4E Should I play 4e? - Page 23
Page 23 of 25 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819202122232425 LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 246
  1. #221
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Jose/Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    15,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    Well 4e didnt solve this... like 5e it lessened the impact but wizards... especially since they got ritual casting for free as well as more skills... still had much more out of the box versatility than the fighter.
    You caught me, I left out 'virtually,' that time:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    I gave you one example, LFQW, above. It's a fact. It makes D&D a bad game - imbalanced, problematic to play at low & high levels. 4e fixed it. 4e is reviled for fixing it, because it's one of those flaws that people came to love.
    vs

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    (FREX: LFQW is a mathematical fact of D&D class design - it's profound in 1e or 3e, significant in 5e, virtually absent in 4e, resulting in a level-based game that actually remains playable at all levels
    Next time I'll just quote myself up-front.

    Yep, LFQW only /virtually/ absent in 4e. The Wizard's spells and the fighter's exploits per encounter & per day were gained at the same rate. So, in a given day, they're at neat parity at all levels. No LFQW, there, at the macro level, over 30 levels. Lightyears ahead, just in basic structure. No contest, really, but we can dig into the details:

    The wizard can swap out some of his spells, the dailies and utilities, for an alternate, or one of a pair of alternates if he takes a feat. The fighter can take up to three feats to swap out /one/ exploit with one alternate, advantage: wiz. So, for the feat-happy characters from one day to the next, that's 50% greater versatility with dailies and utilities. The fighter also gains some exploits with the Reliable keyword, that can result in him using an exploit more often, and the wizard also gets some minor at-will cantrips, but, that's not over levels, that's just a first level feature, no contribution to LFQW.

    So in sheer power, they're at very near parity. The wizard - as is typical for controllers vs defenders generally - has an edge in versatility, but a tiny one compared to other editions.

    Now, out of combat, the wizard gets some extra skills, also at fist level, and skills all advance at 1/2 level, so no LFQW there, but not perfect equality, either. And a few free rituals at first, and every 5 levels, also linear, actually, but meaning increased versatility out of combat... Of course, the wizard can buy rituals, and must spend gp to cast them - they're comparable to items in 4e - and the fighter can spend his gold elsewhere, as buying items was no less gp-efficient than making them.

    In 5e, LFQW, though not as profound as in the olden days (let alone Tier 1 vs Tier 5 in 3e) is still pretty significant: Instead of the fighter going from 1 attack at 1st level, steadily hitting with more often than other classes as he leveled, to an astounding 2 attacks at 14th. 5e has it going from 1 to 4 attacks, albeit, hitting about the same as everyone else at all levels thanks to BA. Steadily linear as always. The 1e fighter hits relatively more often as he levels, while the 5e fighter swings relatively more often, starting at 5th or 11th depending on relative to whom. The fighter also gets an Action Surge, and, eventually a /second/ Action surge. Letting him do yet moar damage, once between hour-long short rests.

    The wizard, OTOH, goes from being a 1-spell, random-spells-known wonder at 1st to a multiple-9th-level spell Archmage at 20th (and keeps going) in 1e. But starts with 2 first levels spells, at-will cantrips, and can re-gain a slot with a short rest, and tops out a meager two spells of level 6 through 9 at 20th. But, that's still a /lot/ of spells, with a lot of power, versatility, and staying power gained over 20 levels, vs hitting more. The 1e MU's spells grew in spells/day, effect-per-caster level, and, in minor ways, with slot level (punching through certain defenses, mostly), but did not scale saving throws, at all, so spells of /all/ levels became more likely to be saved against vs same-level foes as the MU leveled. LFQW was unquestionably there and profound, but in some small ways, not as bad as it could have been. 3e made it as bad as it could have been, though it did put some modest caps on power-per-caster-level based on spell level, and based saves on slot level (via Empower metamagic, if nothing else), rather than caster level. 5e made spells scale with slot level, but saves scale with character (not even caster) level, so even your lowest level spells get harder to save against as you level. It also gave the wiz a higher at-will baseline than 1e darts or 3e light crossbows, with at-will cantrips. And, of course, it went from old-school Vancian, to all the versatility of 3e spontaneous & prepped, combined, so as the wizard gains more spells with level, in addition to more spells slots, of spells that are harder to save against, he's also more and more likely to have the best possible spell for the situation, a tremendous increase in versatility. And, out-of-combat rituals no longer carry a cost (neither slot nor gp), so further add to that expanding versatility.

    1e/2e, 3e, & 5e LFQW are each /different/ from eachother, but they're all quite significant. 3e is certainly the most profound, though even it is not /strictly/ superior to each of the others on all points. For instance, a 1e fireball could scale to higher damage dice than a 3e fireball. A low-level 5e spell's save will scale with character level, in stead of the 3e's scaling with slot level, leaving lower-level spells dropping off in usefulness more in the otherwise uber-mage edition, but that 5e DC, while it might be 4 or 5 higher vs a save bonus that hasn't advanced at all with level, still isn't /untouchable/ like it could have been with a top-level 3e spell. The 3e wiz could supplement his versatility with scrolls via make/buy, while the 5e wiz gets spontaneous-prepped neo-Vancian caster for greater versatility.
    So, yeah, different in the details. But rapidly ballooning power for the wiz, in all non-4e cases.

    Yep... of course it would be easier if some posters would realize it's not 2008 and throwing inflammatory claims of superiority only helps to stoke the flames.
    NO, realized we could live and let live /in 2008/. Y'know, instead of edition warring all this effing time. I mean, it'd be nice if the same talking points didn't keep popping up, and all, but it's really too late.

    The good thing is that 5e, at least, isn't being warred against, even as residual warring against 4e continues.


    Now, that's only one example, and it's only a mechanical improvement on a quantitative level.
    That says nothing about more subjective measures.
    XP Jacob Lewis, HJFudge, heretic888 gave XP for this post

  2. #222
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    You caught me, I left out 'virtually,' that time:



    vs

    Next time I'll just quote myself up-front.

    Yep, LFQW only /virtually/ absent in 4e. The Wizard's spells and the fighter's exploits per encounter & per day were gained at the same rate. So, in a given day, they're at neat parity at all levels. No LFQW, there, at the macro level, over 30 levels. Lightyears ahead, just in basic structure. No contest, really, but we can dig into the details:

    The wizard can swap out some of his spells, the dailies and utilities, for an alternate, or one of a pair of alternates if he takes a feat. The fighter can take up to three feats to swap out /one/ exploit with one alternate, advantage: wiz. So, for the feat-happy characters from one day to the next, that's 50% greater versatility with dailies and utilities. The fighter also gains some exploits with the Reliable keyword, that can result in him using an exploit more often, and the wizard also gets some minor at-will cantrips, but, that's not over levels, that's just a first level feature, no contribution to LFQW.

    So in sheer power, they're at very near parity. The wizard - as is typical for controllers vs defenders generally - has an edge in versatility, but a tiny one compared to other editions.

    Now, out of combat, the wizard gets some extra skills, also at fist level, and skills all advance at 1/2 level, so no LFQW there, but not perfect equality, either. And a few free rituals at first, and every 5 levels, also linear, actually, but meaning increased versatility out of combat... Of course, the wizard can buy rituals, and must spend gp to cast them - they're comparable to items in 4e - and the fighter can spend his gold elsewhere, as buying items was no less gp-efficient than making them.

    In 5e, LFQW, though not as profound as in the olden days (let alone Tier 1 vs Tier 5 in 3e) is still pretty significant: Instead of the fighter going from 1 attack at 1st level, steadily hitting with more often than other classes as he leveled, to an astounding 2 attacks at 14th. 5e has it going from 1 to 4 attacks, albeit, hitting about the same as everyone else at all levels thanks to BA. Steadily linear as always. The 1e fighter hits relatively more often as he levels, while the 5e fighter swings relatively more often, starting at 5th or 11th depending on relative to whom. The fighter also gets an Action Surge, and, eventually a /second/ Action surge. Letting him do yet moar damage, once between hour-long short rests.

    The wizard, OTOH, goes from being a 1-spell, random-spells-known wonder at 1st to a multiple-9th-level spell Archmage at 20th (and keeps going) in 1e. But starts with 2 first levels spells, at-will cantrips, and can re-gain a slot with a short rest, and tops out a meager two spells of level 6 through 9 at 20th. But, that's still a /lot/ of spells, with a lot of power, versatility, and staying power gained over 20 levels, vs hitting more. The 1e MU's spells grew in spells/day, effect-per-caster level, and, in minor ways, with slot level (punching through certain defenses, mostly), but did not scale saving throws, at all, so spells of /all/ levels became more likely to be saved against vs same-level foes as the MU leveled. LFQW was unquestionably there and profound, but in some small ways, not as bad as it could have been. 3e made it as bad as it could have been, though it did put some modest caps on power-per-caster-level based on spell level, and based saves on slot level (via Empower metamagic, if nothing else), rather than caster level. 5e made spells scale with slot level, but saves scale with character (not even caster) level, so even your lowest level spells get harder to save against as you level. It also gave the wiz a higher at-will baseline than 1e darts or 3e light crossbows, with at-will cantrips. And, of course, it went from old-school Vancian, to all the versatility of 3e spontaneous & prepped, combined, so as the wizard gains more spells with level, in addition to more spells slots, of spells that are harder to save against, he's also more and more likely to have the best possible spell for the situation, a tremendous increase in versatility. And, out-of-combat rituals no longer carry a cost (neither slot nor gp), so further add to that expanding versatility.

