Let's consult our dear friend Ctrl+F. Lokaire said in that thread you linked:

QuoteHere is what the 4E play style is to me: The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

So there is a fighter hitting a toe and an Eladrin doing the teleport. Those do not appear to be the same individual. Even if it were an Eladrin Fighter, they would do the teleporting because of Eladrinity.

I prefer 2e and make good use of everything prior. I'm pretty sure I would enjoy playing 4e but running it wasn't my favorite experience (although I did like the way monsters were presented).

I believe 4e would have been more successful if WotC had marketed it as a spin-off game. Call it D&D Tactics or something, produced more Dungeon Delve-type accessories, made minis and Dungeon Tiles/maps more accessible, embracing the board gamey-ness of it instead of trying to shoehorn it into a mold that it wasn't a very good fit for. I think it could have had a much longer lifecycle alongside a more traditional D&D experience instead of trying to replace it.

Also it's nice to be able to say this without fear of some asshole infracting me for it.

Quote from: 1of3;683319Let's consult our dear friend Ctrl+F. Lokaire said in that thread you linked:



So there is a fighter hitting a toe and an Eladrin doing the teleport. Those do not appear to be the same individual. Even if it were an Eladrin Fighter, they would do the teleporting because of Eladrinity.

I don't think Sac would know that the race 'Eladrin' can use a minor teleport ability (regardless of class), so he probably confused the race with a class power at some point.

I said earlier I suspected Sac's mistake was related to him not understanding everything he was reading because he isn't familiar with the 4e rules.  That was one way I've offered him a face-saving way out.  For some bizarre reason he's opted to double-down on his mistake.  All he had to do was make a brief snarky comment along the lines of, "OK fine, I don't know what that shitty game's nonsensical rules all do, so if I mistook a teleporting twinkly-elf power for a fighter power, fine, my bad.  It's still a stupid game with stupid rules, so there".  And it all would have ended there.  But no...he had to push his chips all-in on an obvious bluff.

Quote from: Raven;683320I prefer 2e and make good use of everything prior. I'm pretty sure I would enjoy playing 4e but running it wasn't my favorite experience (although I did like the way monsters were presented).

I believe 4e would have been more successful if WotC had marketed it as a spin-off game. Call it D&D Tactics or something, produced more Dungeon Delve-type accessories, made minis and Dungeon Tiles/maps more accessible, embracing the board gamey-ness of it instead of trying to shoehorn it into a mold that it wasn't a very good fit for. I think it could have had a much longer lifecycle alongside a more traditional D&D experience instead of trying to replace it.

Also it's nice to be able to say this without fear of some asshole infracting me for it.

The boardgames are pretty gangster. It's like the purest distillation of 4e.

Quote from: JonWake;683327The boardgames are pretty gangster. It's like the purest distillation of 4e.

Haven't kept up with them much but Castle Ravenloft looks pretty sweet.

QuoteHere is what the 4E play style is to me: The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

That's one hell of a sloppy blowjob he just gave 4e.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;683342That's one hell of a sloppy blowjob he just gave 4e.

Actually, that's the most damning indictment of 4E that I've read. There's nothing in that summary that appeals to me in the slightest.

QuoteHere is what the 4E play style is to me: The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

Quote from: JonWake;683327The boardgames are pretty gangster. It's like the purest distillation of 4e.

I actually enjoy the boardgames a lot. Despite sharing a common vocabulary with 4E, though, the game play is basically completely different. (Which I found surprising, actually. I was expecting a stripped down version of 4E's tactical combat when I bought the games.)

Quote from: soviet;683212I can respect people coming from the TSR edition perspective saying that 3e and 4e are 'not D&D'. But anyone coming from the 3e perspective who says that 4e (only) is 'not D&D' is wrong. 4e is just 3e done right, and almost all of the criticisms applied to 4e are equally as valid against 3e.

I was going to write a lengthy reply to this, but then I realized that there's a level of either stupid or trolling at work here that I'm simply unwilling to engage with.

OTOH, you're debating with Sacrosanct... who also appears to be either trolling the thread by lying about what people said in a different thread on a different board or simply too stupid to realize that he's quoting one thing and then claiming that it says something completely different from what it actually does.

4e is not 3e "done right."  4e stripped out all the good parts of 3e and left the bad.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683306Me:  These people are saying this
You:  You made this claim
Me: No I didn't.  The very first post is me saying the others made that claim.  I don't know enough about 4e to make such a claim
Library lass:  Find one spell that replicates this 4e power
Me: Ok.  How about these.l

None of those spells have the same effect-- fuck, most of them don't even exist in 4e. I'm pretty sure Charm Person is the only one that does, in fact. Now if they did, could they have the same result-- that an unwilling target is moved closer to the fighter? Yes, but in different ways or for different reasons. It's no more the same than Finger of Death is the same as a poisoned arrow. Argue like you mean it.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683289Show me a spell that does what Come and Get it does. Show me even one.

AD&D 2e wizard spell Taunt.

You're welcome.

Quote from: Opaopajr;683381AD&D 2e wizard spell Taunt.

You're welcome.

Okay. I meant, like, a 4e spell, but I'll admit you got me there.

Mommy and daddy, stop fighting! Waahhh! *stamps out of the room*


Won't someone think of the chi'rren?

Quote from: LibraryLass;683382Okay. I meant, like, a 4e spell, but I'll admit you got me there.

That is a bit of a goalpost move, isn't it? We are talking about a shared D&D corpus here, right? Or is it really a separate game unto itself? We must pick one.