both versions have an equivalent "come at me bro" for barbarians
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo-rage-powers/come-and-get-me-ex/
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=169
the movement is a little different but Antagonize is a popular feat that does the same and can be combo'd with other stuff
https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Antagonize
The Pathfinder martial classes that can do a bunch of things besides attacking and take advantage of shit like this, like Barbarian with rage powers, Bloodrager, or Brawler whose whole thing is flexing different situational feats were all popular in 1e especially with experienced players. Brawler and other archetypes with their main feature especially, since you could get to use all those hundreds of feats you might never have the chance to in normal games all on a single character
>https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=169
god this is so bad
Barb already suffers from having terrible AC, and you just let people crit all over you for a chance to do a single attack out of turn
PF2e is truly the bottom of the barrel. Idiots aren't mad about PF2 martial powers mostly because they are either shit like this or at best a slight upgrade to "I hit them". Exceptions like Sudden Leap are so rare, it hurts.
If you want the mechanically best "punch me in the face, I dare you" option it's definitely broken wing gambit.
https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Broken%20Wing%20Gambit
Teamwork Feats are high investment for high payoff, although they're super good on inquisitors or other classes who can either share them automatically or benefit even when allies lack them.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Broken%20Wing%20Gambit
This is almost good. If it lost the "from the allies who HAVE THIS FEAT", it'd be actually good. Or, well, yes, good on characters who get to ignore that clause.
See, this is the problem with 3.x feats - they're so fucking low-balled power-wise, despite the fact that you get only ten over 20 levels, slightly more if you play a martial. And, of course, fuckers printed stuff like Divine Metamagic or Sacred Geometry, but martial feats are trash that needs several investments just to start working properly. If feats were objectively balanced, they'd be more powerful than most or all spells attainable at similar levels, with, say, TWF including its' whole feat chain to GTWF, plus TW Defense, plus the rend thingy, etc, turning on as you reach proper BAB thresholds.
the martial abilities in pathfinder (both 1 and 2) are still things that make somewhat sense, not "you compel people to walk towards you by swinging your weapon" levels of retardation
These morons only ever skimmed the rulebook, saw that all classes get AEDU powers and since then whine: "All classes are the same!"
That's literally it.
4e martial powers doesn't. 4e power structure does. Because it's shit and gay, fit for board games, not roleplaying, and breaks any conceivable immersion and verisimilitude.
There's your honest and true answer.
You may now fuck off with your bait in tow.
You've never touched it so you don't know enough to have an informed opinion and in turn should shut the fuck up.
I have played it. I don't anymore, beucase I didn't like it. But I gave it a chance and formed my own opinions based on my experience. You, however, regurgitate the same baseless complaints everyone whose eaten the shit twinkie meme repeats, most of which are not based in any reality.
So, I again say. You are sad sick parody of a man.
Wrong. And have fun being wrong forever, retard.
The only one mad about a game they don't play here appears to be (you).
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Your inability to accept being told you don't know enough to have an opinion is the only proof I need that you are a gamelet axewound who found its way here from reddit during the election.
Play more games, stop being a bitch.
The roleplaying rules for dnd are literally just roll a d20 + add persuasion. such a big deal it was removed, huh. can't roleplay without them since you're too autistic
There's a load of fiddly simulationist stuff in 3.x not present in 4e to cover a FAR wider range of non-combat efforts that have historically been treated as part of the "RP layer". 4e's skill challenges are high-workload low-payoff "mother-may-I" with much worse mechanical clunk than 3.x's way of handling world interaction, while the gutting of spellcasting removes the impact of having a clever lore-hunting Wizard because you don't have the piles of weirdly situational or tangentially applicable magic to wave away all sorts of low time pressure annoyances in a way that really sells the character is a Wizard.
Ultimately, people LIKED the low amount of permissions in 3.x, because it means their characters have a solid range of things "They Can Just Do". Oh sure, the applicable breadth on anything not a full spellcaster is pathetic compared to, say, Mutants and Masterminds, but it being there at all did quite wonderous things for verisimilitude.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>but it being there at all did quite wonderous things for verisimilitude.
Not really. Most of the time it straight up ruined it by being retarded.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The retardation is mostly non-trivial comparisons to real cases and the variability induced by the d20+modifier resolution setup. As mentioned, the applicable breadth is pathetic for anything not a full spellcaster because of skills being so scattered and points so scarce, but in passing the designers' sniff test it passes it for enormous swaths of the general population, let alone the active counterindicatives of the playerbase.
Unless you're obsessing over Diplomacy and friends being batshit. Those are rather clear indicators that the skill system's "It Just Works" does NOT belong anywhere near social interaction.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't really care how many people it passed the smell test for. It didn't pass mine in 2000 because I had played games with much better skill systems by the time 3.0 came out and it isn't passing mine now. Doing better than 5E is not an accomplishment.
The strategic dynamics are radically different because of the extra party role and Defenders working on incentives regarding Marks and positioning rather than a hard threat mechanic, alongside the resource scheme differences. It's a harshly gamist D&D derivative designed for easy digitization, not "backporting" existing vidya philosophies to tabletop.
gay that's literally a per encounter power while should be a a baseline incite/deceive action, of course people think it's shit.
Actively forcing enemies to approach you is a bit out-there for a baseline action, anon, as that's a level of fidelity that invites decision-paralysis-inducing reams of conditional choices, which is NOT how you structure combat rules.
>why the fuck is that an encounter power for level 7
It's a burst 3 that pulls and damages every enemy near the fighter. It's pretty comparable to other level 7 powers that do similar things. Its a good mook killer and perfect for setting up a wizards fireball or other AoE powers.
An Avenger has a similar encounter power at level 7 but it pushes instead of pulls, and is Wisdom vs Will.
[...] >are still things that make somewhat sense, not "you compel people to walk towards you by swinging your weapon"
It makes perfect sense if you don't think of these attacks as simulating reality, but as narrative actions. Its a Strength vs Will attack, Will governs the mind, and as the fighter is cajoling and insulting the enemy to come kill him, the attack makes sense. Pulling is merely a mechanical game term for moving enemies closer, whether by magic, martial maneuvers, or simply a well-placed insult that compels them to get closer and attack you.
[...] >Why do 4e martial powers enrage people so much?
Because a lot of autists got very upset that the game moved from "simulating" reality to a more narrative structure. This is made quite clear in martial powers, where a lot of the stink towards the game resides, as they tend to be the examples constantly pulled out to show how ridiculous, and thus bad, the game is. The move from natural language description to more game mechanical description and clearly delineating what is mechanics vs what is lore also annoyed the power gaming munchkin autist types who liked to break the game by exploiting the inherent vagueness of natural language.
Essentially, it pissed off the two largest contingents of vocal shitposters for 3e style D&D, resulting in forever flame wars whenever 4e is brought up.
>It makes perfect sense if you don't think of these attacks as simulating reality, but as narrative actions.
So in other words, it doesn't make sense if you look at it as happening with in-universe causation like most passes the "sniff test" for in all editions before and since. That's the underlying complaint to 4e, sacrificing all the bits of verisimilitude the game's history built up on the alter of hard game balance instead of threading the needle to manage both.
And you're still operating under the assumption that the system cares about emulating or "simulating" reality when its about narrative. Cha vs will as the only form of way to change minds is a simulationist perspective not found in 4e. Instead, all that matters is that if you want to affect a creature's mind, you target their Will defense.
The narrative is in-universe, while the mechanics are quite comprehensively not. The causation MATTERS for role-play, and 4e habitually wipes its ass with that, with this being an excellent example.
ok
the fighter is assumed to have been studying whatever new trick in the background
There's not an internal logic for it being 1/day like a wizard's spells, it is just for game balance. If it used some kind of stamina system it'd be fine, but it doesn't so it isn't.
Swordsage was good too, just for a different flavor of martial, which is to say that it is best for representing the kind of magic-swordsman-but-not-quite-gish kind of thing
Swordsage stuff was martial too. Stepping through shadows and swinging a blade to send out a flame wave are hardly something only spells should be able to do.
Until you get into the weeds with huge combo chains and action points, ToB maneuvers were on the whole higher impact than 4E powers and 3E is much more rocket taggy than 4E to begin with so you feel the impact of maneuvers more. Taking my friend's warblade for an example, sey could add 3d6 onto an attack to do 5d6+6 at level 3, which is around 85% of the HP of an equal CR enemy. It is way harder to do that in 4E.
It's more of an indictment of that anon having no clue.
You don't need ToB to one-shot enemies, arguably you can do better without. The best ToB stuff is action related, then defense related. Damage is on the bottom.
Most monsters after CR5 have a way or three to make the one-shotting difficult or impossible unless the whole party helps.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You don't need ToB to one-shot enemies
Nobody said you needed ToB to do that. ToB was being compared to 4E. Stop shitting on other people for arguments you invented in your head.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You can one-round enemies without ToB, but you do it without style, just by throwing a full attack at them. A PHB TWF Rogue can one-round most same-CR enemies that aren't immune to sneak attacks (and with splats, most of those too).
Meanwhile ToB allows you to do one-round damage, but doesn't necessarily require you to full attack for this, improving your action economy and mobility, and often throws extra utility into the mix, too. And once you get to ToB 2.0, or as it's better known, PoW, it gets even wilder.
Looks more like a wizard spell. That should be an option anyone can do just by roleplaying really well. What's with all the 'Magic The Gathering' type abilities creeping into every fucking game nowadays?
The point was that the game had turned into a monster killing game instead of a dungeon raiding and loot stealing one. If you spend all of your time fighting, then it makes sense that the game is tailored around providing codified, tactical options.
>That should be an option anyone can do just by roleplaying really well.
Without this ability: >taunt the enemy >he approaches you on his turn, and you get to attack him on your turn
With the ability: >the taunt, approach, and attack are all combined into a single action
I'm sympathetic to that general line of critique but I don't think it applies here. Anybody can taunt/bait an enemy, it's just more effective if you have and use this ability.
You're missing the point. Without the ability, it becomes a mother may I situation. There's a world of difference between simply being able to do something and having to depend on the whims of the DM to fulfill your baseline function as a beefy frontline fighter.
>Luting your opponent to feint and attack is a power
It doesn't enrage me, i just find it retarded. I do get that though, it makes perfect sense within the scope of a skirmish game but i like my ttrpg to have either the granularity or the flexibility to accommodate something as bland as that with the baseline combat mechanics.
For some reason people are okay with literally hundreds of different spells, psionic powers, and spell-like abilities with different inconsistent systems and rules but once you codify a singular format and get everyone playing the same fucking game and using the same framework it just utterly booty devastates a certain group of people.
Despite the pages and pages of arguments about how linear fighters and quadratic casters were a fucking problem and how wizards and clerics did everything a fighter could do better and how full attack at level 20 was mathematically demonstrable to show fighters became more incompetent at fighting because they were even more likely to miss or critically miss than they were at level 1 . . . somehow the solution was not to allow martials to play the same fucking game it was to stay the course with the same broken pile of shit that'd ruled the industry . . . see the rise of Pathfinder. Pathfinder directly rose to its position by marketing itself as the anti-4e and the stunning and brave successor of 3.5. They literally had the tagline "3.5 dies? 3.5 thrives!" and promoted themselves a fixing all of the problems of 3.5 while being completely backwards compatible with all of your books.
And anyone who's halfway honest knows they genuinely fucking did not even come fucking close.
At that point why don't you just do freeform or storygame since what you want is to play Mother May I?
>with different inconsistent systems and rules
The bit you're failing to realize is that we LIKE this, because it means Magic A and Magic B are distinguished in gameplay. That which is not magic is thus "tied down" to the base rules that define normality. 4e VIGOROUSLY refuses such efforts at verisimilitude, and OneD&D is returning to it with the removal of Pact Magic as its own "thing".
>somehow the solution was not to allow martials to play the same fucking game
That's not 4e's answer, either, it's viciously beating the full spellcasters upside the head until the brain damage drags them down to about the ToB level, which as anyone familiar with it will tell you also didn't SOLVE the issue, just made it a bit less annoying.
>That's not 4e's answer, either, it's viciously beating the full spellcasters upside the head until the brain damage drags them down to about the ToB level,
Fucking good.
Speelcasters are fucked to have around as a DM with all the bullshit they get to pull.
Number tweaks don't work because it's always been about qualitative breadth. Instead of giving the Fighter "Cool Things" with tangential applications or a general framework for doing "Cool Things" without magic that's worth focusing on, people have quite consistently resolved the utility gap by crippling casters FAR more than necessary because "The Guy At The Gym" fallacy is apparently an ironclad law.
So it's just not a balance issue, the problem is fighters not having many combat options. Many games have solved this issue without introducing goofy feats and even more ridiculous list of derivative algorithmically-generated "powers" like 4E.
Fighters are fine if boring in combat. Their problem is that's the only thing they can do. Casters totally trivialize anything outside of combat.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
your moms pussy trivializes anything outside of combat because ABSOLUTELY EVERY TABLE AND EVERY CAMPAIGN ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES spells BY THE NATURE OF GAME DESIGN to solve and there's no creative solutions to be done.
oh wait, if everyone fucks your mom's pussy, that's also fucking boring
>So it's just not a balance issue, the problem is fighters not having many combat options.
Wrong, it IS a balance problem for the actual point of the game as a collaborative storytelling toolbox, and it's the Fighters ONLY combat options as far as "worth comparing to spells" goes.
>Many games have solved this issue without introducing goofy feats and even more ridiculous list of derivative algorithmically-generated "powers" like 4E.
As mentioned, 4e didn't do that, it did it by crippling the casters down into this framework from the accretion of literally thousands of discrete "It Just Works" buttons they had in 3.x.
Fighters are fine if boring in combat. Their problem is that's the only thing they can do. Casters totally trivialize anything outside of combat.
Eh, not EVERYTHING due to slot constraints and inefficient cases, unless you go full TO-whiteroom ideal. The issue is that it's such a large portion that combat's just not an issue.
>At that point why don't you just do freeform or storygame since what you want is to play Mother May I?
Mother May I is a D&D feature. PbtA games are improv-inspired, so the options are "yes, and..." or "no, but...".
Because it's meant to be a 1/day class ability or feat! It's meant to be a skill trick! I don't like information being presented in a consistent manner that's easy to read because it makes me angry and scared!
What part of my post was praising 2e? I do find shit also per day powers. Also i was pointed specifically to the triviality of the action in question that makes it risible as a 7th level per encounter power.
>why the fuck is that an encounter power for level 7
It's a burst 3 that pulls and damages every enemy near the fighter. It's pretty comparable to other level 7 powers that do similar things. Its a good mook killer and perfect for setting up a wizards fireball or other AoE powers.
An Avenger has a similar encounter power at level 7 but it pushes instead of pulls, and is Wisdom vs Will.
the martial abilities in pathfinder (both 1 and 2) are still things that make somewhat sense, not "you compel people to walk towards you by swinging your weapon" levels of retardation
>are still things that make somewhat sense, not "you compel people to walk towards you by swinging your weapon"
It makes perfect sense if you don't think of these attacks as simulating reality, but as narrative actions. Its a Strength vs Will attack, Will governs the mind, and as the fighter is cajoling and insulting the enemy to come kill him, the attack makes sense. Pulling is merely a mechanical game term for moving enemies closer, whether by magic, martial maneuvers, or simply a well-placed insult that compels them to get closer and attack you.
https://i.imgur.com/z8b1U9Q.png
Why do 4e martial powers enrage people so much?
>Why do 4e martial powers enrage people so much?
Because a lot of autists got very upset that the game moved from "simulating" reality to a more narrative structure. This is made quite clear in martial powers, where a lot of the stink towards the game resides, as they tend to be the examples constantly pulled out to show how ridiculous, and thus bad, the game is. The move from natural language description to more game mechanical description and clearly delineating what is mechanics vs what is lore also annoyed the power gaming munchkin autist types who liked to break the game by exploiting the inherent vagueness of natural language.
Essentially, it pissed off the two largest contingents of vocal shitposters for 3e style D&D, resulting in forever flame wars whenever 4e is brought up.
Not if its a class power and involves dealing damage like the OP power does, and 4e doesn't care about sticking to specific abilities for specific actions. If it targets the mind its a Will defense roll, and thats all that matters. You can have Con vs Will, Cha vs Will (sorcerer and warlock powers do this), Dex vs Will (I know there is at least one rogue power that does this), Int vs Will (wizards lol), and Wisdom vs WIll (aforementioned Avenger)
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Magic powers are magic. They can use any stat.
You're doing this with STR even against a guy who literally can't move.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
And you're still operating under the assumption that the system cares about emulating or "simulating" reality when its about narrative. Cha vs will as the only form of way to change minds is a simulationist perspective not found in 4e. Instead, all that matters is that if you want to affect a creature's mind, you target their Will defense.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why not let fighters do anything with STR then?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
They can. Their powers use Str for everything.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why not let fighters do anything with STR then?
They can. Their powers use Str for everything.
Attacking with STR is already inherently unrealistic, to be fair. Strength doesn't put your sword through the other guy's visor or the dragon's soft underbelly, finesse does. Maybe if you're using a poleaxe against a knight, sure, it's STR, but any slashing or thrusting weapon should use a different stat.
As this is all a consequence of AC being the only defense mundane attacks can ever target in non-4e D&D, 4e manages to be slightly more realistic in a regard due to many attacks going against Fortitude or Reflex specifically.
Now, we must assume that in D&D-world great strength also represents some level of innate martial prowess, as WS is folded into STR. Feinting, making a false attack, or leaving a deliberate opening to counter in stesso tempo is definitely more in the realm of martial prowess (the pictured power) than actually lying to someone (Bluff check), and therefore STR makes sense as your attack ability.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>you're still operating under the assumption that the system cares about emulating or "simulating" reality when its about narrative. >all that matters is that if you want to affect a creature's mind, you target their Will defense.
Why try to have it both ways?
If strength can be used to taunt people, why can't you resist mind effects with other stats?
>It's a burst 3 that pulls and damages every enemy near the fighter. It's pretty comparable to other level 7 powers that do similar things. Its a good mook killer and perfect for setting up a wizards fireball or other AoE powers. >An Avenger has a similar encounter power at level 7 but it pushes instead of pulls, and is Wisdom vs Will.
Ok yeah, it's a burst, that's fine then. If it were a single target thing, it'd be kinda bad.
>Its a Strength vs Will attack, Will governs the mind, and as the fighter is cajoling and insulting the enemy to come kill him, the attack makes sense
so why does it work on mindless creatures, things like automotons, or people who simply don't get angry over childish insults?
The description is obnoxious. Spinning typically is something children or idiots that have no idea how sword fights or fighting works think happens a lot in them. The only time you spin is to deal with an attack coming from behind or to reorient yourself. And, these are closer to pivots.
Entirely due to the game having consistent formatting.
If this ability were worded >Come and Get It >Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Base Attack Bonus +7. >Benefit: As a standard action, you may attempt to goad all enemies within 15 feet of you with a carefully chosen insult and a gesture that makes you appear vulnerable.
>Affected enemies must move to a space adjacent to you, as a free action and without provoking attacks of opportunity, by the most direct route possible, unless they succeed on a will save (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Str modifier). Each creature adjacent to you after its movement that failed its saving throw then takes damage as if you had struck it with a wielded weapon, including all modifiers, which cannot result in a critical hit.
>As this ability is show and obvious, you may only use it once every give minutes, as foes are unlikely to fall for such an obvious trick twice in a row.
>Special: A fighter may select Come and Get It as one of his fighter bonus feats.
people would be sucking its dick for how COOL and REALISTIC it is, despite being exactly the same.
You can use any skill to persuade people, as per Complete Adventurer; the Completes are some of the most commonly used 3.5 books. Therefore, STR-based goading has rules precedent.
>people would be sucking its dick for how COOL and REALISTIC it is
No. >mundane mind control effect >affects mindless creatures and creatures normally immune to compulsions >causes creatures to move off-turn (unlike Command, Suggestion, etc.) under their own power (unlike Bull Rush, similar forced movement) >justification for cooldown is nonsensical if a creature has not witnessed this feat (hence why PF1e uses "once affected, a creature is immune for 24 hours" for similar abilities) >AOE weapon damage without an attack roll is really weird, especially if some already adjacent creatures make their will save
THIS is why people say 4e has verisimilitude issues. The formatting is actually quite nice. The only thing I can't criticize is how both feat prerequisites have literally 0 synergy with this feat, seeing as they can't be used in the same round. That's spot on for 3.5 kek.
Personally I hated that it used those ugly-looking cards and weird presentation. The at-will/encounter/daily thing really broke from D&D tradition, I think "martial powers" would have gone over a lot better if it worked similar to a "spells per day" chart like Tome of Battle did.
Man, I did the hybrid bard-ardent. So much fun. So much teamwork. I worked hand-in-hand with the defender to mark a foe, use myself as bait to trigger the AoO which then triggered my defender's ability.
The concept is stupid if you're actually interested in game mechanics being somewhat related to the actual conceit of playing a role in a story. Ok, so you're telling me you're a wandering swordsman, and your experience in various crypts and ruins has taught you how to make something called a "dizzying blow" once per day. Huh?