    1e/2e, 3e, & 5e LFQW are each /different/ from eachother, but they're all quite significant. 3e is certainly the most profound, though even it is not /strictly/ superior to each of the others on all points. For instance, a 1e fireball could scale to higher damage dice than a 3e fireball. A low-level 5e spell's save will scale with character level, in stead of the 3e's scaling with slot level, leaving lower-level spells dropping off in usefulness more in the otherwise uber-mage edition, but that 5e DC, while it might be 4 or 5 higher vs a save bonus that hasn't advanced at all with level, still isn't /untouchable/ like it could have been with a top-level 3e spell. The 3e wiz could supplement his versatility with scrolls via make/buy, while the 5e wiz gets spontaneous-prepped neo-Vancian caster for greater versatility.
    So, yeah, different in the details. But rapidly ballooning power for the wiz, in all non-4e cases.

    NO, realized we could live and let live /in 2008/. Y'know, instead of edition warring all this effing time. I mean, it'd be nice if the same talking points didn't keep popping up, and all, but it's really too late.

    The good thing is that 5e, at least, isn't being warred against, even as residual warring against 4e continues.


    Now, that's only one example, and it's only a mechanical improvement on a quantitative level.
    That says nothing about more subjective measures.
    I'm more of a real examples type of guy so let's actually take a look at the Utilities for the classes just in the PHB for 4e say up to level 10...

    At level 2 the Wizard can...
    1. Move at 2x his speed
    2. Stop himself or anyone from taking damage from a fall of any distance.
    3. Leap great distances
    4. Create a magical shield to protect oneself

    At level 6 the Wizard can...
    1. Teleport himself 50ft
    2. Magically disguise himself
    3. Dispel Magic
    4. Turn himself or another creature invisible
    5. Levitate 20ft
    6. Create Fog to obstruct sight and offer concealment.

    At level 10 the Wizard can...
    1. Create portals up to 100ft apart that anyone can use to teleport
    2. Create multiple copies of himself to confuse foes
    3. Blur himself to hinder foes
    4. Grant himself or someone else resistances to various damage types

    Now let's look at what a Fighter can do...

    At level 2 the fighter can...
    1. Gain regeneration when bloodied
    2. Let a willing ally move 2 squares
    3. Cancel the combat advantage of an enemy attacking you
    4. Gain temp hit points

    At level 6 the fighter can...
    1. Gain +10 to Initiative
    2. Gain a +2 bonus to one defense
    3. Reduce damage from an attack

    At level 10 the fighter can...
    1. Move 3 squares as long as you end adjacent to an enemy
    2. Take no damage from a hit but stunned and -2 to all defenses
    3. Boost allies defenses by +1 or +2 for the encounter.

    Hmm... okay these are supposed to be the non-combat/Utility powers and much like every edition of D&D 4e gives the fighter more fightery things to do wile giving the wizard more power through versatility (the main culprit of "quadratic" power) as well as powers for in combat. And this is before we even begin to touch on rituals (which become inexpensiv by mid-heroic and higher), just looking at the ones for Arcana up to level 10 we have...

    Comprehend Language Arcana
    Magic Mouth Arcana
    Make Whole Arcana
    Secret Page Arcana
    Silence Arcana
    Tensers Floating Disk Arcana
    Endure Elements Arcana or Nature
    Eye of Alarm Arcana
    Detect Secret Doors Arcana
    Arcane Lock Arcana
    Enchant Magic Item Arcana
    Knock Arcana
    Brew Potion Arcana or Religion
    Hallucinatory Item Arcana
    Magic Circle Arcana
    Disenchant Magic Item Arcana
    Leomunds Secret Chest Arcana
    Phantom Steed Arcana
    Sending Arcana
    Linked Portal Arcana
    Water Breathing Arcana or Nature
    Wizards Sight Arcana
    Detect Object Arcana

    But yeah keep telling me how badly the wizard was nerfed and the fighter was given parity in 4e...

