because sacred cows. 4e works well, but 4e works well because of the things other people consider flaws.
Yes, you can probably do well without having all he roles.
but its significantly more fun if you do have them. People act as if this is a restriction, it is not. Its liberating. It makes characters not be at odds with each other, something that especialy 3e and now 5e does.
Its a more cooperative expirience.
The real reason people didnt like 4e is aesthetics. The teamplay aspect of 4e is actually something baked into the identity of DnD. However 4e made the mistake of giving it a name. It was all about the presentation. It was too clean, too gamey and it told you too many things bluntly and upfront.
Meanwhile people that were used to 3e wanted prosa text, they wanted trap options and they wanted it to be opaque.
In many ways people expect from dnd sourcebooks to be some kind of arcane books. Im not even kidding, its part of the expirience for many people, feeling like youre reading some eldritch tome that may or may not contain rules.
Id also apreCiate if youd stop telling people nonsense.
You sneak in little snippets of nonsense in between true statements. For example.
Yes, 4e is based on positioning. How does that relate to your characters beeing super heroes? it doesnt, thats a nonsense statement. the power levels are much lower than in 3e.
Or one thing i fundamentally disagree with is that the Roles supplant classes. Absoluteley not all classes within one role feel the same. I dare you to play a Fighter and a Battlemind and tell me how those classes feel even tangentially simmilar.
The same goes for playing an Avenger and a Barbarian.
Im kind of sick of such blatant lies getting plastered all over the community. It gives people misconceptions that i then have to fight against on my table.
On the dreaded "Balance". Anothe rmisunderstanding by someone who doesnt play 4e a lot.
4e isnt any more balanced than any other editions. It is defintily among the more deadly editions in early levels, at least in the way its intended to be run. What is balanced is the Characters.
However, unlike PoE, this doesnt relate to things like "Damage", 4e isnt balanced in the sense that barbarians cannot do insane damage, or that wizards cannot pull world altering bullshit at higher levels (Tho the latter significantly less so than in other editions)
What "Balance" means in terms of 4e is that there are no Trap options and no tier lists. Youll never pick up a Character you think sounds cool and then have it be garbage. What also doesnt happen is that the your Character gets overshadowed by anoher character that does your job AND another job and does both better than you.
Wizards in 4e have a role, in 3e wizards have every role. in 5e its much the same outside of pure damage.
In 4e casters did their thing, but fighters also did their thing, ironically, in and out of combat.
When you say roleplaying is not a mechanic in 4e, that probably means youve never played a fighter in 5e. Because a fighter in 5e will do jack shit outside of combat, RAW.
It was 4e that gave martials a dedicated book of things to do outside of combat. Relating to things like Blacksmithing Items so good they might aswell be magic items, camp camoflague, tracking and so on. Basically giving Mechanics to things that used to be Mother may i.
>On 5e and roles
>In 5e there can be a full striker party
In 5e these roles do not exist and thus the comparison isnt correct. Yes you can be a Party of 5 fighters in 5e. Because Fighter is the only 5e class that i would consider to be simmilar to the Striker role.
You can. but you also could in 4e. It would work. However, the main point of htis is that in 5e while it works, it also then makes you miss out on 60% of allt he game mechanics because you dont have a caster at all.
I dont see how that is any more "playable" than it is in 4e, where you actually have more ways to build an actual fighter.
Last edited by Sordak; 12/11/20 06:55 AM.