Same reason a Wizard inherently knows how to cast a fireball when they reach the appropriate level. WOTC D&D doesn’t do training for level-up like AD&D and so the training is assumed to occur on the job.
It’s a game, if you cared about reality you would play GURPS
4e was fun and the encounter and daily powers felt nice to combo with other players. Lots of movement.
Shadow of the Demon Lord's battle "spells" tickle the same vein.
Yeah, straight up mind control like the fighter gets is much better.
Or the Rogue who walks past a bunch of enemies who immediately start committing suicide for no reason.
>Or the Rogue who walks past a bunch of enemies who immediately start committing suicide for no reason.
That's just bullshit. The Rogue walks past a bunch of people and seemingly opens themselves up for reprisal, but in fact it's a gambit and all the idiots who try to use the opportunity end up harming themselves. How is that bad?
Why u have no imagination or the capacity to read accompanying flavor text. Are you an npc anon?
I liked the designers narrative explanation for encounter and daily powers where these abilities are complex enough to perform that the opportunity to use them only comes up once in an encounter or day vs. at wills being a bread and butter way of fighting you can do in your sleep. It really aided narratively to think of something like OP as the fighter just created this opportunity and is utilizing it to taunt people in.
The strategic dynamics are radically different because of the extra party role and Defenders working on incentives regarding Marks and positioning rather than a hard threat mechanic, alongside the resource scheme differences. It's a harshly gamist D&D derivative designed for easy digitization, not "backporting" existing vidya philosophies to tabletop.
[...]
Actively forcing enemies to approach you is a bit out-there for a baseline action, anon, as that's a level of fidelity that invites decision-paralysis-inducing reams of conditional choices, which is NOT how you structure combat rules.
[...] >It makes perfect sense if you don't think of these attacks as simulating reality, but as narrative actions.
So in other words, it doesn't make sense if you look at it as happening with in-universe causation like most passes the "sniff test" for in all editions before and since. That's the underlying complaint to 4e, sacrificing all the bits of verisimilitude the game's history built up on the alter of hard game balance instead of threading the needle to manage both.
[...]
The narrative is in-universe, while the mechanics are quite comprehensively not. The causation MATTERS for role-play, and 4e habitually wipes its ass with that, with this being an excellent example.
[...]
There's not an internal logic for it being 1/day like a wizard's spells, it is just for game balance. If it used some kind of stamina system it'd be fine, but it doesn't so it isn't.
Nta you were replying to but i guess i have to explain a little better for them why the powers design is disliked:
4e powers are basically a situational snapshot of an action, basically you get the description of what happens but the HOW and WHY is left to the narrative description of the gm and players to fill the gap, the flavor text will give you an hint to kick the can but you have to figure out the rest by yourself. Good. Now a LOT of people DISLIKE this narrative approach because robs them of agency beyond selecting what "cool action sequence happens now", to them it reduces the immersion aspect of the ttrpg experience. That doesn't mean thought they cannot have fun playing this way but that just detracts from their engagement.
Look, I know that 4e gets a lot of flak for having disassociated mechanics and shit. I do get, for instance, why there's an issue you can have with that mass taunt power using STR for the taunt instead of CHA.
But that particular example with the Rogue is straight-up bullshit, as it makes perfect sense for it to work that way.
Because it would be bad since it would mean they have a decent enough chance to hit them, unless you did needlessly overdesigned stuff like "they attack vs AC+10" or something.
I liked the designers narrative explanation for encounter and daily powers where these abilities are complex enough to perform that the opportunity to use them only comes up once in an encounter or day vs. at wills being a bread and butter way of fighting you can do in your sleep. It really aided narratively to think of something like OP as the fighter just created this opportunity and is utilizing it to taunt people in.
What'd I tell you, suggest fighters be able to do something other than say "I attack" and some dude starts malding about it.
Next thing he will be whining about it being "too anime"
People truly can't get over the formatting. If shit was said to be X/day or X/long rest then they wouldn't be as mad. Or maybe they would because they are just retarded about Martials being able to do anything besides "I attack"
No, it's that there needs to be some in-universe causation for the Martial to do *thing* whereas spells are "black boxes" of the wholly unreal. If it can only be done once per day, there needs to be an actual constraint making it so, not arbitrary game design principals.
Because then it would suck and the rogue would die. This isn't 3.5, martials are allowed to be good.
"Martials are allowed to be good" =/= "total abandonment of verisimilitude for pure gamism". Importantly, they were fine in combat in 3.x right out of core. The problem that returned in 5e is that they had fuck-all to do outside of combat. 4e solved the actual problem by gutting spellcasting like a fish flat-packing everyone into AEDU.
>pull >2 squares >1[W] damage
The REAL problem is all the video game sounding shit.
Gamist =/= vidya, it's a tactical combat boardgame grown from 3.x, not an attempt at backporting MMO logic.
Here we go. Martial healing.
To be fair, "better at motivating than the target can self-hype" is a fine use of HP being a fuzzy compilation instead of "just" meat.
>Importantly, they were fine in combat in 3.x right out of core.
Depends on the level. There's a point where they stop being able to keep up at all because combat has changed to be about flinging around spells/SLAs that end fights or limit enemy actions. There's not much level 20 martials can do against some enemies without the right items.
>There's a point where they stop being able to keep up at all because combat has changed to be about flinging around spells/SLAs that end fights or limit enemy actions.
No, charging damage remains a huge chunk of HP that makes it vastly more time and slot efficient to just hand the resident martial whatever sub-4th-spell-level permission they need to apply it.
I've always viewed combat as an abstraction. What do hitpoints even mean? So, combat is happening, and your attack rolls are times during the exchange where you might actually bypass their defenses and do some harm. In DnD, each round is six seconds. You don't really think a novice fighter can only swing his long sword *once* at an during that time, do you?
And yes, player agency is taken away at times, because violence is the removal or cessation of agency from another person. Shit happens that is beyond our control, that we might be placed under unfavorable circumstances.
>I've always viewed combat as an abstraction >Except for when the game says you make a single attack. That shit is ironclad and its impossible to re-flavor an attack as hitting multiple times without changing any numbers.
Honestly, this is pretty good. Not a fan of it being a daily, though.
Stuns you.
This is fine, not sure why it's so high level, I think there are Stone Dragon moves that do this like 6 levels earlier.
Come and Get It, except better.
Level 23. At this point it should probably do...more. Not more damage, but just more than "Come and Get It, but more damage and encounter instead of daily".
See, this is something I'd expect to have by like level 11 at the latest. Just not impressive enough compared to stuff ToB gets up to, for instance, or especially Path of War.
Like, I appreciate 4e for making Fighters not suck, but it's just nearly not as crazy as it could be.
>Path of War was broken if you used it to optimize damage.
Well, don't. It does enough damage on its' own without optimization. To be honest, a lot of things in 3.x break damage, like PHB Rogue with a decent TWF setup.
Good ol'e >A 4e fighter hits you with his weapon >A 4e warlord hits you with his fighter
I'll also say, that if you didn't play 4e and don't know how complex your abilities/feats and their interactions can get, you can't really make an accurate evaluation of power by looking at individual abilities in a vacuum.
>I'll also say, that if you didn't play 4e and don't know how complex your abilities/feats and their interactions can get, you can't really make an accurate evaluation of power by looking at individual abilities in a vacuum.
The thing is less power and more style, 4e doesn't do really over-the-top stuff often enough.
We all do, man.
And let's not get into how the best d&d comic ever was based on 4e and featured a warlord, so it's just never ever going to get revived, and we'll never see the Fell's Five as river pirates.
Heavy templating signals to players "break this wide open." They undermine Rule Zero by emulating board games and card games where there is no Rule Zero. For example, this power alone invites the following weird applications: >telekinetically pulling in objects and immobilized creatures >telepathically communicating with creatures you can see but who can't see you >transforming ranged attackers into idiots >forcing enemies to walk into suicidal terrain, as long as it isn't a pit >using it during a chase scene to transform a fleeing creature into an idiot >using it out of combat to make someone come closer with no questions asked, or to make it look like they tried to hit you first and you were just defending yourself >They forgot to specify that it's a melee weapon attack, so you can do it with a bow just as effectively
Let me break down why every single point you make is clearly wrong.
>telekinetically pulling in objects and immobilized creatures
Each ENEMY, objects aren't enemies. >telepathically communicating with creatures you can see but who can't see you
Like with invisibility which is something Fighters can't do normally? Yeah it can be a bit weird, but also not unreasonable to make the sound of a wounded combatant that enemies might try to gang up on. >transforming ranged attackers into idiots
The power is Close Burst 3, meaning they were already within 15 feet of you. And yes the whole point of the power is to bait enemies into doing something foolish. If you fail the attack roll they aren't baited. >forcing enemies to walk into suicidal terrain, as long as it isn't a pit
Forced movement doesn't work quite like that in 4e. >using it during a chase scene to transform a fleeing creature into an idiot >using it out of combat to make someone come closer with no questions asked, or to make it look like they tried to hit you first and you were just defending yourself
If you're using this in not a fight, you are clearly using it to start a fight. And in the chase example, the whole point is the power is you making yourself seem like an easy target. Also if the chase has you starting so close to someone that you can use this power it is a bad chase. And typically in Skill Challenges which is what chases are, powers like this aren't something you use. >They forgot to specify that it's a melee weapon attack, so you can do it with a bow just as effectively
What is the problem with using it with a bow? Baiting enemies in before stabbing them with an arrow or something too weird for you? It still uses strength.
If I can close the last 15 feet of distance in a chase by forcing them to walk right toward me, why wouldn't I? For that matter, if I can move faster when the warlord is yelling at me, why shouldn't that also work in a chase? The real answer is because 4e is a theme park, and combat and skill challenges are separate rides. Fuck 4e, I'm glad their virtual tabletop exploded when just one guy killed himself. Serves them right for having a project with a bus factor of one.
If you can close the gap with 15 feet you can just charge the guy. And also yes, the attack is to make enemies do something foolish. What is the problem with it?
>How is the game that cut the roleplaying rules from the previous game worse at roleplaying?
I sure do miss 4th edition. Had some great times with my friends. It was a real shame when DnD died. Though I suppose it's nice for people that like watching shows on Twitch and Youtube.
Brain dead dnd players would rather just say “I swing my axe” then fuck around on their phone for 15mins while the wizards have their turn
4e was too kino for dnd
No edition, not even BECMI, is like that. 4e melee is arguably the weakest because in 3e even a fighter can kill 4 enemies at once while 4e needs an immersion breaking mechanic (minions) to simulate that, and in the player's mind will never, EVER be the same.
This is one of the many reasons it failed.
And one of the many reasons 4rries are just retards.
Just immediately ending your first turn without doing anything is better.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Can't aliums still blast you on their first turn (if they happen to be in the arc of visibility from the ramp)?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Technically yes, but it rarely comes up due to the way map generation works. You should be putting some fodder units at the entrance anyway. I'm honestly a lot more familiar with Terror From the Deep. Its absolutely the best strat in that game.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
No because if an alien spots you at all all aliens know where any spotted unit is for several turns. That's why you get fucked by blaster bombs or psi if you don't smoke the ramp or at least the inside of the Skyranger.
For one, a 4e fighter is a defender, not a striker. For two, 4e combat is set up such that both the PCs and the monsters/NPCs they fight have difficulty one-turn-killing one another; it generally takes group tactics and focused fire to put down
It is a completely different metagame from, say, D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e, wherein the standard is for combatants to be capable of one-turn-killing (or one-turn-disabling) their enemies.
>4e melee is arguably the weakest
If you're judging melee solely by its ability to kill, 5E has the worst melee D&D has ever had and it's not even close. They underperform 4E by miles.
Level 3 fighter in 5e hella outdamages level 3 fighter in 4e.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
For a single round, IF the 4E Fighter is doing dick all with his powers and isn't action pointing. The consistent opportunity attacks tilt things in 4E's favor alone.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
4e fighter is designed to be a tank. Nothing in 5e even comes close to an actual damage focused 4e martial like ranger or rogue.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You've literally never seen a 5e fighter.
Level 3 5e fighter outdoes anything level 3 in 4e.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I have literally played one. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
What is Brutal Scoundrel with Riposte Strike, Low Slash, and Press the Advantage hitting 4 times a turn and sneak attacking twice, three times if there's a Warlord around to give them a free attack? What is Rain of Blows? What is the Ranger?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>if there's a warlord around
5e fighter does it solo.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
No they don't.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
5e Fighter is in no way a replacement for the 4e Warlord.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
5e bard is stronger than any 4e character.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Play games other than 5E.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
They don't really come close to a Tempest or a Polearm Fighter either, for what it's worth, and if the situation changes to be about dealing with crowds every single 5E martial that does not have access to Evocation spells fails immediately.
Because only casters can have nice things. Just look at the neglect of battlemaster maneuvers and with Jeremy “Quadratic Wizards” Crawford at the helm things aren’t going to improve.
There are admittedly some combat situations wherein martial powers can get funky in terms of the narrative.
Suppose a party is battling some ruin scarabs, which have a whole article dedicated to them in Dungeon #191. The enemies include, but are not limited to, dreadnoughts and regulators:
http://funin.space/compendium/monster/Ruin-Scarab-Dreadnought.html
http://funin.space/compendium/monster/Ruin-Scarab-Regulator.html
The party includes, but is not limited to, a rogue, a fighter, and a warlord.
The rogue heads up to one dreadnought and clobbers it out cold with Knockout:
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Knockout.html
The fighter rushes into the fray, trying to pull in as many ruin scarabs as possible. The fighter activates a Cloak of Resistance and Come and Get It:
http://funin.space/compendium/item/Cloak-of-Resistance-.html
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Come-and-Get-It.html
It is plausible that the fighter can bait in the beetles, but... one of the targets just so happens to be the unconscious dreadnought. The giant bug is out cold. What, exactly, is the fighter doing to lure in an unconscious creature?
Unfortunately, due to a freak streak of bad luck and critical hits, the scarabs manage to bring the fighter to negative hit points. Atop that, one of the attacks was a regulator's Sensory Deprivation, blinding and deafening the fighter.
Not to worry, though. The warlord thinks it would be a bad idea to rush into the fray and get ganged up on themselves, so the warlord tosses an Inspiring Word from afar:
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Inspiring-Word.html
Despite being blinded, deafened, and unconscious, the fighter miraculously rouses... though is still blinded and deafened. What is actually happening here, in-universe?
>Despite being blinded, deafened, and unconscious, the fighter miraculously rouses... though is still blinded and deafened. What is actually happening here, in-universe?
He felt our fighting spirit and even when his body wanted to quit, he wouldn't!
>Strength vs Will
So the character is so strong opponents have to pass a mental fortitude check or run towards them so he can hit them?
What sort of retarded game is this?
accepting 3e feats as a premise is what gives rise to these 4e ability write ups. you cannot just end a sleep spell by smacking a motherfucker...unless you have the ability/feat....
turning it into a board game is not an improvement.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
D&D was always a board game.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>its always been this way
no. no it wasn't. you'd know that if you'd been there for it but you didn't come on board until 3e and you came from mtg and brought the wrongthink from there with you and then whined about peasant rail guns until you got 4e...which you could have skipped and just bought the ravenloft board game and got pretty much the same but with minis.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I started with the red box. The idea that D&D was ever anything other than a game, and nakedly a game at that, is a joke.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>moving goalpost
game yes board game no. i doubt you rolled a dice before 3e.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>minis and a tape measurer >not a board game
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
yes fag not a board game.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nta, but boardgames have a board. DnD is a tabletop game.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Amusingly, going full minis-and-tape-measure is actually a critical part of the rare play conditions where D&D is undebatably not a board game, as it's a requirement to use TRULY arbitrary scenery pieces instead of ending up with a pre-drawn playmat that can be argued to be a board.
Too artificial
Too gamelike
Too mechanically intensive
Too restrictive
Players required to know the rules
Carries the implication that you can't do common sense normal things if you don't have the appropriate power
It's exactly the type of shit that should never be brought to a role-playing game in any capacity
4E was a bad, bad, bad, bad game for bad, bad, bad people.
I know this is a little off topic but it's the only 4e thread up right now.
Do you guys think, and hear me out on this I know it sounds crazy but I've been awake for 24 hours and my brain is starting to get fuzzy with what I think are good ideas.
What if you dropped class restrictions on what powers you could take so that it basically became one big classless combat system and then refluffed the whole thing as a Superhero game.
That would work right? I'm tired enough right now to think that works.
Everyone cherry-picks the best powers with which to make enemies explode, usually involving multiattacks or multi-damage-taps. Dragon issue #421 proposed exactly such a variant rule, and it was as bad an idea as it sounded.
Apex, by Dias Ex Machina games, is a superhero hack for 4e, but its mechanics are really rather shoddy, in my opinion.
>but it's the only 4e thread up right now
It's the only way to have a 4ed thread.
4ed on its own has no merits, it's only a knee jerk reaction to 3ed.
4rries cannot talk about the merits of the game, but only about its failures.
>My dude, that's just MMO aggro
That's not how aggro works in mmos. Or in any video game at all.
The entire thread figured out the actual problem with the power (it's essentially some for of mind control, but you're doing it by attacking with a sword which makes no sense) except you, who is somehow even stupider than the average /tg/ anon. Good job.
Oh not just martial powers, the whole setup of Encounter and Daily stuff annoys me. It's ok for some sort of Heroclix inspired skirmish game but not DnD. Then again I think that "Vancian" casting is retarded too, either do it like Vance actually had it set up or use an MP system. It wasn't that 4e gave powers more expansive than "hit them again" it was how you were limited to only doing anything once. Yes I know that limited uses on powers were a thing before 4e but it tended to make slightly more sense; martials could do their tricks over and over while limited options had some reasoning from how much magic mojo you had to limited supplies, divine favor or whatever. And if you wanted to fill your spell slots with fireball, you could. Then we got 4e where you can only knock someone on their ass once per fight and can't use the same spell twice.
For me, it's less the fighter specifically than 4e's entire approach to design. Why can't other classes taunt this way, and why is it treated like mind control instead of roleplay? I would rather not have resource management and special moves in combat beyond what's necessary because the core survival elements of D&D that once shouldered this cognitive load like light-tracking, rations, exploration etc. had already been largely sidelined in most plays types from 2e/3e onwards. And actual veteran fencers don't win with special anime moves, they execute the same strikes everyone else does more efficiently and with better timing - this fits the niche of warrior types as a relatively simple alternative to casters, which imo they should be.
If your system is lethal enough to make combat short and infrequent (it should be) there's really nothing wrong with having 3/4 of the fighters actions be a basic attack that improves with progression and equipment. The type of combat you see in 3.5/4e (and to a lesser extent 5e) is very conductive to HP bloat, and also adds a bunch of grids to combat for very little pay-off. If I want detailed melee I can play the Riddle of Steel or Harn and have more fun than dnd 4e.
Everytime this arguement comes up it just feels like half the people just wanted more options that mattered and the other half just wanted to make shit up start to finish. Neither is wrong though
They’re gay
It was just the presentation, I think. Pathfinder has some pretty cool martial abilities and no one seems to mind.
Shame 99% of them are usually worse than "I swing my sword one to five times".
It sounds like "I swing my sword one to five times" needs to be nerfed to make other martial abilities viable.
>The solution is to make this already undertuned class even WEAKER
God I hate 3aboos.
Which Pathfinder and which abilities?
both versions have an equivalent "come at me bro" for barbarians
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo-rage-powers/come-and-get-me-ex/
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=169
the movement is a little different but Antagonize is a popular feat that does the same and can be combo'd with other stuff
https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Antagonize
The Pathfinder martial classes that can do a bunch of things besides attacking and take advantage of shit like this, like Barbarian with rage powers, Bloodrager, or Brawler whose whole thing is flexing different situational feats were all popular in 1e especially with experienced players. Brawler and other archetypes with their main feature especially, since you could get to use all those hundreds of feats you might never have the chance to in normal games all on a single character
>https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=169
god this is so bad
Barb already suffers from having terrible AC, and you just let people crit all over you for a chance to do a single attack out of turn
PF2e is truly the bottom of the barrel. Idiots aren't mad about PF2 martial powers mostly because they are either shit like this or at best a slight upgrade to "I hit them". Exceptions like Sudden Leap are so rare, it hurts.
Antagonize is decent.
>Antagonize is decent.
No wait, it's a fucking standard action. Instant downgrade to "situational/gimmicky".
If you want the mechanically best "punch me in the face, I dare you" option it's definitely broken wing gambit.
https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Broken%20Wing%20Gambit
Teamwork Feats are high investment for high payoff, although they're super good on inquisitors or other classes who can either share them automatically or benefit even when allies lack them.
>https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Broken%20Wing%20Gambit
This is almost good. If it lost the "from the allies who HAVE THIS FEAT", it'd be actually good. Or, well, yes, good on characters who get to ignore that clause.
See, this is the problem with 3.x feats - they're so fucking low-balled power-wise, despite the fact that you get only ten over 20 levels, slightly more if you play a martial. And, of course, fuckers printed stuff like Divine Metamagic or Sacred Geometry, but martial feats are trash that needs several investments just to start working properly. If feats were objectively balanced, they'd be more powerful than most or all spells attainable at similar levels, with, say, TWF including its' whole feat chain to GTWF, plus TW Defense, plus the rend thingy, etc, turning on as you reach proper BAB thresholds.
the martial abilities in pathfinder (both 1 and 2) are still things that make somewhat sense, not "you compel people to walk towards you by swinging your weapon" levels of retardation
A guy stronger than a horse whipping a spiked chain around your neck and then pulling on it can be quite compelling.
>"you compel people to walk towards you by swinging your weapon" levels of retardation
sub-zero hands typed this post
These morons only ever skimmed the rulebook, saw that all classes get AEDU powers and since then whine: "All classes are the same!"
That's literally it.
4e martial powers doesn't. 4e power structure does. Because it's shit and gay, fit for board games, not roleplaying, and breaks any conceivable immersion and verisimilitude.
There's your honest and true answer.
You may now fuck off with your bait in tow.
Take this homo with you on the way.
Triggered.
I know you are, but I don't care.
I don't, though. I genuinely do not care about 4e, because as you say, I don't play it. I answered a question.
The real parody of a man is someone that keeps playing a game they can reasonably only complain about. The only winning move is not to play, anon.
You've never touched it so you don't know enough to have an informed opinion and in turn should shut the fuck up.
I have played it. I don't anymore, beucase I didn't like it. But I gave it a chance and formed my own opinions based on my experience. You, however, regurgitate the same baseless complaints everyone whose eaten the shit twinkie meme repeats, most of which are not based in any reality.
So, I again say. You are sad sick parody of a man.
Wrong. And have fun being wrong forever, retard.
The only one mad about a game they don't play here appears to be (you).
Your inability to accept being told you don't know enough to have an opinion is the only proof I need that you are a gamelet axewound who found its way here from reddit during the election.
Play more games, stop being a bitch.
>I comaplin about games I don't play
You are a sad sick parody of a man.
What’s stopping you from role playing exactly?
>How is the game that cut the roleplaying rules from the previous game worse at roleplaying?
Since when do you need rules for storytelling with friends?
The roleplaying rules for dnd are literally just roll a d20 + add persuasion. such a big deal it was removed, huh. can't roleplay without them since you're too autistic
You forgot a huge chunk of the wizards spell list on top of that.
If you need fingogorbs wonderful exquisite fleshlight to roleplay then you shouldn't be roleplaying at all
Why would I even roleplay in the first place when I can just teleport to wherever I need to be or mind control the npc in my way?
So this is a problem 3e has too. Were you bitching about 4e while only playing games that were 20 years out of date already?
>roleplaying rules
There is a 3.5 thread for weeks, 4e threads work only as bait.
There is a reason for that, your game sucks.
Please stay gone, it was nice not having you around.
Nice? This is not a thread, is lies and butthurt.
>D&D
>roleplay rules
No such thing outside of rolling persuasion/intimidation/etc. You lose absolutely nothing by cutting those out.
The roleplaying rules were all the spells that let me bypass roleplaying.
There's a load of fiddly simulationist stuff in 3.x not present in 4e to cover a FAR wider range of non-combat efforts that have historically been treated as part of the "RP layer". 4e's skill challenges are high-workload low-payoff "mother-may-I" with much worse mechanical clunk than 3.x's way of handling world interaction, while the gutting of spellcasting removes the impact of having a clever lore-hunting Wizard because you don't have the piles of weirdly situational or tangentially applicable magic to wave away all sorts of low time pressure annoyances in a way that really sells the character is a Wizard.
Ultimately, people LIKED the low amount of permissions in 3.x, because it means their characters have a solid range of things "They Can Just Do". Oh sure, the applicable breadth on anything not a full spellcaster is pathetic compared to, say, Mutants and Masterminds, but it being there at all did quite wonderous things for verisimilitude.
>but it being there at all did quite wonderous things for verisimilitude.
Not really. Most of the time it straight up ruined it by being retarded.
The retardation is mostly non-trivial comparisons to real cases and the variability induced by the d20+modifier resolution setup. As mentioned, the applicable breadth is pathetic for anything not a full spellcaster because of skills being so scattered and points so scarce, but in passing the designers' sniff test it passes it for enormous swaths of the general population, let alone the active counterindicatives of the playerbase.
Unless you're obsessing over Diplomacy and friends being batshit. Those are rather clear indicators that the skill system's "It Just Works" does NOT belong anywhere near social interaction.
I don't really care how many people it passed the smell test for. It didn't pass mine in 2000 because I had played games with much better skill systems by the time 3.0 came out and it isn't passing mine now. Doing better than 5E is not an accomplishment.
4e is dead and no one liked it
Also this
>still among the top sellers despite a decade of shilling by Mearls
Does this make you angry?
Because non-casters with dailies is retarded.
They are
Because some people had issues wrapping their heads around Martial Daily powers.
but they have no problem understanding them in 3.5 somehow
>WoW: the tabletop game
No thanks, fag
The strategic dynamics are radically different because of the extra party role and Defenders working on incentives regarding Marks and positioning rather than a hard threat mechanic, alongside the resource scheme differences. It's a harshly gamist D&D derivative designed for easy digitization, not "backporting" existing vidya philosophies to tabletop.
Actively forcing enemies to approach you is a bit out-there for a baseline action, anon, as that's a level of fidelity that invites decision-paralysis-inducing reams of conditional choices, which is NOT how you structure combat rules.
>It makes perfect sense if you don't think of these attacks as simulating reality, but as narrative actions.
So in other words, it doesn't make sense if you look at it as happening with in-universe causation like most passes the "sniff test" for in all editions before and since. That's the underlying complaint to 4e, sacrificing all the bits of verisimilitude the game's history built up on the alter of hard game balance instead of threading the needle to manage both.
The narrative is in-universe, while the mechanics are quite comprehensively not. The causation MATTERS for role-play, and 4e habitually wipes its ass with that, with this being an excellent example.
There's not an internal logic for it being 1/day like a wizard's spells, it is just for game balance. If it used some kind of stamina system it'd be fine, but it doesn't so it isn't.
>Still falling for this meme in the year of our lord 2023
What a fag.
Tome of Battle had better ones
Elaborate
They still felt martial, some swordsage stuff aside, but they were very powerful and versatile
Swordsage was good too, just for a different flavor of martial, which is to say that it is best for representing the kind of magic-swordsman-but-not-quite-gish kind of thing
Swordsage stuff was martial too. Stepping through shadows and swinging a blade to send out a flame wave are hardly something only spells should be able to do.
Until you get into the weeds with huge combo chains and action points, ToB maneuvers were on the whole higher impact than 4E powers and 3E is much more rocket taggy than 4E to begin with so you feel the impact of maneuvers more. Taking my friend's warblade for an example, sey could add 3d6 onto an attack to do 5d6+6 at level 3, which is around 85% of the HP of an equal CR enemy. It is way harder to do that in 4E.
Pretty much. A lot of ToB maneuvers let you either one-round a same-CR enemy or come very close to it, and that's very fun.
That's more of an indictment of 3.5 CR than anything.
It's more of an indictment of that anon having no clue.
You don't need ToB to one-shot enemies, arguably you can do better without. The best ToB stuff is action related, then defense related. Damage is on the bottom.
Most monsters after CR5 have a way or three to make the one-shotting difficult or impossible unless the whole party helps.
>You don't need ToB to one-shot enemies
Nobody said you needed ToB to do that. ToB was being compared to 4E. Stop shitting on other people for arguments you invented in your head.
You can one-round enemies without ToB, but you do it without style, just by throwing a full attack at them. A PHB TWF Rogue can one-round most same-CR enemies that aren't immune to sneak attacks (and with splats, most of those too).
Meanwhile ToB allows you to do one-round damage, but doesn't necessarily require you to full attack for this, improving your action economy and mobility, and often throws extra utility into the mix, too. And once you get to ToB 2.0, or as it's better known, PoW, it gets even wilder.
Looks more like a wizard spell. That should be an option anyone can do just by roleplaying really well. What's with all the 'Magic The Gathering' type abilities creeping into every fucking game nowadays?
The point was that the game had turned into a monster killing game instead of a dungeon raiding and loot stealing one. If you spend all of your time fighting, then it makes sense that the game is tailored around providing codified, tactical options.
>monster killing game instead of a dungeon raiding and loot stealing one.
No trolling, what's the difference?
In ye olde dnd you had to run away from the monsters because you had d6 hp, they did d6 damage and 0hp was death.
>That should be an option anyone can do just by roleplaying really well.
Without this ability:
>taunt the enemy
>he approaches you on his turn, and you get to attack him on your turn
With the ability:
>the taunt, approach, and attack are all combined into a single action
I'm sympathetic to that general line of critique but I don't think it applies here. Anybody can taunt/bait an enemy, it's just more effective if you have and use this ability.
You're missing the point. Without the ability, it becomes a mother may I situation. There's a world of difference between simply being able to do something and having to depend on the whims of the DM to fulfill your baseline function as a beefy frontline fighter.
>Luting your opponent to feint and attack is a power
It doesn't enrage me, i just find it retarded. I do get that though, it makes perfect sense within the scope of a skirmish game but i like my ttrpg to have either the granularity or the flexibility to accommodate something as bland as that with the baseline combat mechanics.
For some reason people are okay with literally hundreds of different spells, psionic powers, and spell-like abilities with different inconsistent systems and rules but once you codify a singular format and get everyone playing the same fucking game and using the same framework it just utterly booty devastates a certain group of people.
Despite the pages and pages of arguments about how linear fighters and quadratic casters were a fucking problem and how wizards and clerics did everything a fighter could do better and how full attack at level 20 was mathematically demonstrable to show fighters became more incompetent at fighting because they were even more likely to miss or critically miss than they were at level 1 . . . somehow the solution was not to allow martials to play the same fucking game it was to stay the course with the same broken pile of shit that'd ruled the industry . . . see the rise of Pathfinder. Pathfinder directly rose to its position by marketing itself as the anti-4e and the stunning and brave successor of 3.5. They literally had the tagline "3.5 dies? 3.5 thrives!" and promoted themselves a fixing all of the problems of 3.5 while being completely backwards compatible with all of your books.
And anyone who's halfway honest knows they genuinely fucking did not even come fucking close.
At that point why don't you just do freeform or storygame since what you want is to play Mother May I?
>with different inconsistent systems and rules
The bit you're failing to realize is that we LIKE this, because it means Magic A and Magic B are distinguished in gameplay. That which is not magic is thus "tied down" to the base rules that define normality. 4e VIGOROUSLY refuses such efforts at verisimilitude, and OneD&D is returning to it with the removal of Pact Magic as its own "thing".
>somehow the solution was not to allow martials to play the same fucking game
That's not 4e's answer, either, it's viciously beating the full spellcasters upside the head until the brain damage drags them down to about the ToB level, which as anyone familiar with it will tell you also didn't SOLVE the issue, just made it a bit less annoying.
