posts: 1855
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by WhiteShark »

I'll just post what I always post on this topic: 4E is a great tactics game and a terrible RPG. The former ought be self-evident. If you disagree about the latter, read this and see if you change your mind: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15 ... d-mechanic
User avatar
rusty_shackleford
Site Admin
Posts: 8917
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by rusty_shackleford »

I wonder how well 4E would have done if it was merely a spinoff titled "D&D tactics" or something.
User avatar
rusty_shackleford
Site Admin
Posts: 8917
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by rusty_shackleford »

rusty_shackleford wrote: February 20th, 2023, 19:23
it was described in terms that belonged to a board game.
Just to elaborate on this, how powers are restricted is a great example. There's no explanation given why some martial feats can only be used "per encounter" or "daily", none at all.

How memorizing & casting spells works is detailed in the (A)D&D PHBs. Page 40 of the ADHD PHB(orange spine version) has an entire section on detailing how spells are memorized.
Image

Well, how would you restrict them from being able to use awesome maneuvers all the time?
Pathfinder 1E in fact has an optional rule for this: Combat stamina. There is no disconnection here, the mechanics make sense in the game world.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/ ... nal-rules/
MadPreacher

Post by MadPreacher »

rusty_shackleford wrote: February 21st, 2023, 00:51
How memorizing & casting spells works is detailed in the (A)D&D PHBs. Page 40 of the ADHD PHB(orange spine version) has an entire section on detailing how spells are memorized.
This matches what is in all 5 editions of Basic D&D and AD&D 2E. Spells are limited to per day based upon the spellcaster's level.
User avatar
rusty_shackleford
Site Admin
Posts: 8917
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by rusty_shackleford »

WhiteShark wrote: February 21st, 2023, 00:35
I'll just post what I always post on this topic: 4E is a great tactics game and a terrible RPG. The former ought be self-evident. If you disagree about the latter, read this and see if you change your mind: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15 ... d-mechanic
Perhaps the most bizarre choice they made out of all the 4E design choices was using soccer jargon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marking_( ... _football)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defender_ ... _football)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_( ... l)#Striker

I guess some of you yuros might have noticed it, but surely it went right over the heads of ~98% of their american customers.
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

rusty_shackleford wrote: February 21st, 2023, 00:51
rusty_shackleford wrote: February 20th, 2023, 19:23
it was described in terms that belonged to a board game.
Just to elaborate on this, how powers are restricted is a great example. There's no explanation given why some martial feats can only be used "per encounter" or "daily", none at all.

How memorizing & casting spells works is detailed in the (A)D&D PHBs. Page 40 of the ADHD PHB(orange spine version) has an entire section on detailing how spells are memorized.
Image

Well, how would you restrict them from being able to use awesome maneuvers all the time?
Pathfinder 1E in fact has an optional rule for this: Combat stamina. There is no disconnection here, the mechanics make sense in the game world.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/ ... nal-rules/
The explanation is on page 54 of the 4e PHB.

Just as I can accept that casting a spell erases your memory of it (except if you "memorized it twice!"), I can accept that exertions of the martial type require a short recuperation time.

You can headcanon them as requiring different muscle groups if you need to for "realism".
User avatar
J1M
Posts: 826
Joined: Feb 15, '23

Post by J1M »

rusty_shackleford wrote: February 21st, 2023, 01:37
WhiteShark wrote: February 21st, 2023, 00:35
I'll just post what I always post on this topic: 4E is a great tactics game and a terrible RPG. The former ought be self-evident. If you disagree about the latter, read this and see if you change your mind: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15 ... d-mechanic
Perhaps the most bizarre choice they made out of all the 4E design choices was using soccer jargon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marking_( ... _football)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defender_ ... _football)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_( ... l)#Striker

I guess some of you yuros might have noticed it, but surely it went right over the heads of ~98% of their american customers.
I assume the goal was to avoid using the internet slang of "tank" and "DPS" for roles, because they clearly wanted to avoid calling a role "healer" even though it required them to put awkward lines in the book about how the leader role wasn't the party leader.
User avatar
rusty_shackleford
Site Admin
Posts: 8917
Joined: Feb 2, '23

Post by rusty_shackleford »

J1M wrote: February 21st, 2023, 05:13
The explanation is on page 54 of the 4e PHB.
That's not an explanation of how it works in the game world, because the description doesn't make any sense.
J1M wrote: February 21st, 2023, 05:13
Just as I can accept that casting a spell erases your memory of it (except if you "memorized it twice!"), I can accept that exertions of the martial type require a short recuperation time.
No, because magic is magic. It has an in-universe explanation for why it works the way it does. The explanation given for martial classes makes no sense whatsoever.
Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you’re a martial character, you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit.
Then we go down to the Fighter class and look at their daily abilities:
Brute Strike Fighter Attack 1
You shatter armor and bone with a ringing blow.
???

Hitting something hard is... so taxing that it can only be done once a day?
Dizzying Blow Fighter Attack 5
You crack your foe upside the head
???

You can only smack someone upside the head once a day because it's so exhausting?

It's quite clear these were designed mechanically first, then given descriptions afterwards, long after they were already decided to be 'daily' powers.
For everyone else: I'm not taking these out of context, that's the full description.


Attempting to define a blanket explanation like that was even worse than providing no explanation at all, because there's a complete disconnect from the narrative and the mechanics. Hell, the narrative is disconnected from the narrative.

I can come up with something better right off the top of my head: Give martial classes two pools of stamina, one that's refilled after each fight and one that requires a rest. After the smaller per-encounter pool is depleted you start using your per-rest pool. The former is much smaller, more powerful abilities use more stamina and/or use stamina from your at-rest pool representing using an ability that is overly taxing on your body.

Bonus points: it doesn't make all the classes feel like they play the same.

[edit]
And I think this is by far the lamest possible daily power someone could think of:
Dragon’s Fangs Fighter Attack 15
You strike twice in rapid succession.
User avatar
GothGirlSupremacy
Posts: 113
Joined: Feb 6, '23

Post by GothGirlSupremacy »

4E felt like you were imagining yourself playing an MMORPG when you could've simply just, you know, played an MMORPG.

I think it never sat right with me for that reason. You have a property like D&D that has all this historical significance and legacy and you're using it to play wannabe to some other shit because WoW was in the midst of being a mainstream juggernaut. MMORPGs should be taking after tabletop, tabletop shouldn't be trying to replicate MMORPGs.

Edit: This also makes me think of how they probably should've launched D&D Online with 4E rules in effect instead of hotshotting it out despite 4E being like a year-year and a half apart.
User avatar
GothGirlSupremacy
Posts: 113
Joined: Feb 6, '23

Post by GothGirlSupremacy »

rusty_shackleford wrote: February 21st, 2023, 07:53
Then we go down to the Fighter class and look at their daily abilities:
This 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.

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.
Post Reply