  3. #223
    Member
    Scout (Lvl 6)



    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    86
    Wait, what?

    Thats an odd restriction to put on things, looking JUST at utility abilities. What 4e fixed was that it allowed fighters to, IN COMBAT, be just as amazing as spell casting classes. Was some of the powers from a wizard due to its utility outside combat? Yes. And as you have so clearly demonstrated, they do keep that superiority by a straight reading of the PHB abilities. However, out of combat utility was a far easier fix than In combat power is.

    In combat, LFQW fighters start pretty decent but are quickly outclassed by wizards (spell casters in general, really). 4E fixed that. Fighters and Wizards could do different things? But they both excelled in what they did and added similar value to the party as a whole. Many have decried this as 'all classes playing the same' but, again, as you so clearly demonstrated...there was a huge difference in how a wizard played and how a fighter played. That difference just wasnt in POWER.
    XP heretic888 gave XP for this post

  4. #224
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Jose/Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    15,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    I'm more of a real examples type of guy so let's actually take a look at the Utilities for the classes just in the PHB for 4e say up to level 10...
    Yep, martial exploits and arcane spells were quite different, and the wiz retained the edge in versatility, while the fighter kept his in durability - reflections of both source and role that give the lie to all the "fighters cast spells" and "samey" talking points.


    Hmm... okay these are supposed to be the non-combat/Utility powers and much like every edition of D&D 4e gives the fighter more fightery things to do wile giving the wizard more power through versatility (the main culprit of "quadratic" power)
    Not nearly the main culprit, no. LFQW is a matter of hard numbers. A 1st level fighter in the classic game could hit a little better than the next guy, and at 14th he could hit significantly better. The 1st level wizard could cast 1 spell, the 3rd, 3, the 5th 6 and so on. One thing steadily getting better, vs the number of things you can do growing, and getting steadily better, and being able to do them more often.

    That wasn't happening to a much greater degree from one class to another in 4e, the wiz and fighter got comparable numbers of abilities, chosen from similarly expansive (really, not expansive at all compared to other eds - a class might get 3-6 choices at a given level, PH 1e MU chose from 30 spells at 1st level) lists.

    It's absolutely true though that the fighter was out in the cold out of combat: a better list than other eds but no bonus skills, utilities more focused on combat utility. The gulf between fighter & caster in D&D has generally been vast - in 4e, it was a relatively narrow gap, still undeniable - but it didn't balloon in outright power with level as it does in all other eds.

    Better balance, even profoundly better, does not have to mean perfect balance.

    as well as powers for in combat. And this is before we even begin to touch on rituals (which become inexpensiv by mid-heroic and higher),
    Rituals price-scaled like items, so same-level were always expensive to learn and significant to cast, while much lower became cheap. The wizard heavily invested in rituals simply had less going on in the magic item department.

    Ritual caster was a feat the wiz got at 1st level as a bonus. One feat, in a game that gave you 15 more over 30 levels.


    But yeah keep telling me how badly the wizard was nerfed and the fighter was given parity in 4e...
    The wizard wasn't /badly/ nerfed, at all, it just didn't rapidly become wildly overpowered with level. Really, a 4e wiz was probably better off than a wiz of any prior ed, at first level. By 3rd, not so much.

    So, yeah, AEDU, by the numbers, was resource parity. It killed LFQW, outright, like so many sacred cows.

    But, the classes weren't "samey" and some of the differences were in powers vs features. The wizard, in particular, had virtually all it's role support baked into it's powers, it's features were kinda cute, but not all that. The fighters features were potent and combat-oriented with strong role support - it's powers could be pretty cool, but were mostly vehicles for that role support.
    Last edited by Tony Vargas; Tuesday, 18th June, 2019 at 05:28 PM.
    XP heretic888, rczarnec gave XP for this post

  5. #225
    Member
    Hydra (Lvl 25)



    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Randall View Post
    There are many things that can be done in any game to make "time spent in combat" expand or contract to the group's desires. Few of those techniques have to do with the game's rules; most of those techniques have to do with table management, time management, and choosing a group that all has similar tastes for sexy combat.
    Well, we found that the easiest solution, by far, was to use a ruleset like 3E or 5E instead of a ruleset like 4E.

    That instantly solved our problems much faster and easier than any amount of managing time or tables did.

    We never did consider replacing the players. Or maybe we did - yes, you can definitely say we're still playing 4E, except with a whole new group with none of it's original members!

    Sorry for the snark; Good luck with your game!

  6. #226
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by HJFudge View Post
    Wait, what?

    Thats an odd restriction to put on things, looking JUST at utility abilities. What 4e fixed was that it allowed fighters to, IN COMBAT, be just as amazing as spell casting classes. Was some of the powers from a wizard due to its utility outside combat? Yes. And as you have so clearly demonstrated, they do keep that superiority by a straight reading of the PHB abilities. However, out of combat utility was a far easier fix than In combat power is.

    In combat, LFQW fighters start pretty decent but are quickly outclassed by wizards (spell casters in general, really). 4E fixed that. Fighters and Wizards could do different things? But they both excelled in what they did and added similar value to the party as a whole. Many have decried this as 'all classes playing the same' but, again, as you so clearly demonstrated...there was a huge difference in how a wizard played and how a fighter played. That difference just wasnt in POWER.
    Emphasis mine that wasn't the original claim but ok. I'm not sure how one can look at the 5e Fighter especially the Battlemaster and think the Wizard is better in combat than him but I'm willing to be convinced... Can you explain this or is this purely about having the same number of things to call out as "moves" in combat?

  7. #227
    Member
    A "Drizzit" Type-Thing (Lvl 28)



    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    The Stately Pleasure Dome of Xanadu.
    Posts
    7,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post

    So, yeah, AEDU, by the numbers, was resource parity. It killed LFQW, outright, like so many sacred cows.

    But, the classes weren't "samey" and some of the differences were in powers vs features. The wizard, in particular, had virtually all it's role support baked into it's powers, it's features were kinda cute, but not all that. The fighters features were potent and combat-oriented with strong role support - it's powers could be pretty cool, but were mostly vehicles for that role support.
    So, I'm just going to say two things I have noticed, and I hope you take them in the spirit of a good-faith conversation:

    The first is that I have noticed that you often state your playstyle preferences as if they were fact; which is not conducive to a good conversation! There is a difference between normative (what ought to be) and descriptive (what is). Now, you might have very strong preferences regarding what is, and isn't, good design; I know that we have previously discussed, inter alia, our differences regarding what constitutes "balance" in a game. I think that this is what @Imaro and others are mentioning when they discuss the lack of citation; it is fine to discuss preferences, but it is much harder to discuss a preference when that preference is asserted as a fact.

    If someone says that they like butter pecan ice cream, and that anyone who enjoys other types of ice cream is just clinging to their sacred cows, that tends to escalate issues, instead of leading to a better understanding of actual differences w/r/t preferences.


    The second is that when I review the things you write, they don't seem in accord with what I have found from independent research from more neutral sources. For example:

    A. A common claim I have seen is that Essentials fixes many of the problems people had with 4e; in other words, that had Essentials been released earlier, it would have solved a lot of problems (incl. bugs, math issues, the desire for a simpler class, etc.). Now, as I wrote, this unfortunately happened after 4e was already "dead" as a product, but then you essentially assert that Essentials sucked for catering to people. So ....

    B. The designers of 4e are on record regarding class issues due to the shortened timeframe of development- "The things I would have wanted to change about fourth edition mostly center on the knowledge that the class design project wasnt entirely finished upon release. Id never wanted to use the exact same power structure for the wizard as every other class, for example, but we ran out of time, and had to use smaller variations to express class differences than I had originally expected." Lead Designer Rob Heinsoo (Kobold Quarterly)

    So it's very difficult to square the comments of the designer (smaller variations due to the timeframe that were only, later, modified) with your insistence that other people could not view the classes as "same-y." Now, I happen to think that the design framework could be expanded, and that later classes could (and did) differ using that design framework, but you should at least be able to understand where the criticism comes from- if the designers can acknowledge it, you should be able to as well.

    C. Going back to the issue of preferences, and Essentials, one thing you tend to discount is people's strong desire for a simple class. Surveys of player preferences consistently show that the simplest classes rate as the highest; moreover, surveys of classes in use consistently show that the simplest classes are the most played. This isn't about "quality," but it shows that there is a strong desire in part of the player base for simplicity; something that they attempted to capture in Essentials, but lacked in the original core release. Now, I understand that you would say that simplicity can be measured in many ways (such as 'DM running the game simplicity'), and I would agree- just like "balance" can. I'm just stating that the simplicity that some players were looking for was lacking when 4e was initially released; you know, the whole, "Ima drinka beer and have a slice of pizza; tell me when it's my turn to roll a die."

