Dwarves are gay bakers now in d&d
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (74)
sorted by:
When did D&D start hating the people who play it? I know they have crapped on Gigax’s legacy
Some time around 4th edition as far as I can tell. 3rd edition was still crunchy enough to keep the filthy unwashed masses at bay, but 4th edition marks a clear delineation where it became simple enough to be infiltrated(or rather that was probably a result of the infiltration).
It sounds like you never played 4e. Like most cultural institutions, WotC didn't lean hard into faggotry until the 2010s, well after 4e's dev was finished.
4e was pretty unpopular. The infiltrators pretty categorically target wildly popular brands.
4e wasn't simple. Unlike 3.5e, it was just organized.
4e solved some issues, and it created had some issues of its own. In particular, here’s what comes to mind for me:
It increased the base hit points, which solved the issue of low-level characters dying to one unlucky damage roll, but created the issue of making everything feel stickier. If I have to hit every goblin two or three times before it’s even “bloodied,” combat gets slower, and characters feel less heroic if even the most basic enemies can consistently tank multiple hits.
It introduced a system of “daily” and “encounter” powers for everyone. This reduced the issue of spellcasters eclipsing martial classes at high levels, but it created the issue of spellcasters and martial classes feeling similar. Forget spell slots and such, now everyone has the exact same number of special powers in play, and all classes can debuff or hit multiple enemies or move people around or whatever.
This guy gets it.
Again, sounds like you didn't play it. 1 HP minions were a defining feature.
I won't disagree with your assessment on the action economy, but the big picture is that 4e was a tactics game, unlike basically anything since OD&D. It basically defined the genre of 'combat-as-sport.' So, yeah, fighters had "slots" and that looks weird from an AD&D perspective. But within that framework, roles were actually mechanically enforced. No one could AoE like a wizard. No one could tank like a fighter. You could piece together a build to have a couple "out of role" powers and serve as an off-tank or a high damage fighter or whatever, but the classic classes always did better in their niches.
Wasn’t this a broken thing on release which they errata/patched down?
A good game, a bad Dungeons and Dragons
Not a lot, but enough to glean that 4th edition streamlined a lot of stuff and took out some of the crunch. Or at least that was the impression I got from my brief foray into it.
4th Ed was shit.
It was a tactics game that was optimized to deliver a computer game experience on a table with miniatures and terrain.
It was fucking broken out of the gates. I had a party of very experienced players run optimized characters with carefully planned builds. We were routinely taking on encounters that were +3 or +4 above our Challenge Rating.
The DM was just about ready to cheat, because we could steamroll anything that wasn't an engineered TPK; by level 4!
There wasn't any "role playing", there is no other mechanic for getting XP other than killing things and taking their stuff, and the game was a shitty TT War Game dressed up pretty to sell extra accessories.
Pathfinder was launched specifically because 4th Ed was so shit.
4e didn't have the sprawling build-crafting that 3.5e made its name on (and 5e returned to) but it was a miniature tactics game. Agree to disagree, but I don't see how a game where you only control one unit could get much crunchier than 4e.