The New Yorker has strong feelings on 4e D&D

Odradek · 2017-10-26 14:25:10

Bee · 2017-10-26 16:15:25

To be fair 4e did kinda suck. It just had more to do with two hour fights with kobolds than imaginary restrictions on roleplaying.

Odradek · 2017-10-26 16:28:20

3.5 was pretty rule-heavy with slow fights too

Never played 2e so

Tatterhood · 2017-10-26 16:43:41

oh, this is the article that one of my twitter mutuals was referring to when she was talking about how adorably new yorker-y "D. & D." is

Bee · 2017-10-26 19:55:24

3.5 was...ugh. Way too many stacking buffs to keep track of, but at least stuff died. Suddenly and decisively. Usually YOU. Fucking rocket tag.

glennmagusharvey · 2017-10-26 20:01:14

I actually thought at first that the pictured article was commenting on 3.5e.

Wasn't 4e streamlined relative to 3.5e? I'm surprised it's described here as being "stuff[ed] with rules".

Odradek · 2017-10-26 20:15:26

The general angry nerd view of 4e was that it was Garbage Anime World of Warcraft For Babies that was Too Focused on Combat and for Roll-players not Role-Players

Obā-san · 2017-10-26 20:22:35

My 4e review: no support for being a necromancer in the main players handbook and made Tieflings look like Hellboy but Lame so basically? Ass

Obā-san · 2017-10-26 20:23:37

My entire criteria for judging the quality of a TTRPG is: can I be a dope-ass necromancer

Crystal · 2017-10-26 20:25:04

demiurge said:
My entire criteria for judging the quality of a TTRPG is: can I be a dope-ass necromancer or summoner

Hexartes · 2017-10-26 20:31:16

ILLBLEED said:
The general angry nerd view of 4e was that it was Garbage Anime World of Warcraft For Babies that was Too Focused on Combat and for Roll-players not Role-Players

Do you even like 4e? I feel like that's necessary context here.

Odradek · 2017-10-26 20:37:40

I think it has its good points and its bad points like every other edition of D&D

I appreciate how it evened out some of the caster supremacy that was rampant in 3.5e and gave martial classes more cool stuff to do, but I also think a lot of the other changes it made are kinda dumb and subtractive, and I was never huge on grid-based combat in the first place in D&D

Hexartes · 2017-10-26 22:46:25

Okay, I don't mean to be difficult here, but

Why did you have to word it like this

ILLBLEED said:
The general angry nerd view of 4e was that it was Garbage Anime World of Warcraft For Babies that was Too Focused on Combat and for Roll-players not Role-Players

...which is rather combatative

If your own opinion would be significantly more nuanced and illuminating

Klinotaxis · 2017-10-26 22:50:52

because it's a statement of someone else's opinion?

Odradek · 2017-10-26 22:52:32

Kuranosuke said:
Okay, I don't mean to be difficult here, but

Why did you have to word it like this
ILLBLEED said:
The general angry nerd view of 4e was that it was Garbage Anime World of Warcraft For Babies that was Too Focused on Combat and for Roll-players not Role-Players
...which is rather combatative

If your own opinion would be significantly more nuanced and illuminating

Because the person who wrote this NYT article clearly heard from people who think like that in the process of writing the article

Hexartes · 2017-10-26 22:54:29

Fair enough I guess, it just vaguely rubbed me the wrong way

Bee · 2017-10-27 01:38:30

I was always really meh on 3.5 being considered caster supremacy. Casters had like a 25-50% chance to splat other PC's with instadeath, but by mid-level all the monsters had ridiculous resistance and/or immunity, so casters were reduced to spamming rays of enfeeblement/exhaustion and hoping they didn't get SR'd. Past level 12 or so all your damage came from power attacking melee.

The New Yorker has strong feelings on 4e D&D

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories