Quote from: Shasarak on September 28, 2021, 10:56:05 PMIts pretty easy to explain the "Super-hero" problem of 4e if you come at it from the perspective of being a DnD player.

Have the same problems haunt the system over a period of 40 years but its only a problem some of the times when you feel like it? 

D&D as a whole is one of the last systems to even HAVE hit points (in the buckets of hit dice sort of way) because other games have phased it out. While the degree of padding has varied, D&D has always been a game where you scale to where bites from Bears suddenly don't really matter. Thats kinda the issue of tying hit points to level as a whole.

The powers as a whole are generally unimpressive number fodder, and I would say the firepower characters from older editions of D&D way outclass what they had in 4e. If you wanted to become a bear in older D&D, your wizard just cast the spell and your that (alongside your long distance teleportation and army of zombies). If you want to be a bear in D&D 4e, you could only really do that as a druid (with a specific build) once per day for 15 minutes. And thats it. Any of that other stuff required expensive rituals with hard restrictions to not have any in-combat use.

Everybody having 15 minute recharge 'spells' is a whole lot less impressive when all the spells do is some variant of damage, short duration, debuff, or short distance move. And if anything ever actually does anything else, then its a daily power that lasts for 15 minutes and can be used once per day. And everybody hits with nerf bats.

D&D 4e characters are less vulnerable then earlier editions, but reduced vulnerability =/= superheroics. And D&D vulnerability has always been lopsided and weird.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2021, 11:22:26 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 28, 2021, 10:56:05 PMIts pretty easy to explain the "Super-hero" problem of 4e if you come at it from the perspective of being a DnD player.

Have the same problems haunt the system over a period of 40 years but its only a problem some of the times when you feel like it? 

D&D as a whole is one of the last systems to even HAVE hit points (in the buckets of hit dice sort of way) because other games have phased it out. While the degree of padding has varied, D&D has always been a game where you scale to where bites from Bears suddenly don't really matter. Thats kinda the issue of tying hit points to level as a whole.

The powers as a whole are generally unimpressive number fodder, and I would say the firepower characters from older editions of D&D way outclass what they had in 4e. If you wanted to become a bear in older D&D, your wizard just cast the spell and your that (alongside your long distance teleportation and army of zombies). If you want to be a bear in D&D 4e, you could only really do that as a druid (with a specific build) once per day for 15 minutes. And thats it. Any of that other stuff required expensive rituals with hard restrictions to not have any in-combat use.

Everybody having 15 minute recharge 'spells' is a whole lot less impressive when all the spells do is some variant of damage, short duration, debuff, or short distance move. And if anything ever actually does anything else, then its a daily power that lasts for 15 minutes and can be used once per day. And everybody hits with nerf bats.

D&D 4e characters are less vulnerable then earlier editions, but reduced vulnerability =/= superheroics. And D&D vulnerability has always been lopsided and weird.

Usually the scale in DnD where bites from bears does not matter does not start at level 1 though.

Even 5th edition makes early levels dangerous and that was the second worst edition of DnD.

Quote from: Shasarak on September 28, 2021, 11:33:50 PMUsually the scale in DnD where bites from bears does not matter does not start at level 1 though.

Even 5th edition makes early levels dangerous and that was the second worst edition of DnD.

This is goalpost shifting.

I would argue that 5th edition D&D is significantly less dangerous then 4e. Because of the tripple death-save system (which resets whenever you are at 1+ HP), you basically need to be quaddrupple-tapped in order to die unless its of massive damage (Which becomes immensly unlikely very fast).
Its trivially easy to keep a meat-shield safe with even basic healing spells (or even cantrips).

4e has a hard-healing cap after which you just can't get healed at all. 4e has a tripple death save as well, but it actually doesn't reset when you are healed in combat, and tracks HP in the negatives so damage you take while down is pretty important.

And I don't even like any style of D&D combat at all. I am debating D&D from a perspective of somebody who by and large doesn't like how D&D is structured.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2021, 09:53:27 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2021, 02:01:34 PMWhile in previous editions, combat was about co-ordinating efforts to succeed, 4e really turned this up to an "11", with abilities that synergize to produce an effect greater than the sum of it's parts. Area of Effect attacks and abilites that buff allies and weaken opponenets, pushing enemies around the battlefield. It felt very much like a fight scene from X-Men or Fantastic Four, where the superheroes riff off of each other's abilities.

.....I have never felt that was what described Superhero combat. I wouldn't use that to describe Superhero comics, or TV shows or movies. Thats possibly one of the LEAST accurate ways I have ever heard superhero combat described.
I mean there is the one token gag in each film where the tough guy chucks one guy at another but thats about it.
If there is one word that DOESN'T describe Superhero combat, its 'Tactical'.

Good thing I didn't use the word 'Tactical' then.

QuoteSuperhero combat ranges wildly depending on power level, but the rule of thumb (for the iconic better examples) is improvisational, highly mobile, and contextual.

A few weak-ass minor push abilities and some buffs/debuffs (that are not all spells, which D&D had always had bucketloads of from the very start and practically invented the idea of buffing/ debuffing enemies/allies), and thats whats described as Superhero combat? A genre where characters rarely buff/heal/debuff (unless you count a net as a debuff).

Videogamey, self-involved, padded, ridgid, grindy - those are insult style adjectives you could throw at 4e combat, but SUPERHERO? Thats a deep insult to Superheroic combat!

Now you're just nitpicking that it isn't exactly like superhero combat, which I did not claim.

Quote from: wmarshal on September 28, 2021, 08:25:17 AM
They're talking about "new formats." I predict this will mean softcover books. Inflation is a real thing to deal with now, and they're probably looking for ways to mitigate that.

I could possibly see Softcovers, but also more limited edition Hardcovers.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 29, 2021, 12:04:42 AMNow you're just nitpicking that it isn't exactly like superhero combat, which I did not claim.

Its not like it at all. And im not nitpicking. Im rejecting the idea completly.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2021, 11:58:34 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 28, 2021, 11:33:50 PMUsually the scale in DnD where bites from bears does not matter does not start at level 1 though.

Even 5th edition makes early levels dangerous and that was the second worst edition of DnD.

This is goalpost shifting.

Hang on, what goal posts do you think are shifting?

Quote
I would argue that 5th edition D&D is significantly less dangerous then 4e. Because of the tripple death-save system (which resets whenever you are at 1+ HP), you basically need to be quaddrupple-tapped in order to die unless its of massive damage (Which becomes immensly unlikely very fast).
Its trivially easy to keep a meat-shield safe with even basic healing spells (or even cantrips).

4e has a hard-healing cap after which you just can't get healed at all. 4e has a tripple death save as well, but it actually doesn't reset when you are healed in combat, and tracks HP in the negatives so damage you take while down is pretty important.

And I don't even like any style of D&D combat at all. I am debating D&D from a perspective of somebody who by and large doesn't like how D&D is structured.

Really, you want me to defend the second worst edition?  Ok, well since you brought it up, the hard-healing cap in 4e is the worst  thought out mechanic since, I dont know, skill challenges.

In my experience either you never hit the healing cap, in which case why have a healing cap, or if someone does run out of surges its probably because the striker got hammered and just forces the whole party to stop for their long rest.

"Sorry man, the magic potion just does not work on you any more but normal resting is fine."

Quote from: Mistwell on September 28, 2021, 07:08:37 PM
I am playing a Twilight character alongside some PHB classes, and we're not having issues. So, not sure what your point is?

You may not have issues with your specific group, but other have had them, and that is just one example out of many that people have.

You're not that blind or naïve.

One look at the threads on other forums and you can already see people mentioning the different things that will need rebalancing and tweaking.

Quote from: Mistwell on September 28, 2021, 07:08:37 PM
On that one for the most part it did work OK that way for our group. We did mix materials for quite a number of years.

Yup, not Fully backward compatible. 3.0 was not an evergreen rules set. Just OK...

And so did the 2eAD&D guys with an edition that you said: "Same with 1e and 2e. They never made a claim you could play portions of both at the same table and have it work just fine... because it couldn't."

Yet Somehow they made it work... But they key word here is they had to do work.

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
This idea that everyone cares about optimization is, frankly, nonsense. Particularly from an OSR fan it's laughable. Yes, many people do not care about that level of balance in their game. If you do, cool.

Congratulations. You are "that group". The one who did X, used Y, played Z, and had "no issues whatsoever..."

You can always find the edge cases.

But for the most part in every edition change that touted "backwards compatibility", the majority of the games player base just moved on to the new hotness.

Why?

Because no matter what the edition, making older material work with the new hotness was always took some level of work.

People play RPGs for fun - not work.

Which is why the majority of fans almost always abandon the old and busted for the new hotness.


Which brings us back full circle...

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 06:14:46 PM
How is "backwards compatible" not evergreen?

Because even by your own admissions no edition of D&D ever was really Fully backwards compatible.

Not Fully backwards compatible. = Not Evergreen.

The changes coming to 50th 5.X D&D will make 5e a non-evergreen game by default.

Because 50th 5.X D&D will effectively be be a new edition.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 29, 2021, 12:14:03 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 29, 2021, 12:04:42 AMNow you're just nitpicking that it isn't exactly like superhero combat, which I did not claim.

Its not like it at all. And im not nitpicking. Im rejecting the idea completly.

Ok. And I stand by my comparison.

Quote from: Mistwell on September 28, 2021, 07:08:37 PM
I am playing a Twilight character alongside some PHB classes, and we're not having issues. So, not sure what your point is?

I just started a new game & allowed a Twilight Cleric, so I'd like to know too! I recall he has some kind of massive temp hp granting power.

Re 4e D&D, I love it and it does feel a lot like 'fantasy superheroes'. Partly in the dramatic (albeit often slow-mo) combat, eg the 'signature moves' that Just Work. But even moreso in how the characters feel out of combat, how they interact with the world. I definitely look to superhero films to inform 4e GMing and play, where for other editions I might think more of fantasy literature, or 1980s sword & sorcery films.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2021, 11:22:26 PM
The powers as a whole are generally unimpressive number fodder, and I would say the firepower characters from older editions of D&D way outclass what they had in 4e. If you wanted to become a bear in older D&D, your wizard just cast the spell and your that (alongside your long distance teleportation and army of zombies). If you want to be a bear in D&D 4e, you could only really do that as a druid (with a specific build) once per day for 15 minutes. And thats it. Any of that other stuff required expensive rituals with hard restrictions to not have any in-combat use.

I'd say that 4e PCs both feel like Superheroes, AND are more limited than PCs in other editions. A high level 3e Wizard is way beyond Superhero level.

Quote from: S'mon on September 29, 2021, 02:25:47 AM
I just started a new game & allowed a Twilight Cleric, so I'd like to know too! I recall he has some kind of massive temp hp granting power.
...

That's the jist.

A simple search and you can find why some consider it "OP" for the game...

But it is a complete side issue to my main point that WotC doesn't perfectly playtest everything in the splats.

It's literally just not possible.

Even if they just integrated the corrections and improvements done to various aspects of the game, that is a ton of little changes to integrate and balance. It would put the 50th "not-edition" 5.X game firmly into a 5.5 revision space.

And of course they have publicly stated that they are going to do a new round of 'surveys' to make the 50th "not-edition" even better...

Quote from: thedungeondelver on September 28, 2021, 11:03:07 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on September 28, 2021, 03:14:19 PM

You are not wrong, Hasbro is putting big $$$ behind making D&D a brand outside of the RPG.

Are they, though?

Where's the posters, the lunch-boxes, the flood of new video games, the multiple TV shows, an official Hasbro/D&D Youtube channel, clothes (and no, 80s tees and that one guy who makes incredibly overpriced junk jewelry don't count), placemats, branded cereal, etc.

I think they'd like it if D&D was a big brand but I don't see them pushing it outside the RPG, really, at all.  They, Papa Hasbro, are fine with letting WotC do all the heavy lifting.  And WotC can only lift so much, apparently.

Organic things like Stranger Things or D&D showing up in The Goldbergs is pleasant happenstance.  Script-writers and show runners are late 40s early 50s gen-xers who were nerds during the times those shows' plots are set in, not because WotC went out beating the bushes asking companies to feature their stuff in their shows.

WotC made Cartoon Network - a CBS/Viacom company! - change the name of an episode of Dexter's Lab from "D & Dee Dee" to "Sisters and Sorcery" because they felt it was "too close" to D&D, despite Genndy Tartakovsky saying it was a near-copy of a game of D&D he played with his friends, and wanted to honor it (to be fair though that episode is from the late 1990s...); but they just as easily could have left it alone and let that good will build up.

I know a lot of people (myself included) have grumbled about the reinvention of D&D as a Lifestyle Brand (I'm sorry - when people say "Lifestyle brand" all I can think of is that they're putting their product name on condoms...but I digress), and within the arena of gaming geeks who already know what D&D is that's been very true.

But to my eyes, there's been zero lateral movement, which is what you'd see if they were really "putting big $$$" behind making it a popular brand.

I have to agree with this.

If Hasbro was putting their shoulder into pushing D&D further mainstream we should be seeing a lot more, for lack of a better word, 'stuff'.

It should be like the gag in Spaceballs, where Yogurt is banging on about merchandising. Or if you prefer a real-world comparison, remember how big Star Wars was? Hell, I had Star Wars bedsheets as a kid, and a lunchbox.

Quote from: Shasarak on September 28, 2021, 11:33:50 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2021, 11:22:26 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 28, 2021, 10:56:05 PMIts pretty easy to explain the "Super-hero" problem of 4e if you come at it from the perspective of being a DnD player.

Have the same problems haunt the system over a period of 40 years but its only a problem some of the times when you feel like it? 

D&D as a whole is one of the last systems to even HAVE hit points (in the buckets of hit dice sort of way) because other games have phased it out. While the degree of padding has varied, D&D has always been a game where you scale to where bites from Bears suddenly don't really matter. Thats kinda the issue of tying hit points to level as a whole.

The powers as a whole are generally unimpressive number fodder, and I would say the firepower characters from older editions of D&D way outclass what they had in 4e. If you wanted to become a bear in older D&D, your wizard just cast the spell and your that (alongside your long distance teleportation and army of zombies). If you want to be a bear in D&D 4e, you could only really do that as a druid (with a specific build) once per day for 15 minutes. And thats it. Any of that other stuff required expensive rituals with hard restrictions to not have any in-combat use.

Everybody having 15 minute recharge 'spells' is a whole lot less impressive when all the spells do is some variant of damage, short duration, debuff, or short distance move. And if anything ever actually does anything else, then its a daily power that lasts for 15 minutes and can be used once per day. And everybody hits with nerf bats.

D&D 4e characters are less vulnerable then earlier editions, but reduced vulnerability =/= superheroics. And D&D vulnerability has always been lopsided and weird.

Usually the scale in DnD where bites from bears does not matter does not start at level 1 though.

Nor did it in 4E.

A starting PC has an AC of about 16-18, 24-30 hit points and has a +6-7 to hit w. a weapon that deals about 1d8+4 damage.

A basic bear in 4E is a level 5 Brute with AC 17 and 80 hit points (so about twenty attacks/10 hits needed for a 1st level party to kill it) and its claw attack is +10 to hit (so hits a PC on a 6-8+) and deals 2d8+7 damage (average 16 damage) and on its first turn it can attack twice and if either hits it grabs the target and gets a free bite attack at the start of its turn for another 1d8+5 damage (ave. 9.5). The bear gets to do it again when it drops to 40 hit points or less.

A first level PC in 4E is very likely dead from that opening attack from the bear.

* * *

The mistake that a lot of critics about 4E make is they only look at the raw numbers for the PCs and not the things they're actually facing.

A Goblin Cutthroat has 30 hit points and deals 1d6+5 per hit (8.5 average damage) or 2d6+5 (12 damage) if they have combat advantage, which since they can shift 15' for free every turn without triggering opportunity attacks is super easy to get if they have any numbers. Three hits with advantage will drop even the fighter with his 30 hit points (and without advantage it takes 4 hits).

A 1st level PC dying in 3 hits to a goblin? Sounds a lot like every edition of D&D ever.

How about an Orc? They're at least level 3; the representative example is the Battletested Orc; 50 hit points, AC 19, and deals 1d10+5 damage (10.5 average) or 1d10+10 (15.5) on a charge, and gets a free swing on you before it dies if you kill it.

* * *

And PC's don't have nearly the hit point inflation of the other WotC editions because they get a static value per level that is unaffected by your Constitution score.

At level 1 a 4E fighter with an 14 Con has 29 hp while a 5e fighter w. 14 Con has 12 hp.

At level 10 the 4E fighter has 83 hp. The 5e, presuming they didn't use any ASI on Con has 84 hp using their flat gain instead of rolling.

At level 20 the 4E fighter has 144 hp, while a 5e fighter who never improved their Con has 164 hp.

A 5e Fighter who maxed their Con (pretty easy with the extra ASIs) could have 224 hp at level 20.

A 4E Fighter has, at most, starting with an 18 Con, improving it at every possible opportunity and using feats 229 hp... at level THIRTY... ten levels after the 5e Fighter.

4E's healing surges also function as a CAP on healing per day, not an augment. Every time the cleric heals a PC, the PC has to burn one of the surges to have the healing take effect. If they run out, then they can't recover any more hit points no matter how many healing words you use on the PC.

5e's Hit Dice and the Fighter's second wind are bonus hit points on top of any magical healing the cleric delivers, which the cleric can do to the limits of the spell capacity on a single PC if they desire.

* * * *

I don't mind legitimate criticism of 4E; there's plenty you can level (if there weren't they system I've been working on would still look like a 4E retroclone and not its own thing entirely)... but its really annoying when people level made-up shit about 4E it in order to deride it.

Quote from: Shasarak on September 28, 2021, 10:56:05 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2021, 09:53:27 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2021, 02:01:34 PMWhile in previous editions, combat was about co-ordinating efforts to succeed, 4e really turned this up to an "11", with abilities that synergize to produce an effect greater than the sum of it's parts. Area of Effect attacks and abilites that buff allies and weaken opponenets, pushing enemies around the battlefield. It felt very much like a fight scene from X-Men or Fantastic Four, where the superheroes riff off of each other's abilities.

.....I have never felt that was what described Superhero combat. I wouldn't use that to describe Superhero comics, or TV shows or movies. Thats possibly one of the LEAST accurate ways I have ever heard superhero combat described.
I mean there is the one token gag in each film where the tough guy chucks one guy at another but thats about it.
If there is one word that DOESN'T describe Superhero combat, its 'Tactical'.

Superhero combat ranges wildly depending on power level, but the rule of thumb (for the iconic better examples) is improvisational, highly mobile, and contextual.

A few weak-ass minor push abilities and some buffs/debuffs (that are not all spells, which D&D had always had bucketloads of from the very start and practically invented the idea of buffing/ debuffing enemies/allies), and thats whats described as Superhero combat? A genre where characters rarely buff/heal/debuff (unless you count a net as a debuff).

Videogamey, self-involved, padded, ridgid, grindy - those are insult style adjectives you could throw at 4e combat, but SUPERHERO? Thats a deep insult to Superheroic combat!

My personal insult is 'Bumper-Cars'. There is pushing and shoving, but its all very padded. The experience is very restrictive compared to driving a real car and feeling real momentum.

Its pretty easy to explain the "Super-hero" problem of 4e if you come at it from the perspective of being a DnD player.  Everyone gets spells that recharge over the space of 5 minutes together with a but load of HP and fighting monsters that hit like a Nerf bat.

Frankly a 4e character just feels super heroic in comparison to a DnD character.

From the perspective of a super hero player then yeah the comparison seems illogical.

Also, the characters already start as "Heroes" (and not simply in a narrative way) only to became "Paragons" on the 11th level and "Epic" on the 21st. Basically, the party started as THE AVENGERS and grew from there.