>That's not 4e's answer, either, it's viciously beating the full spellcasters upside the head until the brain damage drags them down to about the ToB level,
Fucking good.
Speelcasters are fucked to have around as a DM with all the bullshit they get to pull.
How was this class balance issue not solved by simply tweaking the bonus per level maths for the fighter? This just seems like a accounting issue.
Number tweaks don't work because it's always been about qualitative breadth. Instead of giving the Fighter "Cool Things" with tangential applications or a general framework for doing "Cool Things" without magic that's worth focusing on, people have quite consistently resolved the utility gap by crippling casters FAR more than necessary because "The Guy At The Gym" fallacy is apparently an ironclad law.
So it's just not a balance issue, the problem is fighters not having many combat options. Many games have solved this issue without introducing goofy feats and even more ridiculous list of derivative algorithmically-generated "powers" like 4E.
Fighters are fine if boring in combat. Their problem is that's the only thing they can do. Casters totally trivialize anything outside of combat.
your moms pussy trivializes anything outside of combat because ABSOLUTELY EVERY TABLE AND EVERY CAMPAIGN ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES spells BY THE NATURE OF GAME DESIGN to solve and there's no creative solutions to be done.
oh wait, if everyone fucks your mom's pussy, that's also fucking boring
>So it's just not a balance issue, the problem is fighters not having many combat options.
Wrong, it IS a balance problem for the actual point of the game as a collaborative storytelling toolbox, and it's the Fighters ONLY combat options as far as "worth comparing to spells" goes.
>Many games have solved this issue without introducing goofy feats and even more ridiculous list of derivative algorithmically-generated "powers" like 4E.
As mentioned, 4e didn't do that, it did it by crippling the casters down into this framework from the accretion of literally thousands of discrete "It Just Works" buttons they had in 3.x.
Eh, not EVERYTHING due to slot constraints and inefficient cases, unless you go full TO-whiteroom ideal. The issue is that it's such a large portion that combat's just not an issue.
>At that point why don't you just do freeform or storygame since what you want is to play Mother May I?
Mother May I is a D&D feature. PbtA games are improv-inspired, so the options are "yes, and..." or "no, but...".
This pic is the antithesis of what DnD is.
You do know that was an April Fool's joke right?
Because it's meant to be a 1/day class ability or feat! It's meant to be a skill trick! I don't like information being presented in a consistent manner that's easy to read because it makes me angry and scared!
gay that's literally a per encounter power while should be a a baseline incite/deceive action, of course people think it's shit.
2e had "encounter powers", Defensive Spin for example.
What part of my post was praising 2e? I do find shit also per day powers. Also i was pointed specifically to the triviality of the action in question that makes it risible as a 7th level per encounter power.
Too low-power and limited. Presentation is fine, but why the fuck is that an encounter power for level 7?
>why the fuck is that an encounter power for level 7
It's a burst 3 that pulls and damages every enemy near the fighter. It's pretty comparable to other level 7 powers that do similar things. Its a good mook killer and perfect for setting up a wizards fireball or other AoE powers.
An Avenger has a similar encounter power at level 7 but it pushes instead of pulls, and is Wisdom vs Will.
>are still things that make somewhat sense, not "you compel people to walk towards you by swinging your weapon"
It makes perfect sense if you don't think of these attacks as simulating reality, but as narrative actions. Its a Strength vs Will attack, Will governs the mind, and as the fighter is cajoling and insulting the enemy to come kill him, the attack makes sense. Pulling is merely a mechanical game term for moving enemies closer, whether by magic, martial maneuvers, or simply a well-placed insult that compels them to get closer and attack you.
>Why do 4e martial powers enrage people so much?
Because a lot of autists got very upset that the game moved from "simulating" reality to a more narrative structure. This is made quite clear in martial powers, where a lot of the stink towards the game resides, as they tend to be the examples constantly pulled out to show how ridiculous, and thus bad, the game is. The move from natural language description to more game mechanical description and clearly delineating what is mechanics vs what is lore also annoyed the power gaming munchkin autist types who liked to break the game by exploiting the inherent vagueness of natural language.
Essentially, it pissed off the two largest contingents of vocal shitposters for 3e style D&D, resulting in forever flame wars whenever 4e is brought up.
Then it should be CHA vs. Will you numb nut.
Its class ability vs Will. Fighters use Strength as their class ability for most of their powers. Thus why the Avengers version is Wisdom vs Will.
You're goading and cajoling. You do that with CHA not STR.
Not if its a class power and involves dealing damage like the OP power does, and 4e doesn't care about sticking to specific abilities for specific actions. If it targets the mind its a Will defense roll, and thats all that matters. You can have Con vs Will, Cha vs Will (sorcerer and warlock powers do this), Dex vs Will (I know there is at least one rogue power that does this), Int vs Will (wizards lol), and Wisdom vs WIll (aforementioned Avenger)
Magic powers are magic. They can use any stat.
You're doing this with STR even against a guy who literally can't move.
And you're still operating under the assumption that the system cares about emulating or "simulating" reality when its about narrative. Cha vs will as the only form of way to change minds is a simulationist perspective not found in 4e. Instead, all that matters is that if you want to affect a creature's mind, you target their Will defense.
Why not let fighters do anything with STR then?
They can. Their powers use Str for everything.
Attacking with STR is already inherently unrealistic, to be fair. Strength doesn't put your sword through the other guy's visor or the dragon's soft underbelly, finesse does. Maybe if you're using a poleaxe against a knight, sure, it's STR, but any slashing or thrusting weapon should use a different stat.
As this is all a consequence of AC being the only defense mundane attacks can ever target in non-4e D&D, 4e manages to be slightly more realistic in a regard due to many attacks going against Fortitude or Reflex specifically.
Now, we must assume that in D&D-world great strength also represents some level of innate martial prowess, as WS is folded into STR. Feinting, making a false attack, or leaving a deliberate opening to counter in stesso tempo is definitely more in the realm of martial prowess (the pictured power) than actually lying to someone (Bluff check), and therefore STR makes sense as your attack ability.
>you're still operating under the assumption that the system cares about emulating or "simulating" reality when its about narrative.
>all that matters is that if you want to affect a creature's mind, you target their Will defense.
Why try to have it both ways?
If strength can be used to taunt people, why can't you resist mind effects with other stats?
Other editions of the game have feats that allow using Strength to intimidate, this power just has the use of the feat built-in
I really don't think feinting and baiting with your guard is necessarily a CHA move.
Then why is feinting always CHA?
Oh absolutely it should be cha v. will, but that's a problem with incongruous mechanics, not with the idea of martial powers.
>It's a burst 3 that pulls and damages every enemy near the fighter. It's pretty comparable to other level 7 powers that do similar things. Its a good mook killer and perfect for setting up a wizards fireball or other AoE powers.
>An Avenger has a similar encounter power at level 7 but it pushes instead of pulls, and is Wisdom vs Will.
Ok yeah, it's a burst, that's fine then. If it were a single target thing, it'd be kinda bad.
>Its a Strength vs Will attack, Will governs the mind, and as the fighter is cajoling and insulting the enemy to come kill him, the attack makes sense
so why does it work on mindless creatures, things like automotons, or people who simply don't get angry over childish insults?
It's a really sick burn.
Apparently people hate that martial classes can have fun.
I had fun playing a martial in 3.5. it's just beta bitch victim complex martialcucks who don't.
>martial in 3.5
Charge and full attack?
Why do you post repetitive bait threads instead of thinking up something actually worth asking?
The description is obnoxious. Spinning typically is something children or idiots that have no idea how sword fights or fighting works think happens a lot in them. The only time you spin is to deal with an attack coming from behind or to reorient yourself. And, these are closer to pivots.
Bro did you even read it? Its a fuck Zelda style spin attack that hits every enemy 15 feet around you.
what's obnoxious is HEMA autists acting like every game should be a perfect representation of IRL swordfighting
>Spinning typically is something children or idiots that have no idea how sword fights or fighting works think happens a lot in them.
It's a good trick tho.
Entirely due to the game having consistent formatting.
If this ability were worded
>Come and Get It
>Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Base Attack Bonus +7.
>Benefit: As a standard action, you may attempt to goad all enemies within 15 feet of you with a carefully chosen insult and a gesture that makes you appear vulnerable.
>Affected enemies must move to a space adjacent to you, as a free action and without provoking attacks of opportunity, by the most direct route possible, unless they succeed on a will save (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Str modifier). Each creature adjacent to you after its movement that failed its saving throw then takes damage as if you had struck it with a wielded weapon, including all modifiers, which cannot result in a critical hit.
>As this ability is show and obvious, you may only use it once every give minutes, as foes are unlikely to fall for such an obvious trick twice in a row.
>Special: A fighter may select Come and Get It as one of his fighter bonus feats.
people would be sucking its dick for how COOL and REALISTIC it is, despite being exactly the same.
>Str modifier
>realistic
>not goading enemies with your NICE MUSCLE
You can use any skill to persuade people, as per Complete Adventurer; the Completes are some of the most commonly used 3.5 books. Therefore, STR-based goading has rules precedent.
>people would be sucking its dick for how COOL and REALISTIC it is
No.
>mundane mind control effect
>affects mindless creatures and creatures normally immune to compulsions
>causes creatures to move off-turn (unlike Command, Suggestion, etc.) under their own power (unlike Bull Rush, similar forced movement)
>justification for cooldown is nonsensical if a creature has not witnessed this feat (hence why PF1e uses "once affected, a creature is immune for 24 hours" for similar abilities)
>AOE weapon damage without an attack roll is really weird, especially if some already adjacent creatures make their will save
THIS is why people say 4e has verisimilitude issues. The formatting is actually quite nice. The only thing I can't criticize is how both feat prerequisites have literally 0 synergy with this feat, seeing as they can't be used in the same round. That's spot on for 3.5 kek.
Personally I hated that it used those ugly-looking cards and weird presentation. The at-will/encounter/daily thing really broke from D&D tradition, I think "martial powers" would have gone over a lot better if it worked similar to a "spells per day" chart like Tome of Battle did.
People who play Martials are generally dumb people.
People who play arcane casters are generally smarter people.
The game attempts to balance the abilities the intelligence of the players with the power of their characters.
It's super simple.
nice bait, here's your (you)
I just loved playing Warlord, man. I miss playing Fantasy Commander Shepard.
Man, I did the hybrid bard-ardent. So much fun. So much teamwork. I worked hand-in-hand with the defender to mark a foe, use myself as bait to trigger the AoO which then triggered my defender's ability.
Not my problem
The concept is stupid if you're actually interested in game mechanics being somewhat related to the actual conceit of playing a role in a story. Ok, so you're telling me you're a wandering swordsman, and your experience in various crypts and ruins has taught you how to make something called a "dizzying blow" once per day. Huh?
Same reason a Wizard inherently knows how to cast a fireball when they reach the appropriate level. WOTC D&D doesn’t do training for level-up like AD&D and so the training is assumed to occur on the job.
It’s a game, if you cared about reality you would play GURPS
The wizard is assumed to be studying Fireball in the background.
It's magic. It doesn't have to abide by real world rules.
ok
the fighter is assumed to have been studying whatever new trick in the background
literally because it explains the mechanics clearly instead of being full of fluff
good game, lame retarded RPG
shame!
4e was fun and the encounter and daily powers felt nice to combo with other players. Lots of movement.
Shadow of the Demon Lord's battle "spells" tickle the same vein.
There are some people who absolutely shit themselves blind when martials get to do anything other than say "I attack"
Yeah, straight up mind control like the fighter gets is much better.
Or the Rogue who walks past a bunch of enemies who immediately start committing suicide for no reason.
Why u have no imagination or the capacity to read accompanying flavor text. Are you an npc anon?
>Or the Rogue who walks past a bunch of enemies who immediately start committing suicide for no reason.
That's just bullshit. The Rogue walks past a bunch of people and seemingly opens themselves up for reprisal, but in fact it's a gambit and all the idiots who try to use the opportunity end up harming themselves. How is that bad?
Nta you were replying to but i guess i have to explain a little better for them why the powers design is disliked:
4e powers are basically a situational snapshot of an action, basically you get the description of what happens but the HOW and WHY is left to the narrative description of the gm and players to fill the gap, the flavor text will give you an hint to kick the can but you have to figure out the rest by yourself. Good. Now a LOT of people DISLIKE this narrative approach because robs them of agency beyond selecting what "cool action sequence happens now", to them it reduces the immersion aspect of the ttrpg experience. That doesn't mean thought they cannot have fun playing this way but that just detracts from their engagement.
Is it more clear now?
Look, I know that 4e gets a lot of flak for having disassociated mechanics and shit. I do get, for instance, why there's an issue you can have with that mass taunt power using STR for the taunt instead of CHA.
But that particular example with the Rogue is straight-up bullshit, as it makes perfect sense for it to work that way.
beholders biting themselves because rogue ran past makes sense? no. it doesnt.
So why aren't they making attacks against his reflex that damage themselves on a miss?
Nta but obviously one roll vs many dc is preferable to many rolls vs on dc.
Because then it would suck and the rogue would die. This isn't 3.5, martials are allowed to be good.
Then sounds like the power is fundamentally flawed and just should have been axed.
Because it would be bad since it would mean they have a decent enough chance to hit them, unless you did needlessly overdesigned stuff like "they attack vs AC+10" or something.
I liked the designers narrative explanation for encounter and daily powers where these abilities are complex enough to perform that the opportunity to use them only comes up once in an encounter or day vs. at wills being a bread and butter way of fighting you can do in your sleep. It really aided narratively to think of something like OP as the fighter just created this opportunity and is utilizing it to taunt people in.
What'd I tell you, suggest fighters be able to do something other than say "I attack" and some dude starts malding about it.
Next thing he will be whining about it being "too anime"
People truly can't get over the formatting. If shit was said to be X/day or X/long rest then they wouldn't be as mad. Or maybe they would because they are just retarded about Martials being able to do anything besides "I attack"
No, it's that there needs to be some in-universe causation for the Martial to do *thing* whereas spells are "black boxes" of the wholly unreal. If it can only be done once per day, there needs to be an actual constraint making it so, not arbitrary game design principals.
"Martials are allowed to be good" =/= "total abandonment of verisimilitude for pure gamism". Importantly, they were fine in combat in 3.x right out of core. The problem that returned in 5e is that they had fuck-all to do outside of combat. 4e solved the actual problem by gutting spellcasting like a fish flat-packing everyone into AEDU.
Gamist =/= vidya, it's a tactical combat boardgame grown from 3.x, not an attempt at backporting MMO logic.
To be fair, "better at motivating than the target can self-hype" is a fine use of HP being a fuzzy compilation instead of "just" meat.
>Importantly, they were fine in combat in 3.x right out of core.
Depends on the level. There's a point where they stop being able to keep up at all because combat has changed to be about flinging around spells/SLAs that end fights or limit enemy actions. There's not much level 20 martials can do against some enemies without the right items.
>There's a point where they stop being able to keep up at all because combat has changed to be about flinging around spells/SLAs that end fights or limit enemy actions.
No, charging damage remains a huge chunk of HP that makes it vastly more time and slot efficient to just hand the resident martial whatever sub-4th-spell-level permission they need to apply it.
>once per day
gay
>once per encounter with reset conditions
KINO
for real though
resets are what made ToB real fun, in any combat lasting more than 3 rounds you'd get a second shot with most of your stuff
I've always viewed combat as an abstraction. What do hitpoints even mean? So, combat is happening, and your attack rolls are times during the exchange where you might actually bypass their defenses and do some harm. In DnD, each round is six seconds. You don't really think a novice fighter can only swing his long sword *once* at an during that time, do you?
And yes, player agency is taken away at times, because violence is the removal or cessation of agency from another person. Shit happens that is beyond our control, that we might be placed under unfavorable circumstances.
>I've always viewed combat as an abstraction
>Except for when the game says you make a single attack. That shit is ironclad and its impossible to re-flavor an attack as hitting multiple times without changing any numbers.
>pull
>2 squares
>1[W] damage
The REAL problem is all the video game sounding shit.
This. How dare they try to save my time instead of hiding what the power does in 2 paragraphs of fluff.
Nothing personnel.
Honestly, this is pretty good. Not a fan of it being a daily, though.
This is fine, not sure why it's so high level, I think there are Stone Dragon moves that do this like 6 levels earlier.
Level 23. At this point it should probably do...more. Not more damage, but just more than "Come and Get It, but more damage and encounter instead of daily".
Kuru kuru. Time to twirl.
Come and Get It and Warrior's Urging are both encounter powers, but the latter is burst 4 and deals more damage.
See, this is something I'd expect to have by like level 11 at the latest. Just not impressive enough compared to stuff ToB gets up to, for instance, or especially Path of War.
Like, I appreciate 4e for making Fighters not suck, but it's just nearly not as crazy as it could be.
Sets up an action point nova for an ally.
Path of War was broken if you used it to optimize damage.
>Path of War was broken if you used it to optimize damage.
Well, don't. It does enough damage on its' own without optimization. To be honest, a lot of things in 3.x break damage, like PHB Rogue with a decent TWF setup.
Stuns you.
Come and Get It, except better.
Almost a capstone.
Here we go. Martial healing.
Hit that guy.
Good ol'e
>A 4e fighter hits you with his weapon
>A 4e warlord hits you with his fighter
I'll also say, that if you didn't play 4e and don't know how complex your abilities/feats and their interactions can get, you can't really make an accurate evaluation of power by looking at individual abilities in a vacuum.
>I'll also say, that if you didn't play 4e and don't know how complex your abilities/feats and their interactions can get, you can't really make an accurate evaluation of power by looking at individual abilities in a vacuum.
The thing is less power and more style, 4e doesn't do really over-the-top stuff often enough.
Remember that in 4e, almost all characters make attack rolls. Even wizards make attack rolls to land their spells.
Also sets up an enemy for the party.
Martial healing at its finest.
Sneak Attack was given errata to make it 1/turn, so this is better than it seems.
Even "spellcaster" classes like wizards and warlocks have basic attacks.
But if your party is lacking in basic attacks, you can take this instead.
Haste.
An ally healed by Inspiring Word becomes very fast and hits 95% of the time.
My fist casts a spell
Were you under the impression these were somehow an argument in favor of 4e?
I will never stop hating Mearls for killing it. The battlemaster fighter is just a shit copycat.
>4e cope and seethe thread
Worst fanbase in existence. Nobody liked your game because it sucked.
We all do, man.
And let's not get into how the best d&d comic ever was based on 4e and featured a warlord, so it's just never ever going to get revived, and we'll never see the Fell's Five as river pirates.
Heavy templating signals to players "break this wide open." They undermine Rule Zero by emulating board games and card games where there is no Rule Zero. For example, this power alone invites the following weird applications:
>telekinetically pulling in objects and immobilized creatures
>telepathically communicating with creatures you can see but who can't see you
>transforming ranged attackers into idiots
>forcing enemies to walk into suicidal terrain, as long as it isn't a pit
>using it during a chase scene to transform a fleeing creature into an idiot
>using it out of combat to make someone come closer with no questions asked, or to make it look like they tried to hit you first and you were just defending yourself
>They forgot to specify that it's a melee weapon attack, so you can do it with a bow just as effectively
t. never played 4e. Half your points don't even work if you actually read the power.
Let me break down why every single point you make is clearly wrong.
>telekinetically pulling in objects and immobilized creatures
Each ENEMY, objects aren't enemies.
>telepathically communicating with creatures you can see but who can't see you
Like with invisibility which is something Fighters can't do normally? Yeah it can be a bit weird, but also not unreasonable to make the sound of a wounded combatant that enemies might try to gang up on.
>transforming ranged attackers into idiots
The power is Close Burst 3, meaning they were already within 15 feet of you. And yes the whole point of the power is to bait enemies into doing something foolish. If you fail the attack roll they aren't baited.
>forcing enemies to walk into suicidal terrain, as long as it isn't a pit
Forced movement doesn't work quite like that in 4e.
>using it during a chase scene to transform a fleeing creature into an idiot
>using it out of combat to make someone come closer with no questions asked, or to make it look like they tried to hit you first and you were just defending yourself
If you're using this in not a fight, you are clearly using it to start a fight. And in the chase example, the whole point is the power is you making yourself seem like an easy target. Also if the chase has you starting so close to someone that you can use this power it is a bad chase. And typically in Skill Challenges which is what chases are, powers like this aren't something you use.
>They forgot to specify that it's a melee weapon attack, so you can do it with a bow just as effectively
What is the problem with using it with a bow? Baiting enemies in before stabbing them with an arrow or something too weird for you? It still uses strength.
If I can close the last 15 feet of distance in a chase by forcing them to walk right toward me, why wouldn't I? For that matter, if I can move faster when the warlord is yelling at me, why shouldn't that also work in a chase? The real answer is because 4e is a theme park, and combat and skill challenges are separate rides. Fuck 4e, I'm glad their virtual tabletop exploded when just one guy killed himself. Serves them right for having a project with a bus factor of one.
But it is better as a game and that is ultimetely what's important, if I wanted to talk out everything I would have joined a theatre troupe.
If you can close the gap with 15 feet you can just charge the guy. And also yes, the attack is to make enemies do something foolish. What is the problem with it?
WHAT RULES?
>if I can move faster when the warlord is yelling at me, why shouldn't that also work in a chase?
Why wouldn't it work?
I sure do miss 4th edition. Had some great times with my friends. It was a real shame when DnD died. Though I suppose it's nice for people that like watching shows on Twitch and Youtube.
Brain dead dnd players would rather just say “I swing my axe” then fuck around on their phone for 15mins while the wizards have their turn
4e was too kino for dnd
No edition, not even BECMI, is like that. 4e melee is arguably the weakest because in 3e even a fighter can kill 4 enemies at once while 4e needs an immersion breaking mechanic (minions) to simulate that, and in the player's mind will never, EVER be the same.
This is one of the many reasons it failed.
And one of the many reasons 4rries are just retards.
4e just has more durable combatants all around.
Rocket tag is cancer.
>Rocket tag is cancer.
>Wipes to a blaster bomb after taking 1 step out of the sky ranger.
Yeah, its fucking shit.
Smoke the ramp retard.
Just immediately ending your first turn without doing anything is better.
Can't aliums still blast you on their first turn (if they happen to be in the arc of visibility from the ramp)?
Technically yes, but it rarely comes up due to the way map generation works. You should be putting some fodder units at the entrance anyway. I'm honestly a lot more familiar with Terror From the Deep. Its absolutely the best strat in that game.
No because if an alien spots you at all all aliens know where any spotted unit is for several turns. That's why you get fucked by blaster bombs or psi if you don't smoke the ramp or at least the inside of the Skyranger.
For one, a 4e fighter is a defender, not a striker. For two, 4e combat is set up such that both the PCs and the monsters/NPCs they fight have difficulty one-turn-killing one another; it generally takes group tactics and focused fire to put down
It is a completely different metagame from, say, D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e, wherein the standard is for combatants to be capable of one-turn-killing (or one-turn-disabling) their enemies.
>4e melee is arguably the weakest
If you're judging melee solely by its ability to kill, 5E has the worst melee D&D has ever had and it's not even close. They underperform 4E by miles.
>Action Surge
>paladin smite
>Every PC in 4E has this
>Requires you to crit, and if you're comparing crit optimization 4E comes out ahead again
Level 3 fighter in 5e hella outdamages level 3 fighter in 4e.
For a single round, IF the 4E Fighter is doing dick all with his powers and isn't action pointing. The consistent opportunity attacks tilt things in 4E's favor alone.
4e fighter is designed to be a tank. Nothing in 5e even comes close to an actual damage focused 4e martial like ranger or rogue.
You've literally never seen a 5e fighter.
Level 3 5e fighter outdoes anything level 3 in 4e.
I have literally played one. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
What is Brutal Scoundrel with Riposte Strike, Low Slash, and Press the Advantage hitting 4 times a turn and sneak attacking twice, three times if there's a Warlord around to give them a free attack? What is Rain of Blows? What is the Ranger?
>if there's a warlord around
5e fighter does it solo.
No they don't.
5e Fighter is in no way a replacement for the 4e Warlord.
5e bard is stronger than any 4e character.
Play games other than 5E.
They don't really come close to a Tempest or a Polearm Fighter either, for what it's worth, and if the situation changes to be about dealing with crowds every single 5E martial that does not have access to Evocation spells fails immediately.
The role of any melee character in an RPG IS TO KILL.
Wrong.
Because only casters can have nice things. Just look at the neglect of battlemaster maneuvers and with Jeremy “Quadratic Wizards” Crawford at the helm things aren’t going to improve.
There are admittedly some combat situations wherein martial powers can get funky in terms of the narrative.
Suppose a party is battling some ruin scarabs, which have a whole article dedicated to them in Dungeon #191. The enemies include, but are not limited to, dreadnoughts and regulators:
http://funin.space/compendium/monster/Ruin-Scarab-Dreadnought.html
http://funin.space/compendium/monster/Ruin-Scarab-Regulator.html
The party includes, but is not limited to, a rogue, a fighter, and a warlord.
The rogue heads up to one dreadnought and clobbers it out cold with Knockout:
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Knockout.html
The fighter rushes into the fray, trying to pull in as many ruin scarabs as possible. The fighter activates a Cloak of Resistance and Come and Get It:
http://funin.space/compendium/item/Cloak-of-Resistance-.html
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Come-and-Get-It.html
It is plausible that the fighter can bait in the beetles, but... one of the targets just so happens to be the unconscious dreadnought. The giant bug is out cold. What, exactly, is the fighter doing to lure in an unconscious creature?
Unfortunately, due to a freak streak of bad luck and critical hits, the scarabs manage to bring the fighter to negative hit points. Atop that, one of the attacks was a regulator's Sensory Deprivation, blinding and deafening the fighter.
Not to worry, though. The warlord thinks it would be a bad idea to rush into the fray and get ganged up on themselves, so the warlord tosses an Inspiring Word from afar:
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Inspiring-Word.html
Despite being blinded, deafened, and unconscious, the fighter miraculously rouses... though is still blinded and deafened. What is actually happening here, in-universe?
Something you'd have to see to believe. Feats of daring and amazement beyond imagination. High Adventure!
>Despite being blinded, deafened, and unconscious, the fighter miraculously rouses... though is still blinded and deafened. What is actually happening here, in-universe?
He felt our fighting spirit and even when his body wanted to quit, he wouldn't!
>Strength vs Will
So the character is so strong opponents have to pass a mental fortitude check or run towards them so he can hit them?
What sort of retarded game is this?
>I use my training and control over my body to appear vulnerable, tricking the enemy into overextending.
>training and control over my body
Sounds like Con, Dex or a skill check in DnD terms.
So you're fine with con and dex based mind control?
Phermones and Hypnotic dancing. Yeah I could see those being a thing
accepting 3e feats as a premise is what gives rise to these 4e ability write ups. you cannot just end a sleep spell by smacking a motherfucker...unless you have the ability/feat....
>minor action
>missing the fucking point
kys.
You're the one who missed the point. It's a power because it's a minor action and has no chance of failure, tard.
no fag you missed the point even accepting the premise of feats is the first step down the slippery slope.
A slippery slope that improves the game?
turning it into a board game is not an improvement.
D&D was always a board game.
>its always been this way
no. no it wasn't. you'd know that if you'd been there for it but you didn't come on board until 3e and you came from mtg and brought the wrongthink from there with you and then whined about peasant rail guns until you got 4e...which you could have skipped and just bought the ravenloft board game and got pretty much the same but with minis.
I started with the red box. The idea that D&D was ever anything other than a game, and nakedly a game at that, is a joke.
>moving goalpost
game yes board game no. i doubt you rolled a dice before 3e.
>minis and a tape measurer
>not a board game
yes fag not a board game.
Nta, but boardgames have a board. DnD is a tabletop game.
Amusingly, going full minis-and-tape-measure is actually a critical part of the rare play conditions where D&D is undebatably not a board game, as it's a requirement to use TRULY arbitrary scenery pieces instead of ending up with a pre-drawn playmat that can be argued to be a board.
Too artificial
Too gamelike
Too mechanically intensive
Too restrictive
Players required to know the rules
Carries the implication that you can't do common sense normal things if you don't have the appropriate power
It's exactly the type of shit that should never be brought to a role-playing game in any capacity
4E was a bad, bad, bad, bad game for bad, bad, bad people.
No.
>Players required to know the rules.
Found the 5e player
I know this is a little off topic but it's the only 4e thread up right now.
Do you guys think, and hear me out on this I know it sounds crazy but I've been awake for 24 hours and my brain is starting to get fuzzy with what I think are good ideas.
What if you dropped class restrictions on what powers you could take so that it basically became one big classless combat system and then refluffed the whole thing as a Superhero game.
That would work right? I'm tired enough right now to think that works.
Everyone cherry-picks the best powers with which to make enemies explode, usually involving multiattacks or multi-damage-taps. Dragon issue #421 proposed exactly such a variant rule, and it was as bad an idea as it sounded.
Apex, by Dias Ex Machina games, is a superhero hack for 4e, but its mechanics are really rather shoddy, in my opinion.
You'd need to do a lot of balancing work but those kinds of "build your own class" systems can be a ton of fun.
>but it's the only 4e thread up right now
It's the only way to have a 4ed thread.
4ed on its own has no merits, it's only a knee jerk reaction to 3ed.
4rries cannot talk about the merits of the game, but only about its failures.
>people
My dude, that's just MMO aggro. If you wanted to defend 4e, don't post an ability that exemplifies the most common criticism people have of it.
>My dude, that's just MMO aggro
That's not how aggro works in mmos. Or in any video game at all.
The entire thread figured out the actual problem with the power (it's essentially some for of mind control, but you're doing it by attacking with a sword which makes no sense) except you, who is somehow even stupider than the average /tg/ anon. Good job.
Oh not just martial powers, the whole setup of Encounter and Daily stuff annoys me. It's ok for some sort of Heroclix inspired skirmish game but not DnD. Then again I think that "Vancian" casting is retarded too, either do it like Vance actually had it set up or use an MP system. It wasn't that 4e gave powers more expansive than "hit them again" it was how you were limited to only doing anything once. Yes I know that limited uses on powers were a thing before 4e but it tended to make slightly more sense; martials could do their tricks over and over while limited options had some reasoning from how much magic mojo you had to limited supplies, divine favor or whatever. And if you wanted to fill your spell slots with fireball, you could. Then we got 4e where you can only knock someone on their ass once per fight and can't use the same spell twice.
For one, in PF1 I can do that at-will.
But 4ed hates martials, so...
For me, it's less the fighter specifically than 4e's entire approach to design. Why can't other classes taunt this way, and why is it treated like mind control instead of roleplay? I would rather not have resource management and special moves in combat beyond what's necessary because the core survival elements of D&D that once shouldered this cognitive load like light-tracking, rations, exploration etc. had already been largely sidelined in most plays types from 2e/3e onwards. And actual veteran fencers don't win with special anime moves, they execute the same strikes everyone else does more efficiently and with better timing - this fits the niche of warrior types as a relatively simple alternative to casters, which imo they should be.
If your system is lethal enough to make combat short and infrequent (it should be) there's really nothing wrong with having 3/4 of the fighters actions be a basic attack that improves with progression and equipment. The type of combat you see in 3.5/4e (and to a lesser extent 5e) is very conductive to HP bloat, and also adds a bunch of grids to combat for very little pay-off. If I want detailed melee I can play the Riddle of Steel or Harn and have more fun than dnd 4e.
Everytime this arguement comes up it just feels like half the people just wanted more options that mattered and the other half just wanted to make shit up start to finish. Neither is wrong though
Autism and having never touched a woman.