[Not 4e] What will we see from 5e?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:56 am

Hotpants Joe wrote:You're still saying that the game is broken because of this one instance where you give a monster a bow and have him fly around in an open field, shooting down a party without a ranger.

You're an idiot.

Outside of having a party of all rangers, the deathlord is going to lolpwn everyone with a hail of arrows. And even if the ranger can take the deathlord one-on-one, I will make two objections to that.

1. 4e has one class that can counter the flying monster. Good job, Joe! That's ten points for Gryffindor.

How many creatures in the MMs are flying that can use bows?

Angels and demons are a good starting place. I'm not counting out the monsters because any idiot--and you, apparently, are not just any idiot; you are are a special kind of idiot that is far worse than John Q. Any Idiot--can see that the entire principle demonstrates just how terrible 4e is on a fundamental level.

Yes, we've covered how the game breaks simply in this one in hundreds case scenario. 3rd Edition is still more broken more frequently than 4th edition even when taking other 4e brokenness into account. You do not advance the argument at all by saying this.

The simplicity with which 4e breaks is mind-boggling. Let's compare it to heart surgery. In 3e, botching the surgery means nicking the aorta, not stitching an incision properly, or having a rejected transplant. In 4e, the surgeon stabs the patient in the heart.

There's nothing magical about Come and Get It. Drop this already. It's a power that grants the fighter's player narrative control over what certain NPCs do in combat. They are still moving towards the fighter of their own free will.

Bullshit. Can the monster choose not to move? Then fuck off, you stupid [EDITED], because you're doing the exact kind of behavior typical of 4e fucktards: when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary of how great your precious game is, you resort to logical gymnastics, convoluted bullshit, or, more often than not, outright denial of clear problems. So choke on a dick.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:00 am

Also, fuck you thread necroed this in order to tell us all why every one of our reasons for not liking 4e is wrong, so I gave you a whole damn list. Where is my 4e tard "rituals are totally awesome and the power system has not flaws!"

It's been almost months since someone told me that rituals are the greatest of all possible out of combat spellcasting systems. It's almost like all those people actually played the stupid game (God knows why) and realized how complete and utter shit they are.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:34 am

Kaelik wrote: How many monsters have to break the game before you suck a dick and admit that Candle of Invocation Wish loops are more obscure than taking a monster from the monster manual and having it try to pick up a bow, an action with two simultaneous and contradictory results?

Quite a few, given all the problems with 3.5.

Honestly try and keep a straight face and tell me that 3.5 RAW is at all playable.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:54 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Quite a few, given all the problems with 3.5.

Honestly try and keep a straight face and tell me that 3.5 RAW is at all playable.

Fuck RC, we all know you fucking have this hate on where you have to decry "3.5 RAW" every five damn seconds or your brain will explode. We also don't fucking care.

What I do know is that if you pick up the Core three books and play a game, you can start at level fucking 1 and not have any problems at all going all the way to level 16. It does require that you all pick good classes, and that all play smart, and that none of you read what 9th level spells do before you can cast them.

That's fine. You can do similar but less interesting things in 4e. But you RC personally claim on a daily basis that the existence of Candles of Invocation makes 4e, no matter how many fuck ups and no matter what the scale, less broken. This despite the fact that a creature picking up a bow gains two completely mutually exclusive attacks and no attacks at all at the same time.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:58 am

Kaelik wrote: What I do know is that if you pick up the Core three books and play a game, you can start at level fucking 1 and not have any problems at all going all the way to level 16. It does require that you all pick good classes, and that all play smart, and that none of you read what 9th level spells do before you can cast them.

I highly doubt that. The only way you're going to do that is if you're playing with newbies who don't understand the game, or you have gentleman's agreements not to break it wide open.

And I mean whatever you can do to make 3.5 work, you can also do to make 4E work.

I just find it laughable that people pick on 4E for being broken, when we also advocate how you should use the tome series for 3.5, which is pages and pages of house rules. It's just a stupid double standard that is not the result of logical analysis, but just favoritism. And calling the Oberoni fallacy on people makes absolutely no sense in that context. It's like decrying 4E for being anything but perfect, yet at the same time acknowledging that you need this crap ton of house rules or gentleman's agreements to make 3.5 work.

Yeah, I don't like 4E, because I don't find the gameplay fun. It's a boring grindfest. I'm not going to kid myself though that somehow it's less playable than 3.5 RAW.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:31 am

No, RC, we deride 4e for being broken because of its retarded fanbase and their belief that it's not.

violence in the media · Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:40 am

I don't recall 3e coming out and trumpeting from the rooftops about how awesomely balanced it was by WotCs crack team of analytical statisticians. You know, the guys who crunched the numbers so hard that the math "just worked" and, on their lunch hours, came up with the ability to make any class/power combination work. 4e was supposed to be so revolutionary that it would blow your fucking mind, man.

WotC not only failed to deliver on the hype, which could be forgivable given the quantity of bullshit bandied about, but they failed to deliver a functional, quality entertainment product at all. And they still want to sell you this shit, for money. I was expecting an Erector Set, and WotC delivered an incomplete tub of Duplo Blocks.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:45 am

violence in the media wrote:I don't recall 3e coming out and trumpeting from the rooftops about how awesomely balanced it was by WotCs crack team of analytical statisticians. You know, the guys who crunched the numbers so hard that the math "just worked" and, on their lunch hours, came up with the ability to make any class/power combination work. 4e was supposed to be so revolutionary that it would blow your fucking mind, man.

Honestly, 3E was all about balance when it came out. It claimed to have fixed TWF from the broken 2E standard, apparently by nerfing it into all hell for anyone but rogues.

I mean to this day it has a bunch of retarded people defending it with stupid claims like "Fighters aren't broken".

I mean just go to the Pathfinder forums.

violence in the media · Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:49 am

I'll admit that my recollection of the launch isn't perfect, but I remember a larger focus put on removing the stupid and arbitrary restrictions from 2e and giving greater structure and standardization to things. Of course, I'm sure there was the obligatory balance point, but I don't think it was as overstated as 4e has made it.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:03 am

I don't think people cared as much about the fact that 2e's balance broke down, either; with 3e that was most of what people talked about. So the launch hype is about fixing the things people complain about.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:39 am

violence in the media wrote:I'll admit that my recollection of the launch isn't perfect, but I remember a larger focus put on removing the stupid and arbitrary restrictions from 2e and giving greater structure and standardization to things. Of course, I'm sure there was the obligatory balance point, but I don't think it was as overstated as 4e has made it.

That was my experience as well. In fact, the first official rules leak from 3e was "No more exceptional strength!" And there was much rejoicing.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:12 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote: Honestly try and keep a straight face and tell me that 3.5 RAW is at all playable.

I have played 3e and 3.5 raw enough. I have never encountered problems with players or DM using broken bits (with the exception of 3e unerrata'd polymorph, we abused that a bit) but I instead faced more problems with players making crappy choices.

I love creating mechanically interesting characters, literally made hundreds for 3.x. I made a couple for 4e and then decided it was utterly uninteresting.

To stray into the dangerous territory of 'on topic' I would hope that 5e makes character creation enjoyable and diverse enough to draw me back in. Classless/roleless characters, no exception based design, and let me have nice things.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:32 am

I second clikml's points, and would add that I would want it to make non-combat/non-dungeon activities more than an afterthought. Not that I expect that to happen unless Hasbro/WotC sells the license.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:40 am

clikml wrote: To stray into the dangerous territory of 'on topic' I would hope that 5e makes character creation enjoyable and diverse enough to draw me back in. Classless/roleless characters, no exception based design, and let me have nice things.

I can virtually guaranty that 5e will have classes and roles. I mean, maybe the classes will be kicked to the curb and turned into checkbox abilities like races were. Those used to be classes too. But I would not hold my breath.

About the best you could hope for in that direction would be to have the "power sources" take the place of character classes. In this model, abilities with the Rogue or Fighter designation on them would be kind of like the Desert Wind designation from Book of Nine Swords. That is to say that while your character would be a "Martial" character and get martial powers, that some powers would have an arbitrary keyword on them named "Rogue" and they might have a prerequisite of some number of other powers in your possession that also had the "Rogue" designation.

But while half of the original iconic party no longer exists (no Thief, no Magic User), I really don't think that the people making 5e are going to have the nutsack to actually get rid of the class system. I don't even think it's necessarily a good idea. The class system does have value, both in specific and abstract theoretical kinds of ways.

Personally, I would be OK with Divine characters being a Paladin or a Cleric. It's a little stilted, but it's fine. What I'm not OK with is there only being two Paladins to play and having even those Paladins not really play very differently. If you're going to have two and only two Divine classes, you need to have a big pile of meaningfully different versions of each of those classes.

-Username17

ggroy · Post by **ggroy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:34 pm

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 pm

They wouldn't dare release a new edition after only four years. WotC might be a bunch of moneygrubbing bastards with incompetent developers, but they're not brain-cripple stupid. After the clusterfuck of 4e and the fracturing of the fanbase, they wouldn't have the balls to release another edition (and lose more players).

I'm pretty sure we'll be looking at a "4e+" in four years, but not a new edition. Though I also have the feeling that 4e might go the same route as 2e.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:09 pm

Depends. If they said 'lol, just kidding guys' and made a real edition, they'd probably get the fail train back on the rails.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:13 pm

The key to an early release would be to release it as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: 3rd edition. Remember: 3e was technically the 3rd edition of D&D, not AD&D.

D&D 4e could go on being a miniatures combat game, with AD&D as the actual RPG.

-Username17

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:13 pm

Can you imagine the 4rry reaction to that? (Where's HPJ, anyhow? Has he retreated?)

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:15 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:Can you imagine the 4rry reaction to that? (Where's HPJ, anyhow? Has he retreated?)

Ok, 4.Fail is Exactly What It Says On The Tin, but what's that one mean?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm

There are 3aboos and 4rries. 3aboos prefer 3e to 4e, and 4rries prefer 4e to 3e. Generally, the terms are reserved for fantards of either edition.

ggroy · Post by **ggroy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:46 pm

ggroy · Post by **ggroy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:53 pm

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:55 pm

ggroy wrote:Maybe Hasbro/WotC will just buy up Paizo and rebrand Pathfinder PFRPG as the new "5E D&D" or "3E AD&D".

And then, having released two terrible editions in a row they fall right off the market radar.

ggroy · Post by **ggroy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:00 pm