    D. Finally, and this is regarding the great comments of @HJFudge as well, I wanted to briefly talk about the whole "market decides" issue. So, I said I reviewed a number of different arguments, pro- and con-, and after I posted, I saw someone else post (in a different thread here) about how 4e was terrible because the "MARKET IS ALWAYS RIGHT." This isn't a real claim; it's post hoc triumphalism. It's a slightly more wordy version of the athlete's "SCOREBOARD."

    That said, 4e did fail, and it failed in ways that were predictable. I described 4e as snakebitten, and, in some ways, it was, but in other ways ... look, Paizo got a lead out because Jason Buhlman went and playtested 4e, and reported back that 4e was ... well, what it was. So Paizo was able to concentrate on developing PF instead of waiting to see if a 4e license would come out.

    None of this addresses the issue of quality, or enjoyment, or whether the 4e system scratches the itch that you have. But there seems to be this lingering issue that you seem to find the fault in people who enjoy things you don't for the failure of the system; this would be the same as if Disney decided to release Parasite (winner, Palme d'Or) in wide release in the US, in subtitles, and expect it to do as well as Endgame; at a certain point, the issue of quality doesn't matter as much as the fit for the proposed market.

    You can't make people like what they don't like. And when you have a market leader and brand like D&D, you have to be very careful with your sacred cows. It's neither good, nor bad, it just is.

    TLDR; there is a difference between making normative claims about the quality of systems, as opposed to descriptive claims about why something happened (rushed development, for example, and unrealistic goals).



    .
    Last edited by lowkey13; Tuesday, 18th June, 2019 at 03:58 PM.
    XP oknazevad gave XP for this post

  8. #228
    Member
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)



    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    3,224
    Things 4e did better than any edition of D&D:
    * allowed any stat to be an attack stat (this alone opened up huge design space)
    * codified the nascent "cooldown" model already present in the game (e.g., Daily uses of barbarian's Rage or paladin's Smite Evil)
    * unified class mechanics so that picking up Class A vs. Class B wasn't like playing an entirely different game (this might not match your preferences, but it is unarguably true that less complex systems are easier to learn)
    * provided advice to the most important player at the table, the DM, on (1) how to actually run the damn game, (2) how to manage a group of humans
    * produced the best monster books ever produced for any D&D edition, bar none; even the in retrospect relatively lame MM1 was light years ahead of its 3e counterpart; and the Monster Vault and MV Threats to the Nentir Vale are in the top 10 of all gaming books ever -- and because monsters are the core component of what the DM needs, this was a hugely important accomplishment
    * produced dungeon tiles (started in 3e, true) and poster maps which are other important components for the DM
    * produced two sets (DM's Kit, Monster Vault) with high quality monster "pogs" as lower cost "minis" for the DM <-- hey 5e players, how's that going for you guys, you got any of these yet? no? hmm....
    * applied typographic and design principles to the conveyance of information to players (power layout) and DMs (monster, trap, etc. layout) such that comprehending the information was much much easier than ever before
    * produced a working character builder and monster builder, despite the tragic murder/suicide of two of their key developers -- we had been waiting 30 years for this holy grail of D&D and say what you want about the builders, THEY ACTUALLY F--KING DID IT
    * rapidly spun up an organized play community (Living Forgotten Realms, LFR) that grew faster than any organized play before it (I have this from multiple reliable sources at the RPGA) and, despite the... widely varying quality of the adventures (to put it kindly)... was a key marketing effort for the game

    That's off the top of my head. 4e may not be to your tastes, it may have been a financial failure (debatable), it may have died a premature death due to various factors -- but it was an excellently designed game.

    Now go play it.
    XP heretic888 gave XP for this post

  9. #229
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Randall View Post
    4e may not be to your tastes, it may have been a financial failure (debatable), it may have died a premature death due to various factors -- but it was an excellently designed game.
    Lol... who said otherwise (though many of the things you listed fall into the realm of personal preference as opposed to making an objectively better game).

    See the problem arises when instead of praising your edition and how it aligns with your particular preferences you try to declare it objectively superior while at the same time playing the edition war victim when others respond to tell you why your subjective preferences do not make your game an objectively better edition than any other one.

  10. #230
    Member
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)



    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    3,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    many of the things you listed fall into the realm of personal preference
    Needs citation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •