Thread 96298364

What do you think of the D&D 4e warlord and its descendants?

D&D 3.5's Tome of Battle laid some of the groundwork with the White Raven discipline. D&D 4e's warlord, though, really captured the package of a nonmagical leader/support/buffing/healing class. It was one of D&D 4e's strongest leader classes.

Since then, other tactics-oriented games have followed suit: 13th Age's commander, Strike!'s warlord, Fabula Ultima's commander, Pathfinder 2e's commander (and, to a lesser extent, Starfinder 2e's envoy), and Draw Steel's tactician, among others. Draw Steel is notable in that it has no generic "soldierly fighter" class, instead folding the concept into the tactician, particularly its vanguard subclass.

All of these have an ability that lets an ally make an attack instead of the warlord themselves. This is strong and flexible because it allows exactly the right PC to make exactly the right attack against exactly the right enemy (and possibly with accuracy/damage buffs, perhaps from the warlord). Flavor-wise, this represents being a leader so incisive and inspiring that they can point out an opening an spur an ally to push past their limits, for just one crucial moment.

These warlords have a narrative aspect to their abilities. They are not manipulating time or shouting wounds closed. The game allows the player to declare that, yes, there is an opening right here and right now, and that the warlord can point it out; or that the injuries are not so bad after all, and that the warlord's words are enough to let an ally ignore the pain.

D&D 5(.5)e has yet to produce a first-party warlord. At best, some Battle Master and Purple Dragon Knight features can splash a vague facsimile of warlord-like abilities, but the character is still a fighter first and foremost, better at personally fighting than at barking out orders.

Daggerheart does not have a warlord. It seems hard to implement warlord-like mechanics into the system, given its lack of a traditional turn structure.

They are trash. The people who like them are also trash, largely because the idea of a mechanically-imposed "Leader" is awful, and also because they generally just exploit action economy which is why they were so powerful. They're for little people with big egos, the napoleons of the table.

They don't fit in a skirmish scale game, especially one where each player is encouraged to make their own decisions and not be lead by an appointed "tactician."

If a class is going to grant extra actions to other characters, it should be done not because they're so brilliant at shouting orders, but in a more humble and perhaps even humiliating fashion where the player is forced to acknowledge their character's own actions are mediocre in comparison to the people they depend upon, and that they are less the mechanically-appointed de-facto leader and more of a glorified cheerleader.

Rather than a "Warlord", I'd prefer Fire Emblems take on a class that grants extra actions.

>>96298744
>even humiliating
And the mask falls off.

They are great. The people who like them are also great, largely because the idea of a mechanically-enabled "Leader" is awesome, and also because they generally make use of the action economy which is why they were so powerful. They're for big people with small egos, the Cincinnatuses of the table.

They fit in a skirmish scale game, especially one where each player is encouraged to work together and not scatter to the four winds.

If a class is going to grant extra actions to other characters, it should be because he's so brilliant at issuing orders and inspiring his men, and not in a humiliating or demeaning fashion, but one that emphasizes the synergy and camaraderie between leader and led, not like a cheerleader but as a mechanically-enabled and authentic leader.

Rather than a "Dancer", I prefer D&D 4e's take on a class that grants extra actions.

>>96298744
>no, player characters CAN'T have in-universe hierarchies supported by mechanics
>no, TTRPGs can't have a designated main character EVER, it can NEVER be done right
>no, boosting other people CAN'T make you look cool, you HAVE to do it yerself to get any respect
Not gonna make it for Domain play.

>>96298364 (OP)
Frankly, I don't like the attempt to fluff Warlord or any of the other 4e martials as being purely mundane. It stretches suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point. However, as a design, I think the Warlord is great. Force multipliers are fun.

>>96298364 (OP)
The Warlord is the best class D&D ever had.

>>96298744
FPWP

>>96298792
If you're gonna play a character that has powerful abilities that exploit action economy, it needs sufficient trade-offs.

The Warlord was the most played Leader in 4e, even moreso than Clerics, and it being considerably stronger than all the other Leaders was a big part of that. Attaching the flavor of "You're a Fighter but with charisma so high that you can virtually heal people by shouting at them" while also putting the original high-charisma-fighter Paladins in a primarily defensive/reactive position in 4e, and the Warlord's popularity doesn't come as a surprise. Kind of like how the Avenger rapidly outpaced the Paladin in popularity, largely just by being one of the best Striker Classes in the game and similarly flavored to a Paladin, while the Paladin was mechanically just a not-as-good-as-a-Fighter Defender.

Action economy manipulation is inherently strong, and if there's going to be a class with that as its primary activity, it can't overlap with the other classes or it will overshadow them. Ideally in D&D, the Bard would be retooled as less of a half-assed "little bit of everything" class and actually given a proper identity via a focus on AEM at the exclusion of everything else, but since the Bard is already established as an awkward version of a Red Mage that happens to play an instrument, a new class would probably be more appropriate. Something like a Jester perhaps.

>>96299071
What're you even talking about? Avengers and Paladins occupy the same spot: good but behind the top classes of their niche. People like Avengers because they're cool and mechanically competent.

>>96298744

>If a class is going to grant extra actions to other characters, it should be done not because they're so brilliant at shouting orders, but in a more humble and perhaps even humiliating fashion where the player is forced to acknowledge their character's own actions are mediocre in comparison to the people they depend upon, and that they are less the mechanically-appointed de-facto leader and more of a glorified cheerleader.

I have played and DMed for a few warlords who were flavored as scaredy cats begging for others to rescue them.

>>96299115
Except Avengers are Strikers, which are a more popular role than Defenders, and their signature mechanic is borderline broken and only overshadowed by how broken Rangers can be.

>>96299253

>their signature mechanic is borderline broken
I really, really would not call the avenger all that good a striker class, particularly at the heroic tier. It has plenty of problems that hold back its potential.

>only overshadowed by how broken Rangers can be.
Rangers are definitely good strikers out-of-the-box. I certainly would not discount monks, rogues, and sorcerers, though.

>>96299314
What makes Avengers great is their unrivaled consistency and reliability, which is often underappreciated because it's not quite as explosive.

>>96298364 (OP)
I hate buffing other players because they never remember their fucking buffs. Even when I do my best to remind them, put up index cards, let them know not to forget X or that Y applies. The worst was 5e bardic inspiration dice, that was absolutely shit design. Abilities that aren't persistent or situational but instead are a Happens Right Now type that you resolve as instantly as they come up are fine. Same with healing. But shit you need to remind people about or specifically time are fucking annoying.

>>96299354

>unrivaled consistency and reliability
I do not even find them that consistent, particularly when Oath of Enmity turns off while adjacent to multiple opponents.

It is as this particular tier list says:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gSVBnsirn5lt3blMR7g7JWP2s80rdP5FeF6z6qBPr8c/edit
>Avenger (2/5 stars): R&D overvalued accuracy

Earlier this year, I played a level 7 avenger with all manner of house rule buffs to improve the class, and still struggled with encounters.

As far as homebrew avenger reworks are concerned, I like absolitude's package:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CsDl5FzwSUXi0E0pEqHfG8j0_BgGnE_j4D4aXPaVMss/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.g1g5ubl5f7jn
+ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f0_Gd5Xu86rXgsZ-f7vII-jLVotFdVI5dGuG6j1fBtg/edit?tab=t.4jbtrywbtk2k#heading=h.pasp747a0mw1

I also like erachima's rework:
https://pastebin.com/J3xJTzxR

>>96298744
Labeling the support classes as "Leader" was just the way to convince people to actually give them a chance and not assume they were all just passive support/healbots.

You'll notice that something being labeled as a Leader doesn't actually demand anything of their role in the party. Unless everyone agrees ahead of time that they're in an official military unit, one guy being an army captain doesn't change anything. He might be better at calling the shots in a tactical situation, which is mechanically represented by the buffs and extra actions, but it isn't as if players are then required to listen to him on their turn or out of combat.

And using Fire Emblem as an example of a game that does this right is laughable when those games have plenty of princes and nobles who are designated main characters.

>>96299566

>army captain

Warlord classes offer a good deal of flexibility in this regard, I think. Sure, many of them are actual military officers, but a warlord PC could also be a gang leader from the mean streets, a noble with a knack for bossing people around, a country hick with so much élan that they galvanize the people around them, or a crybaby unusually good at getting people to defend them.

>>96298364 (OP)
>What do you think of the D&D 4e warlord and its descendants?

Chiefly, I don't.

They're not really the same mechanically since EO Sovereigns are more about AoE buffs, but, thematically, it's a perfect fit.

>>96299539
Wrong link.

>>96299566
>He might be better at calling the shots in a tactical situation, which is mechanically represented by the buffs and extra actions, but it isn't as if players are then required to listen to him on their turn or out of combat.

The idea that his abilities are coming from him calling the shots is at issue. What if, for example, someone else with higher tactical intelligence and stronger leadership decides to issue orders to the warlord to grant them attacks? We're talking about a class with supposedly borderline supernatural leadership, being cowed into "leading" characters into doing effectively what they're telling him to make them do. It's several levels of "what the fuck is going on", and it all comes just from players actually not treating the Leader role as a "leader" role.

>it isn't as if players are then required to listen to him
It's a firm expectation and the entire class breaks apart if that expectation isn't followed, as illustrated above. If the party does not play around the idea the the Warlord is the leader, the Warlord class becomes almost entirely nonsensical, in a way beyond even what the other Leader classes would. You're right in saying that the "Leader" moniker was just something to make "Healer" sound more attractive, but the issue with the Warlord is that they actually took the "Leader" name to heart.

In character, if your party contained a tactical genius, it doesn't make sense not to have him lead the battle. Players picking Warlord are essentially counting on that, to the degree where I don't think you even imagined a situation where another player would issue orders to the Warlord.

>And using Fire Emblem as an example of a game that does this right is laughable when those games have plenty of princes and nobles who are designated main characters.
They're single-player video games. You might as well be pointing at something else FE does because it's a single-player video game, such as using controllers.

>>96298744
OP BTFO FOREVER AND EVER
/THREAD

>>96298364 (OP)
I find amazing that 4e is compared to Word of Warcraft, while it actually feels way more videogamey.
WoW managed to give a flavorful dimension to warriors as fighters but also as something more with those shouts, warcries and such.

4e D&D and its derivatives are the worst thing that could happen to RPGs.

>>96299846
>while it actually feels way more videogamey.
No

>>96299866
NTA. It's a problem of dissociated mechanics. Lots of things that work a certain way for game reasons but don't make sense in the fiction. I like 4e for its character building and combat, but it is very gamey.

>>96298364 (OP)
They're lots of fun, but they kind of demand a large-ish party and a DM that is going to be throwing a lot of encounters your way. I wouldn't play one in a 3 or even 4-man party, nor in a roleplay/intrigue focused campaign, but if those two things don't matter then I'd be happy to roll one

>>96299832
>What if, for example, someone else with higher tactical intelligence and stronger leadership decides to issue orders to the warlord to grant them attacks?
A Rogue might have a better Arcana skill check than a Sorcerer. That doesn't mean they're going to be better at casting spells than the Sorcerer.

>You might as well be pointing at something else FE does
Like having a dancer class? Because that was the initial example the other anon brought up. Glad we can safely dismiss it due to FE being single player then.

>>96298364 (OP)
The Fighter should always be the one who buffs the team in fighting by leading from the front. I hate the Purple Dragon Knight because it's sparse in nature and the Battle Master naturally fits the role of Warlord better then it ever could or would.

There is also a wealth of PrCs from 3.5 you could draw inspiration from like the Legendary leader or the Dread Pirate among others

>>96299922
The Battle Master is a shit tier Warlord. It's shit tier compared to White Raven too.

>>96299825

Which link is wrong?

>>96299832

>What if, for example, someone else with higher tactical intelligence and stronger leadership decides to issue orders to the warlord to grant them attacks?
That would be a higher-level warlord.

>>96299922

Draw Steel's approach was to completely remove the "generic soldierly warrior" as a class, and to fold it into the tactician, mostly under the vanguard subclass.

>>96299933
White Raven was hilariously busted, it is not a good measuring stick to compare things to

>>96299912

I have seen warlords work very well in three- and even four-PC parties in 4e. Most groups will want a leader class anyway, and a warlord synergizes well with most party compositions.

>>96299948
No it wasn't.

>>96299921
>A Rogue might have a better Arcana skill check than a Sorcerer. That doesn't mean they're going to be better at casting spells than the Sorcerer.

But they will be expected to know more about Magic and be a better expert regarding Magic, and be more relied upon with any questions or concerns regarding magic beyond actually casting, something the sorcerer does via supernatural bloodline.

Hell, in a battle facing against a spellcaster, people would be expected to turn towards the high Arcana skill rogue in regards of what they should do, rather than the sorcerer.

>Because that was the initial example the other anon brought up
As a example of flavor. Pretty sure a class that can't do anything except refresh another unit was never put on the table for consideration.

>>96299846
>>96299891
Let's be fair. 4e is video-gamey, but nowhere near as video-gamey as WoW.

>>96299963
>Hell, in a battle facing against a spellcaster, people would be expected to turn towards the high Arcana skill rogue in regards of what they should do, rather than the sorcerer.
Yes. That's an example of how one character might give out a broader order, and then other characters use their abilities to capitalize on it.
Much like how another character could tell the Warlord the battle plan, and then rely on his tactical experience to execute it with the timing and precision needed via his class features.
A charismatic Warlord might serve as the hypeman for a more charismatic Paladin. An intelligent Warlord might be the tactician where the smarter Wizard is the party's overarching planner and strategist.

Again, nothing requires the Warlord be in charge just because he has abilities that lean into that idea. In the same way that a Sorcerer having magic doesn't require that he also be the party's foremost expert on every aspect of magic.

>>96298744
>having another player character shout orders at mine makes me feel uncomfortable, I think they should be the ones feeling uncomfortable instead!

Alright buddy

>>96298364 (OP)
Neat idea honestly. I like the general concept of a tactical master type character. The problem is most systems treat this idea as a sergeant that barks orders with zero mechanical benefit, and most parties treat the concept like a military commander with sweeping authority to shit on their parade. Even when dealing with NPCs, a lot of people forget that character skill can contribute to troop management, and leave most or all of the decision making to the player behind the character, with mixed results.

>>96300011
>In the same way that a Sorcerer having magic doesn't require that he also be the party's foremost expert on every aspect of magic.
Except we're not talking about not-fully understood and ambiguous Battle Magic that comes from an innate bloodline, are we?

The mental gymnastics you have to perform to explain why a warlord would not be the de-facto leader of a group is what players who gravitate towards Warlords rely upon in order to try and use the class to be the de-facto leader of a group. It really takes the greasy lie that 4e tried to tell about how "The Leader role is not supposed to come with the expectation of issuing orders to the rest of the party" and throws it out the window. Having WoW roles was a bad idea, renaming the "Healer" to "Leader" was also a terrible decision even if just done in name only, and then just doubling down and making an actual Leader class was by far the worst decision of all.

I've never seen anyone opposed to the Warlord who was not straight up That Guy.

>>96300011
>An intelligent Warlord might be the tactician where the smarter Wizard is the party's overarching planner and strategist.

Why would the wizard have anywhere near the combat experience of the Fighter especially if being a soldier or warrior of any sort isn't in their background?

>>96300154
Wizards have been dedicated quest givers for a long time. Its perfectly thematic for a wizard to decide the what and a martial with actual military experience to decide the how.

>>96298744
worst post I've ever seen

>>96300154
Not all combat experience involves swords and shields. Wizards originally being a replacement for artillery and cannons, they would have their place in a dedicated combat unit, which is known for having different roles because it needs to cover a wide range of problems.

>>96299071
I'm not going to bother to read this and dispute the topic since your mask already slipped: you want this to be some weird pyscho-sexual degradation thing.

>>96299071
Thank you for letting everyone know you don't know the first thing about what was strong in 4e.

>>96298744
Oh hey, I recognize you. It's impressive how it's always obviously the exact same guy having an ego breakdown over taking orders.

>>96300154
That's up to your party to decide. Plenty of famous tacticians in history were never soldiers and had no direct combat experience.

>>96300001
Classic WoW has old school RPG class trainers and spell material components.

>>96306514
I think your conclusion says more about you.

>>96306514
When I say 4rries are seriously mentally ill - just look at this post.

>>96298364 (OP)
That’s the bard btw

>>96309463
I wish it was the same guy, but there's a reason I said >>96300132

It's ALWAYS a retard who insists that the Warlord is the de facto Main Character. Always. And they're always complete trash at any table they're at.

>>96298364 (OP)
> D&D 5(.5)e has yet to produce a first-party warlord
I’m glad we got our core book out for 2024dnd without dogshit 4e class design. They may have been scared bitches afraid of changing up 5e with the revision, but at least that resulted in less 4e bullshit and maybe you’ll fuck off to DRAW STEEL!

>>96300132
Opposed to what? The concept of a martial support? None did.
Oppose to yell at wounds until they close? That's normal.
>muh HP are not physical
they are always in some part physical, is physical attacks that remove them.

>>96312214
Issue with words to heal is that verbal is already a component of magics (healing word) but the warlords words that heal are suspiciously not magical

>>96312274
If they gave temporary (read: morale) HPs, or just had a White Raven tob approach (the non-retarded parts).
But they intentionally flattened all the classes until the 4e Psionics. What a lost chance.

And the motivation is the same of PF2e, let's be honest. Lazyness, incompetence and inability of handle what you design.

>>96312214
Case in point.

>>96312600
You don't have arguments anon.

>>96311038
You're the one demanding that other PCs be humiliated before you're willing to play with them. Stop projecting.

>>96312740
I am not the anon that post was answering to.
Another anon >>96311000
Rightfully point out that the post betrays a lot of issues.

>>96312750
>Rightfully point out that the post betrays a lot of issues.
What issues? Not wanting to engage in ritual humiliation before playing a TTRPG?

>>96312756
If that's how you read the world, don't be surprised you are called mentally ill.

>>96312769
>If that's how you read the world, don't be surprised you are called mentally ill.
NTA who used the Freud pic. I just read the post where the incredible nogames loser demands that the Warlord player:

>If a class is going to grant extra actions to other characters, it should be done not because they're so brilliant at shouting orders, but in a more humble and perhaps even humiliating fashion where the player is forced to acknowledge their character's own actions are mediocre in comparison to the people they depend upon, and that they are less the mechanically-appointed de-facto leader and more of a glorified cheerleader.

Your class must function in a "perhaps even humiliating fashion". You must be "forced to acknowledge their character's own actions are mediocre in comparison" to the other PCs. You are a "glorified cheerleader."

If you don't see this as ritual humiliation, then you're just blind - or, more likely, lying through your teeth. Your next PC can be a glorified cheerleader for the rest of the party, forced to acknowledge their inferiority, if you really think this is a normal way of playing the game and anyone who argues with it is, themselves, mentally ill.

>>96312811
I don't really care, but
>pyscho-sexual degradation
If you think this is a normal reaction, I think we are pretty much done.

On a different note, trying to address your rambling, I could just call an attention whore narcissist the average Warlord player for similar reasons...

>>96312828
>I don't really care, but
>>pyscho-sexual degradation
>If you think this is a normal reaction, I think we are pretty much done.
The pic used for what the "glorified cheerleader" should be more like is literally a sexy dancing chick. I don't think it's much of a stretch.

>On a different note, trying to address your rambling, I could just call an attention whore narcissist the average Warlord player for similar reasons...
No, you couldn't. D&D is a game where the party is full of players all with equal billing; it's not Ars Magica where sometimes you have one wizard and three grogs, all played by players. Unless you can find a Warlord player complaining that other players won't agree that he's the MC and they're all inferior to him, then you're just making up this evil narcissistic Warlord.

>>96312214
>Oppose to yell at wounds until they close? That's normal.
>>muh HP are not physical
>they are always in some part physical, is physical attacks that remove them.
The SFX of a Warlord "healing" the other party members is obviously them fighting on/ignoring an otherwise grievous injury, not their wounds magically closing.

You guys always pretend to be retarded for this, I don't know why.

>>96312890
>it’s actually not healing it’s just inspiring them to ignore the harm that they’ve taken (by increasing their health points)

>>96312900
Morale is explicitly part of HP in 4E.

>buffing your party should be "humiliating"
>this is what some weirdos on /tg/ actually believe
Gotta say, didn't expect to read that today

>>96312900
I assume you were just as angry when Barbarians in 3e suddenly gave themselves a bunch of extra HP.

>>96312890
>The SFX of a Warlord "healing" the other party members is obviously them fighting on/ignoring an otherwise grievous injury, not their wounds magically closing.
Again with this bullshit holy shit. Which is all post-hoc by the way and gets debunked by EVERYTHING from a poisoned blade to the Cleric that needs actual miracles to do the same.
Think about it. The injury is an actual injury or NOT, a blade is envenomed or NOT, in base of who is going to heal the characters.

Completely ridiculous and immersion breaking, and all because they could be half-assed to design the Warlord (which IS a cool concept) as something ACTUALLY mechanically different. Bunch of incompetent fools.

>>96312929
Oh my my, this is the part in which he breaks down and starts the passive-aggressive posts with no actual answers because it could hurt his feelings.
Oh my, my.

>>96312911
An undifferentiated part, contributing to the world-logic strangeness of one HP bucket.

>>96312938
NTA, but the 3.X Barbarian mechanism tracks very well with "fighting through injuries" because it's a proper Morale bonus and you drop if the extra HP is the only thing keeping you standing when the Rage ends.

>>96312938
NTA but you are a retard, because you cannot understand that temporary hit points work in a different way, starting with stacking on top of the rest.

>>96312955
>Again with this bullshit holy shit. Which is all post-hoc by the way and gets debunked by EVERYTHING from a poisoned blade to the Cleric that needs actual miracles to do the same.
>Think about it. The injury is an actual injury or NOT, a blade is envenomed or NOT, in base of who is going to heal the characters.
You guys are seriously tiny-brained retards. "The Cleric needs a MIRACLE to heal me." Or you can take a fucking short rest, bitch. You can lie down for 8 hours in 5e and clear all your damage.

>>96312974
Too bad the Barbarian in 3e didn't get temporary hit points, bitch. Nice try, go home, faggot.

>>96312955
You're applying a specific conception of HP to a game where it doesn't apply.

>>96312964
Nah, I don't have a dog in whatever slapfight is gong on here, I'm mostly just here to thank whoever made that whopper of a post, cause describing giving party buffs as needing to be done in a "humble and perhaps even humiliating fashion" sound more like they're describing a blowjob than making number go up, and even if they're being serious that's fucking funny

>>96312986
>You can lie down for 8 hours in 5e and clear all your damage.
Not even 8 hours. 6 hours is enough. Spend the other 2 hours getting a blowjob from the Cleric so that he can feel useful.

>>96312986
>You guys are seriously tiny-brained retards. "The Cleric needs a MIRACLE to heal me." Or you can take a fucking short rest, bitch. You can lie down for 8 hours in 5e and clear all your damage.
This is absolutely not helping your case buddy, it's making 4e look even worse in fact. More immersion breaking.
>bitch. Nice try
someone is mad for being humiliated once again. Why don't you just give up, anon?

>>96312992
>to a game where it doesn't apply.
Because this game shouldn't have been called D&D, ever.

>>96312986
>You guys are seriously tiny-brained retards.
No, it's that we have a stronger suspension of disbelief or understand how obnoxious refactoring all the rules to separate out all the factors HP represents would be.

>Or you can take a fucking short rest, bitch. You can lie down for 8 hours in 5e and clear all your damage.
Technically a Short Rest draws on limited Hit Dice recovery and a Long Rest only restores half of those, so the Cleric casting Cure Wounds still expands your HP resources beyond natural limits.

>Too bad the Barbarian in 3e didn't get temporary hit points, bitch. Nice try, go home, faggot.
Specifically so that they are not lost first like temp HP:
>The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian’s hit points by 2 points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are not lost first the way temporary hit points are.)
Thus the dynamic is that if the only thing keeping them standing is the Rage, they drop at the end of it, as would be expected for "too angry to care about injury".

desu I really liked the Commissar in Only War being able to heal people from brink of death by giving their comrade a field execution.
Oh your hand got blown to bits? *BLAM*
>Don't even THINK of using the Emperor's expensive cybernetics on my watch!
Shit is hilarious, but I can see how it might be bit thematically jarring in a pastel colored fairytale adventure.

>>96313178
This sounds retarded as well, and not in the way usually associated with 40k.

>>96312964
Sorry, my guy, your jig is up.

>>96313011
>not realizing the other anon was talking about 3e
Lmao
>>96313032
By that logic warlord is fine because his healing expends surges..

>>96313032
>Technically a Short Rest draws on limited Hit Dice recovery and a Long Rest only restores half of those, so the Cleric casting Cure Wounds still expands your HP resources beyond natural limits.
So effectively the exact same thing Warlords do since pretty much all 4e dealing draws on Healing Surges? Congratz on defeating your own point, I suppose.

>>96313667
>By that logic warlord is fine because his healing expends surges..
With more suspension of disbelief than you seem to have, recognizing the "big tent" of HP for the low-fidelity abstraction it is. It affects the morale aspect, but because there's only one HP bucket it offsets stuff that doesn't make sense for.

It's no different from Ghedden failing to feel pain pairing with Regeneration making damage non-lethal resulting in never taking damage from arbitrarily large bludgeons; you COULD pry at that violation of logic, but you can also shrug and say it's not worth the overhead of giving ALL the different in-universe functions different mechanics to stop it.

>>96313693
>So effectively the exact same thing Warlords do since pretty much all 4e dealing draws on Healing Surges?
The two points in what you quoted are that this isn't quite right to compare between editions as the 5e cleric doesn't have such a restriction and that it isn't quite right because a single Long Rest doesn't actually full-heal due to the limited recovery of Hit Dice to roll.

>Congratz on defeating your own point, I suppose.
That's actually my first post in this thread, reinforcing the anti-4rrie points from the "game can't afford to split every hair" perspective and nitpicking game mechanics.

>>96313667
>>not realizing you are a fucking retard
ok anon

>>96313011
>This is absolutely not helping your case buddy, it's making 4e look even worse in fact. More immersion breaking.
If your problem is 4e then say your problem is 4e, not the Warlord class, retard.

>>96314051
....both?
And these ARE correlated. The underlying design in 4e is all fucked up and most of its problems, when is not just "bad math", share the same underlying disregard for immersion and an hyper-focused gameplay style.

>>96314120
There is nothing wrong with the underlying design of 4E. 4E's 'bad math' at its worst was still tighter and more coherent than anything before it by the way.

>>96314151
>There is nothing wrong with the underlying design of 4E.
doubt

>4E's 'bad math' at its worst was still tighter and more coherent than anything before it by the way.
now this is cope lol,

>>96314176
How many games did AC get obsoleted in again?

>>96314120
They aren't correlated at all. You are whining that the HP in 4e represents something different than what you want it to represent, which it has never represented.

The fact that you think it's so bad for healing surges to exist in 4e, but it's not immersion breaking for the barbarian to put on a bunch of extra meat points in 3e, or for a 5e fighter to take a nice six hour snooze after rolling a 20 on the death save and then be perfectly healed up, is because your brain is very small.

>>96313864
>That's actually my first post in this thread

>>96314151
>still tighter and more coherent than anything before it by the way.
Not at all, because it led to slogs. A "broken" 3e fight can be solved by a crit, which is scary or awesome, but always exciting.
Faggots complained about this and the retards of the design team obliged - failure ensued.
> which it has never represented
Once again 4rries are rewriting history to cope.
BTW I don't care about 5e, its shittiest parts also have the 4e taint.

>>96314202
>You are whining
None is whining. I am telling you what is immersion breaking and what led to 4e's SPECTACULAR failure.

>>96298744
>They're for little people with big egos, the napoleons of the table.
Napoleon wasn't little though. And I think becoming Emperor of France and generally being smarter and than 99.9% of the country (Aside from owning everyone in war, guy had an insanely good memory.)
I shouldn't be surprised that a terrible poster also swallows angloid propaganda though.

>>96317937
>frenchie offended

>>96306417
Kinda lame and gay headcanon but also irrelevant.

>>96313864
>>96313032
You have tiny brain. Me? Big brain, huge brain. Me not care about imm her zhun, because me too smart. me just roll hit with club or mah jik. good game. you care about imm her zhun dumb.

>>96317978
Opposite side of Europe, I'm just a history autist.

>>96298744
That's a Bard.

>>96317937
We're not talking about the historical figure so much as the complex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex
If you have an issue with that, perhaps you have your own inferiority complex you should contend with first.

>>96318543
>We're not talking about the historical figure so much as the complex.
I don't have any issue with the complex itself, just the historicity of the terminology.

>>96299832
>What if your so called leader is taking orders from someone above him?
Then you're in the Army.

>>96318511
Warlord is a bootleg bard, it’s a snowflake class designed for people who don’t want to engage with magic despite them both being the same niche

>>96318565
Napoleon was not a tall man.
More importantly, he was sensitive about being depicted as short, to the point where he tried to get cartoons of him being shown as short banned.
Regardless of how tall you think 5'6" is, even for its time, his personal guard were selected with height requirements exceeding the average, so any time he would be encountered, he would appear short.

>>96317920
>immersion breaking
Fairly irrelevant to the vast majority of players past the most surface level otherwise everyone'd be playing GURPS over D&D.
>what led to 4e's SPECTACULAR failure
Among the things that actually led to its failure, "immersion-breaking mechanics" are so far down on the list as to be barely worth discussing in an time when 4e-style tactical skirmish games are rapidly gaining more popularity.

>>96318631
>Napoleon was not a tall man.
Nor was he short.
>More importantly, he was sensitive about being depicted as short, to the point where he tried to get cartoons of him being shown as short banned.
*Sigh*.
No, anon, he did not ban satirical prints because they made him "look short". He banned them because they, including many of those that offered no depictions of him at all (or indeed any aside from simple words), were a direct challenge to his authority and could sway popular opinion against him. And just about every government on Earth has limited freedom of expression to curtail dissent against their rule.
So once again, the sole reason for such naming conventions has nothing at all to do with fact, but simply the remnants of propaganda. If you still take issue with this and can't handle such disagreement, you'll have to scream at the wind about it because there is nothing more for me to say to you.

>>96317917
>Not at all, because it led to slogs.
Outside a single early game orc unit, the initial mathematical issues in 4e did not matter at fucking all until Paragon play, which is not what the vast majority of people dogging on 4e played.

What "slog" otherwise? If your party understands teamwork then no encounter should last over 3-4 turns. Even very hard ones budgeted at 5+ levels above the party.

>It's another 4rries pretend the game had no problems thread
Nothing kills interest for new players faster than being lied to kek

>>96318723
4e has plenty of issues. You just can't actually name any or provide constructive critique of them because you're a dishonest retard parroting misinformation from over a decade ago.

>>96318734
Name 10 real issues with 4e. We’ve tried and been deemed liars so you must steelman for us

>>96318686
>Nor was he short.
Short in comparison to what he would like to be, which is tall. Short is relative, and when it comes to Emperors, even people of average height are a bit of a disappointment compared to the idealized image.
>He banned them because they, including many of those that offered no depictions of him at all (or indeed any aside from simple words), were a direct challenge to his authority and could sway popular opinion against him.
He TRIED banning them because he didn't like being shown as short almost as much as you get upset about him being called short.
>So once again, the sole reason for such naming conventions has nothing at all to do with fact,
His personal guard had a height requirement that ensured he'd always be surrounded by much taller men. Even without the propaganda depicting him as a midget, he would still have been seen as short thanks to that.

>there is nothing more for me to say to you.
Yes, please shut the fuck up. UmAckchually armchair-historians like yourself need to stay off Mt. Stupid.

>>96318824
>arguing French lore
>says they’re not French

>>96318723
It's common behavior for stans of "forgotten" games/editions. 4rries do it, savages do it, gurpsfags do it, even EP2E fags do it. If there's a cause to feel inferior, it'll show in how they can't handle criticism.

>>96318824
Aren't you the one on mount stupid and him in the chasm of actual knowledge if he's not willing to keep talking?

>>96318849
No, he thought he was correcting an incorrect public opinion of Napoleon being a midget, but had overcorrected too far into thinking Napoleon could never be considered short outside of British propaganda, and now has to slink into the next valley after being faced with further knowledge.

>>96317920
Again, the health system in 5e involves napping for 6h healing you to full, yet it's very successful.

>>96318866
No? how so?

>>96318584
Bard is a faggot warlord, it's a snowflake class designed for people who need to have special magical powers despite them both being in the same niche.

>>96317917
>A "broken" 3e fight can be solved by a crit
Not if you're dealing with something unable to be crit. Or something that doesn't allow you to hit it.

>>96318879
Maybe people were more desensitized to immersion breaking HP mechanics thanks to 4e's colossal failure.

>>96318894
People who didn't play 4E at all aren't going to care about how 4E handled HP.

>>96318890
True, so we’ll keep bard and tell warlord to fuck off back to 4e

>>96318894
I never thought about that. Maybe 4e FORCED the designers of 5e to make the worst edition of D&D yet.

>>96318783
I think what we see here is the greatest problem of 4e.
5e is just dumbed down shit so ok. I respect it less as a game than 4e in fact, while I could still play it in some way. But there is no actual discourse worthy of anyone's time.
3e players will admit all the warts and yell at each other about how to counter them, what it's the best power "interval", the best books some lost lore and so on.
OSR players will go through something G.G. stated in a lost article 40 years back and argue hours.

4e players have no actual discourse. No critique, the game is perfect and it died because "conspiracies" - design team, hasbro, le evil 3tard/pathfailure players and so on. Any criticism toward the game is misunderstanding, any pointing out at a retarded, immersion breaking mechanic is denied.
It's impossible to talk about 4e because 4rries behave like a cult, and this is from day 1, I remember well.
This will of impose a certain type of hyper-restrictive game design on others never ceased and there is no way to move them from there.

>>96318902
Nah, 4e was two steps back and 5e was one step forward. It was better in many ways (hence the success) but still retained some of the failings. The improvement was enough for D&D to recapture the market anyways though.

>>96318891
And so? There are so many ways to overcome that directly and indirectly.
3e is a game of endless counters, not of endless slog and sameness.

>>96298744
>no I don’t want to be an armored warlord
>I’d much rather be a scantily clad dancer
Anon…

>>96318918
5e has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It is a game with a combat engine that is sluggish to resolve, character creation that's a chore, monster stat blocks that take forever to make, virtually no (or actively fuckawful) mechanics for anything that's not a combat, and yet the actual combat has nothing to make me fire more than two neurons on my turn.

>>96318909
In my experience, 3e and 5e players will both go
>Yeah I had those problems too, here's how I fixed them
More often than not. You occasionally get fags who are culty or too stupid to recognize a problem for what it is, but by and large they either just aren't running and playing the types of games you are or they're actively discussing how to fix what doesn't work.

4rries insist there are no problems, you're a crazy disingenuous disinfo shill for saying there's a problem, how dare you insult perfection like that?!
And then they'll wonder why it's so hard to put together a group for it.

>>96318783
1. OGL -> GSL was an insanely bad and disastrous downgrade
2. Some abilities were differentiated primarily mechanically, which is hard to grasp for players new to TTRPGs
3. Combats take longer to resolve, which is bad for dungeon crawls and the adventures tended to include a bunch of trash combat despite this
4. Math broke down at high levels
5. Skill challenges were busted at release (IDR if they got fixed or houseruled/ignored into functionality)

You can come up with the next five yourself.

>>96318933
>5e has no redeeming qualities whatsoever
I disagree. It's a very stream lined edition that's pretty easy for DMs to manage and create new shit for, but isn't restrictive to the point where players have no tools whatsoever and can't do a little buildfagging and optimizing.
>It is a game with a combat engine that is sluggish to resolve
Same speed or faster than every other edition.
>character creation that's a chore
See above excepting pre-3e which is more straight forward, and 3.X which, while slower, is much more interesting if you're a power gamer.
>monster stat blocks that take forever to make
Ehhhh, maybe if you're retarded? Monsters are really straight forward and it's hard to fuck up. The only thing you have to be careful with are abilities and weird shit.
>virtually no (or actively fuckawful) mechanics for anything that's not a combat
They're scant compared to crunchy systems, but they aren't "virtually no" mechanics.
They're honestly just the right amount for starting GMs to learn how to make calls and come up with shit, yet have enough guidelines that you don't end up with zero direction in traditional play. I can see it being frustrating if you wanted detailed rules for how to chop down a door that go beyond "Roll a check" or such though.
>and yet the actual combat has nothing to make me fire more than two neurons on my turn.
It's simple and ez, good for newbies who might struggle just to remember the proper order of things. Tiresome to play normally after your first couple of rodeos though.
But honestly, once you've played as many systems as I have, it all starts to feel the exact same, and 99% of systems out there are on the same level of genuine depth as 5e.

>>96318938
Presumably anyone still running 4e likes its mechancics.

>>96318975
>He can't even name 10
>Two of them aren't even actual critiques
Kek, took you half an hour and I bet you had to search shit up on plebbit and pick out what you felt were acceptable critiques.

>>96318991
There are probably some autists like that (I know a few who do, but they also almost never run/play 4e because getting together a group is a herculean task).
I think more are just emotionally attached, or they wouldn't have the cult behavior going on. It's one thing to say, "Yeah, I know, but I still like it and have fun with it" and another to go "ALL UNAPPROVED CRITICISM ARE MISINFORMATION PSYOPS!"
The former is how you see 5e players/DMs justify sticking with it. The latter is how you see 4rries act.

>>96318984
>Same speed or faster than every other edition.
Simply not true.

>See above excepting pre-3e which is more straight forward, and 3.X which, while slower, is much more interesting if you're a power gamer.
Yes, compared to OD&D, B/X, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, and the half-dozen other editions whose names I forget, it has bloated chargen. Also compared to Mothership, Monsterhearts, Blades in the Dark, Shadowdark, and dozens upon dozens of other systems.

>Ehhhh, maybe if you're retarded? Monsters are really straight forward and it's hard to fuck up. The only thing you have to be careful with are abilities and weird shit.
In OD&D, here's what a monster needs to be complete, besides its fun magic powers: Saves, AC, HD, # of attacks, movement speed. That's it.

If your only point of comparison is 3.5e, yeah, it's totally fast as hell man. But here in the universe where I've played games that aren't D&D, working out the monster stat blocks is a chore. Most games are smooth enough that I can almost put them together spontaneously, but 5e has enough crunch that matters (e.g. any of the monster's ability scores could matter) that I have to slow down to do it.

>They're scant compared to crunchy systems, but they aren't "virtually no" mechanics.
Stealth is actively fuckawful as written (lowest roll gets you caught = guaranteed useless), there are ~no social rules, etc.

>It's simple and ez, good for newbies who might struggle just to remember the proper order of things. Tiresome to play normally after your first couple of rodeos though.
I have played the game with actual newer players, so I do not think it is actually "good for newbies". But if the most you can say for it is, "yeah, the combat could be fun the first two times you have it" then I feel like you agree it's trash too.

>>96318996
I wasn't that anon, but fortunately you have shown anyone reading that you're not acting in good faith, so that anon doesn't have to feel like he should waste his time engaging with you. You're welcome to give 10 real actual criticisms of 5e (not "oh this subclass is a little strong, teehee" bullshit, like I tried to avoid), to prove how easy it is. I'll start the timer now.

>>96318845
>>96318866
>>96318890
t. nogames

>>96317917
The only ones who rewrite history are 5eggots like you.

>>96318918
4e is the only edition, ever, to actually advance beyond "I roll to hit" gameplay.

>>96318783
How about you do it? Oh, you can't because you can't even think of any because you've never played the game or even read the rulebook.

>>96318975
...And here you are obviously samefagging to sneak in some non-critiques and outright lies.
>OGL -> GSL
Lie. The OGL was the worst thing that ever happened to TTRPGs and nearly killed the market because everything became a 3.5 clone.
>Some abilities were differentiated primarily mechanically, which is hard to grasp for players new to TTRPGs
New players can find it hard to grasp how to roll dice, this isn't a critique.
>Combats take longer to resolve
Lie, no they fucking don't, grognards who weren't used to the game complained that it was slower than a game they were used to. It's faster than the current edition is.
>Math broke down at high levels
99% of games don't get to high levels, and it's easily fixed if you're that invested anyways. Non-critique.
>Skill challenges were busted at release
It's no longer release, and they weren't, that was just shit faggots on ENworld made up. In practice most 5e games today end up working the same way except shittier. Non-critique.

>>96319075
>Lie. The OGL was the worst thing that ever happened to TTRPGs and nearly killed the market because everything became a 3.5 clone.
It was good for D&D, though. Wasn't samefagging, but you and >>96318996 can have sex without me.

>>96319075
>lots of words ignoring the issues of 4e
Shame, I thought you could have provided real answers instead of putting your head up your ass

>>96319075
>5eggots
lmao 4rrie retard

>>96319075
>Lie. The OGL was the worst thing that ever happened to TTRPGs and nearly killed the market because everything became a 3.5 clone.
The real reason you said this is because PF1e rendered 4e immediately obsolete. You guys never cared about OGL before that.
>muh sale figures
The only info available is from people that have all interests in making 4e sound successful. Get a fucking grip. It's about time.

>>96319042
>Simply not true.
Simply true.
>Yes, compared to OD&D, B/X, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, and the half-dozen other editions whose names I forget, it has bloated chargen.
Again, not really.
>B-but compared to entirely other games
We aren't comparing those, anon.
>In OD&D, here's what a monster needs to be complete, besides its fun magic powers: Saves, AC, HD, # of attacks, movement speed. That's it.
Which is... The same in 5e. You just need Attributes instead of saves, ironically making it more complete.
>Stealth is actively fuckawful as written (lowest roll gets you caught = guaranteed useless)
Alright so, since you clearly don't know the rules, group checks succeed if half of the group is successful. They do not use the lowest roll, and stealth is not exempted as always forcing you to use the lowest roll.
>there are ~no social rules
Pages 178-179 say otherwise.
>I have played the game with actual newer players
Since you've been wrong about the rules a few times already: Are you sure about that?
>But if the most you can say for it is, "quote of things I didn't say"
I said Rodeo anon, not ride. Figures that speaking in anything but Chat GPT-tier English is incomprehensible for you, but that means full on games.

>>96319054
Bounded accuracy is at odds with the intended setting
Broken ass balance
'Claw claw bite' boring ass multiattack monster design bloating the MM
Monsters don't even use their own formulae, they use a different in-house one than the one printed in the DMG
Splatbook power creep, again
Magic items are 'optional' but the game sucks ass without them and are not actually optional
No example skill DCs, you have to hunt down adventures for them, and they're not even consistent
Multiclass dips are back when the purpose of the rules there was to stop them
Spellcaster monsters that have non-spell """spells""" so they don't interact with the systems meant to deal with spells despite clearly being spells
Legendary fucking Resistance

This thread is awful.

>>96319135
Actually I was very annoyed at what the OGL was doing to the market before 4E existed.

>>96319151
Printed in the MM, sorry. That's a fact too, devs said so.

>>96319090
It was good for Hasbro's wallet 5eggot, not for players like me. I don't include you because it's obvious you don't play anything but with your micro.
>but you and >>96318996
Another samefag attempt? Sad and predictable.

>>96319120
>U-ur ignoring da issues
You're a pedophile. Stop ignoring my critique of you by saying it isn't true, you are a pedophile.

>>96319127
Seethe 5eggot

>>96319135
>The real reason you said this is because PF1e rendered 4e immediately obsolete.
4e whooped Pathfinder retard, Paizo has literally admitted this. And pathfinder was never really a problem, it was just a better 3.5 (not hard to do but commendable to try). The problem were the dozens upon dozens of 3.5 clones that were the same or more commonly leagues worse that flooded the market, because lazy fucking retards decided they should just copy the OGL, use the formulas unchanged, and then splash a bit of paint over it to hide the sameness.

>The only info available is from people that have all interests in making 4e sound successful
Yeah buddy I'm sure pathfinder's parent company wanted to make an edition that was no longer in print sound uber successful, that's definitely not schizophrenic nonsense.

>>96319160
Indeed. We have always been at war with Eastasia anon. Indeed.

>>96319178
>Seethe 5eggot
The fact that you think I like 5e tells everything about your utter stupidity.

Please keep coping about 4e outselling PF1e.
5e looks aesthetically more like 3e. Head of 4e was fired every 6-12 months.
Wonder why retard.

>>96319183
>you are le revising history!
No retard, I was complaining about games like d20 Modern and shit d20 conversions while 3E was still current.

>>96319178
>4er lying and coping about their shit game

>>96319153
Blame 4e.

>>96319178
>Paizo has literally admitted this.
All the discourse you find online is about the core books ONLY and in very vague terms.
This is why retards like you think 4e did well. People jumped at the core then discarded 4e as a whole utterly disgusted.

This will happen again with any 4e clone.

>>96319151
Most of these things are wrong and just a misunderstanding of the rules (read the books idiot)

>>96319153
4e players are unable to have a normal 4e thread.
They don't really like 4e, they don't care about discussing, say, the 4e Ranger or some thing.
They just hate D&D. The like 4e in the extent that it was a power move from an awful design team over D&D.

>>96319222
No they're not.

>>96319208
Core books are an enormous part of a game's sales.

>>96319244
Idiot

>>96319257
You know I'm right and you can't argue against it, so you're crying.

>>96319224
>4e thread
>FP or SP: “This is the worst “game” ever made and you are all retarded for liking it”
>Thread derails immediately
Don’t pretend this isn’t exactly how it goes.

>>96319198
>Nooo I swear I don't like 5e!!!!
Predictable.
>Please keep coping about 4e outselling PF1e.
Please keep coping about everyone being in a HECKIN CONSPIRACY!!! to lie about 4e's sale numbers long after 4e stopped selling and there was any motive to do so.
>5e looks aesthetically
Oh the cope. 5e takes after 4e more than it does 3.5, as this thread has consistently proven. I'm sure you'll cope and go "nuh uh" but your need to say it was "aesthetically more like" already proves you know you'd be wrong.

>>96319204
>4er
Wow 5eggots are as bad at coming up with insults as their devs are with content.

>>96319208
Cope.
>This is why retards like you think 4e did well
Heh, Hasbro thought it did well too. They made the mistake of overprinting when people were already sick of 3.5e having done that to death and getting too far ahead of the VTT curve.
It's a shame really, if they'd waited five years more 4e would still be the main edition from the VTT success alone. Just bad timing is all it comes down to. That's business, kiddo.

>>96319224
We have them all the time. We had them in this thread for a while. Then some faggot came in to moan and cry about how much he hates 4e because it bothers him that other people have fun.

>>96319272
That’s how it goes because 4e players aren’t real and the game is dog shit

>>96319277
Like clockwork.

>>96319273
>Oh the cope. 5e takes after 4e more than it does 3.5, as this thread has consistently proven
Just because you say something is proven doesn’t make that the case
5e has more in common with 2e dnd than it does with 4e. Only because 4e is designed like a retarded step child

>4e discussions are legitimate
Nobody hear has spoken about their games/ experiences outside of meme arguments. This thread is a meme

>>96319151
1. No.
2. Not a pvp game.
3. Same as your favorite edition.
4. And?
5. Still not a pvp game.
6. "I hate optional rules!" is not a flaw, it's called you being autistic.
7. That's because they're meant to be contextual and up to the GM.
8. No it wasn't.
9. And?
10. Works fine and as intended.
Anything else, retard?

>>96298364 (OP)
To put my thoughts simply: the warlord is a fantastic class in 4th edition D&D. It does it's job well, and that job is fun and flavorful.

And the problem with nailing it right away is that every over iteration of the warlord has felt like a bad copy. A xerox, or sometimes a xerox of a xerox.

>>96319290
Predictable cope. Must feel pretty bad when I already responded to half the shit you said in the post you were replying to, huh dumbass?

>Nobody hear
Lmao the 5eggot is an ESL too, oh me oh my i'm absolutely shocked!

>>96319290
>Nobody hear has spoken about their games/ experiences
Nobody is going to seriously engage with any thread where the first post is >>96298744

>>96319253
More cope lmao

>>96319273
>5e takes after 4e more than it does 3.5
And in fact, I also despise 5e quite a bit - you still think I am some 5e fan because you are mentally ill.
The rest of the post is you coping.
>le VTT
It's always some misfortune, never 4e being dogshit lmao

>>96319273
>when people were already sick of 3.5e having done that to death
I find this funny when a 3.5.5 game, PF1e, immediately hit the shelves and was successful.

>>96319306
That's not cope if you know literally anything about RPG sales. The core books always sell the most. Always. It's a fucking huge margin of total sales.

>>96319305
>the curse of the first post
If a single post can undermine the entire 4e community, then the community isn’t there

>>96319331
Imagine being this stale jesus christ.
>uhh buhh it was dogshit!!!
If 4e was even half as bad as retards like you believe we would never have gotten a 5th edition, WOTC would have locked that shit away in a vault sealed in cement forever.

>>96319346
Less successful than 4e. And pf2e has absolutely crushed its predecessor despite being based on 4th edition.

>>96319178
>Yeah buddy I'm sure pathfinder's parent company
Paizo never said that. As stated, it was a discourse about initial core sales that you guys misinterpret because you are dishonest and stupid.
4e failed miserably, and the same will happen to any of its clones.
The hated, nonsensical parts of 5e are from 4e.

4e damaged fantasy games forever. This is its only, actual legacy.

>>96319298
I can't help you if you're clinically retarded.

>>96319365
We got 5e because 4e was so bad they had to remake the game or else scrap the entire product

>>96319363
This thread is someone taking a giant dump all over a chessboard and assuming that because everyone is shouting at him for shitting all over the board instead of continuing to play chess must mean nobody really likes chess.

>>96318783
Jesus Christ I went out on a walk after posting and you niggers all went fucking ballistic. Anyway off the top of my head in no specific order

1. Tax feats are such a prominent issue everyone houserules them as free

2. It's an incredibly build-focused game, there's really no space for organic discovery of your character

3. Even if you can have variety in builds, every builds will have crazy stringent requirements for gear, so gear loot isn't particularly exciting unless it's an Artifact

4. Its iteration of Rituals was supposed to replace utility spells, but is baseline so inconvenient most players will forget it exists and never use it creatively.

5. Essentials sucked fucking ass, no further comment

6. It's a fundamentally incomplete with just the basic core of PhB+DMG, you actively want to allow everything in the compendium as a complete newbie

7. It's kinda unplayable without a VTT and even with a VTT it takes a lot of playgroup coordination and the GM's undivided focus to run combat

8. Solos while cool in concept are near-universally useless fodder in execution because them being big beefy fuckers doesn't mean shit when massively outclassed in action economy in a system where debuffstacking is king. You basically have to toss that whole enemy type and homebrew your own shit or NEVER use field them actually "solo".

9. The first few monster manuals just objectively sucked. The math issue is both debatable and pretty minor compared to the stat blocks just being fucking boring until MM3.

10. The Backgrounds that grant extra HP. They basically blow every Background out of the water so hard nothing else might as well exist unless the GM bands that shit.

>>96319365
>retards like you believe we would never have gotten a 5th edition
Do you realize 5e was a sleeper hit because after 5e wotc went on a completely different strategy with book release?
5e skills lie in the skills of the writers of Strange Things, in the skills of a group of voice actors, and in the lack of skill of some chink that released a pandemic.
>muh PF2e
How well is doing that aberrant thing will be discussed post-mortem.
FYI PF2e still has vancian casting as an example. Also PF2e has degrees of success. It's not really a 4e clone, it only shares its dogshit ethos.

>>96319366
>Paizo never said that.
Lying right away, good job.
>you guys misinterpret
You lie about openly and claim everyone else is "misinterpreting"*
Go ahead and point where in this post Sims is talking about the CRB.

>The hated, nonsensical parts of 5e
There's the cope. I thought it's super successful and has nothing wrong with it 5eggot?

>>96319373
We got 4e because 3e was so bad they had to remake the game or else scrap the entire product.

>>96319346
PF1E was successful for a third party like Paizo but it would have been the worst performing edition of D&D ever if Paizo had WotC overhead and expectations. Fact.

>>96319390
>Do you realize 5e was a sleeper hit because after 5e wotc went on a completely different strategy with book release?
5e was a hit because
1. VTT popularity began to explode
2. They had an actual marketing campaign for it called Critical Role
3. They stopped trying to sell 50 different books a month.
If they'd kept the exact same mechanics from 4e, it would still be on top, instead of where 5e sits where it can barely even compete with pathfinder for popularity.

>It's not really a 4e clone
Lmao after you realized that coping about how pf2e is unsuccessful (Given it's obviously not, with Paizo and Wotc thinking it's one of the best selling RPGs of all time), now it's gonna be
>Well actually it's not even slightly like 4e, despite being closer to 4e than pf1e, let me just lie and pretend otherwise!
So transparent. No wonder you're a 5eggot if you're this dumb, I'd probably cling to babby's first roleplaying game too if I were a mouth breathing animal like you.

>>96319435
You eat da poo poo. Fact.

>>96319436
>nstead of where 5e sits where it can barely even compete with pathfinder for popularity.
5e still holds the lions share of the entire ttrpg playerbase

>>96319445
Uhuh, prove it.

>>96319445
Go on prove it.

>>96319445
Well? Didn't you have some evidence to back up your claim? What's taking you so long?

>>96319458
>>96319479
>>96319490
>um prove that 5e is popular. This is my first day online
lol you guys are so fucking dumb

>>96319511
No proof and you're backpedaling and shifting goalposts then. I accept your concession, retard.

>>96319511
>He thinks these are all different posters
Newfag lmao

>>96319395
>Lying right away, good job.
See above, these people have all the interest to lie. They lied to us for years, it's not different now.
I trust what I see happening.
>>96319395
>We got 4e because 3e was so bad they had to remake the game or else scrap the entire product.
Unfortunately this doesn't work because PF1e exists. Sorry.

>>96319436
>it would still be on top
No. Most people don't care about tactical pseudo-smart slop.
5e success is due to CR, pandemics etc but also due to its non-design (which I also despise).
You keep calling me a 5e fan, you are just showing me that you are deranged AND stupid.

>>96319536
>See above, these people have all the interest to lie
Proven they don't, you have no response.

>Unfortunately this doesn't work because PF1e
We got pf2e because pf1e was so bad they had to remake the game or else scrap the entire product.
And now? Pf2e absolutely blew everything else right the fuck out, hell yeah!

>>96319530
I’m not schizo enough to assume everyone is the same person

>>96319436
I would say that PF2e owes its success also to many other factors, including the fanbase the setting, believe it or not, developed.
I think the 4e-like parts are the weakest ones and part of the most grounded criticism about the game.

>>96319550
>No. Most people don't care about tactical pseudo-smart slop.
People who play games beyond a session or two do. Disqualifies you.
>5e success is due to CR, pandemics etc
Yes, no.
>but also due to its non-design (which I also despise).
Not even slightly. Most people don't even read 5e's rulebook as is, and I have never met a 5eggot who actually knows the rules. Case in point.

>>96319558
You're just retarded.

>>96319561
Pf2e's success as a third party game is entirely dependent on its design. It being a successor based upon 4e was foundational to its success and why, despite only getting older with every year, it keeps on growing while most other games are shrinking.

>>96319563
Mfw 5e players play their 3rd session then continue to play because they’re not autistic rules lawyers like 4urries

>>96319552
>Proven they don't, you have no response.
You didn't prove shit my friend.
>>96319552
>We got pf2e because
Because they hired a 4rrie, and they still managed to keep the most retarded aspects of 4e in check. The game also has stuff not in 4e like rarity and degrees of success. The worst parts are 4e-like, I agree. Of course.

Ultimately, Paizo wasn't skilled enough fix PF1e because they spent the first part of its course ignoring the warning signs people were pointing out. They could have smothered wotc's advantage for good if they wanted.
Still a miracle what they did.

>>96319299

I like how the Draw Steel tactician plays. I think it is a very good descendant of the 4e warlord.

>>96319558
Kek, you're just a turdie who can't grasp english, the language in the posts straight up tells you they're from the same person. Dumb, new, AND brown god your life must suck

>>96319563
>Not even slightly. Most people don't even read 5e's rulebook as is, and I have never met a 5eggot who actually knows the rules. Case in point.
I think that you are functionally illiterate, you cannot grasp that I am not praising 5e in the slightest.
We essentally said the same thing about it - it's no-design, a blank state.
You are not very intelligent anon and very emotionally invested.

Are you that guy? Scoville? Coville?

>We got 5E because 4E was so bad
Change it to Essentials and it's true. Noone bought Essentials.
>We got 4E becasue 3E was so bad
True. WotC thought RPGs were a dying hobby and that was before they greenlit 4E.
>We got PF2E because PF1E was so bad
True. Sales died off because of no QC freelancer writers with utterly retarded stick-to-core design expectations producing bad products, the rules were bad enough that the CEO yelled at the design team regularly.

>>96319580
>It being a successor based upon 4e
Once again, it shares with 4e part of its shit ethos, not the design itself.

>>96319597
>racism because she’s worried that she might be a schizo

>>96319588
>Cope and copes some more
Dead game.

>>96319591
>You didn't prove shit
When a 5eggot gets proven wrong, he immediately lies. Without fail.

>Because they hired a 4rrie
And it's the best business decision they ever made, double replying retard. Everything else you wrote is cope and tears over the fact that a game based on 4e is wrecking your shit and made pf1e sales look like peanuts.

>>96319609
>Y-you're illiterate
He says, unable to comprehend my post.
>You are not very intelligent anon and very emotionally invested.
Every time someone accuses someone else of emotional investment, it is without any question, pure projection.

>>96319613
Bang on.

>>96319622
Once again, cope, pf2e is a successor of 4e and re-shaped the ttrpg market because of that through wild success. Everyone expected a 5e clone from Paizo, and they sucker punched 5eggots instead.

>>96319593
Fuck off Touhou your shitty 4rrie clone sucks ass

>>96319613
>Essentials
lmao now I remember them.
It was a fundamental misunderstanding of what people liked of previous editions, see as an example the Slayer. The 4e fanbase share the same retarded assumptions, intriguingly enough.
>True. WotC thought RPGs were a dying hobby
Kinda. They were terrified of warcraft, hence the anti-wow ads and the wow-like 4e design.
>because of no QC freelancer writers with utterly retarded stick-to-core design
They did shovelware but produced interesting stuff later on, too. PF1e Shaman is the best shaman incarnation I know and outclasses the 2 3e attetmps, as an examle.

>>96319384

>Solos while cool in concept are near-universally useless fodder in execution because them being big beefy fuckers doesn't mean shit when massively outclassed in action economy in a system where debuffstacking is king. You basically have to toss that whole enemy type and homebrew your own shit or NEVER use field them actually "solo".

Living Forgotten Realms experimented with different ways to make solos actually strong, and worth their printed XP value.

I am a fan of the doom hag from MYTH6-2: Ambassador, General, Herald, Spy:
https://www.livingforgottenrealms.com/adventures/MYTH0602LFR.zip

And the Maroon Prince from ABER4-1: The Price of Freedom and ABER4-3: A Little Rebellion:
https://www.livingforgottenrealms.com/adventures/ABER0401LFR.zip
https://www.livingforgottenrealms.com/adventures/ABER0403LFR.zip

>The Backgrounds that grant extra HP. They basically blow every Background out of the water so hard nothing else might as well exist unless the GM bands that shit.
My recent 4e DM has, indeed, simply banned those.

I would like to take a moment to showcase the collected homebrew works of "absolitude," who has been trying to revamp 4e into a more internally balanced game:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f0_Gd5Xu86rXgsZ-f7vII-jLVotFdVI5dGuG6j1fBtg/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CzkCldGxIkLopWTvyx1wbkvhNm0CnXznYrApMwwBmos/edit

>>96319654
Kys faggot

>>96319637
Anon, you are deranged and unable to understand simple posts.
Anyone reading the thread must be aware that I am no 5e fan - I even said some post back that I kinda sorta respect 4e more even if its design principles are dogshit.
>pf2e is a successor of 4e a
I am fascinated by this new cope tho

Anyhow, this will fail like 4e will Mr. Scoville

>>96319654
>>96319593
COLETTE POSTS DETECTED
The thread ruining autist was probably him all along

>>96319665
>You are deranged!!!
If you believed that even slightly, you would have stopped your post there. We both know you don't, which is why you proceed to lie and cope.
Pf2e has already outsold pf1e. Die mad about that if you must.

>>96319667
>can detect 2hufag from those posts
>doesn't realize he's literally the OP
>or that he's too autistic to intentionally ruin threads with shitposting
Your detection is dogshit.

>>96319680
>Die mad about that
Not mad at all. I call you deranged because you think I am a 5e fan or you think that a game with degree of success, rarity and vancian casting is 4e derived.
Like 5e, PF2e BAD parts are like 4e, unsurprisingly.

Good luck with your 4e clone Mr Alphaville

>>96319653
It wasn't just Warcraft, it was before that. WotC was not getting the retained players they were expecting, very very early on. You were getting splats as early as late 2001 selling 10k copies, which is a shit return on investment. That's why 3.5 was a 2003 release and not a 2004 or 2005 release as intended.

4E had the same problem with splat sales so it's not a uniquely 3E problem. It's a flooding-the-market-with-product combined with the OGL opening up extra content to compete with problem.

>>96319637
Yeh, 4e is a dead game true. Not sure why you spend so much playing defence for it

>>96319298
>3. Same as your favorite edition.
My favourite edition is 4th though.
I went to check monster stats for dragons in 4e and 5e to compare and 5e are copypasted with key word changed whilst in 4e all of them have different twists, anti-flanking measures, area effect, different debuff based on element etc.
Also 4e is much more readable, you see all you need at a glance.

>>96320006
4e and 5e dragons are bad for different reasons.
5e is brain dead.
4e is the pseud-tactics people talked above, mostly there for the sake of it, like minions.
Of the two, 4e comes clearly on top, but is a race between 2 cripples

>>96320006

One thing I really like about 4e is the ability to challenge tactically savvy players with enemy group synergies.

For example, let us consider an encounter against a group of xivort darters (level 1 artilleries) who have tamed a bunch of thornskin frogs (level 1 brutes) and wolf packmates (level 1 minion skirmishers).

http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster5029
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster4879
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster4614

The xivort darters can daze PCs, which is annoying enough. However, the thornskin frogs can move in to deal heavy damage and knock PCs prone. Standing from prone takes a move action, and a dazed creature can take only one action on their turn, so a dazed PC who wants to use a standard action will have to settle for staying prone. Unfortunately, the wolf packmates can then move in to deal extra damage to the prone PCs. Simple but nasty enemy synergize.

How about a positioning challenge for PCs of a slightly higher level? Let us say a couple of centurions of the Iron Circle (level 6 soldiers) have rounded up several dwarf warriors (level 1 minion artilleries) and a couple of extremist wilden ancients (level 4 artilleries [leader]) to stir up trouble.

http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster6025
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster115713
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster5027

The Iron Circle centurions are highly accurate against PCs with no other adjacent PCs... but if the PCs cluster up, then they might just be smacked by nasty area attacks from the wilden ancients, who can also buff the centurions. Worse, the dwarf warriors are many in number, and any PC not in cover is liable to be pincushioned by the extra damage from the crossbow attacks.

I like how 4e is a 30-level game, yet even lower-level encounters can have a surprising amount of tactical depth just with some good enemy selection, to say nothing of terrain.

>>96320006

One thing I really like about 4e is the ability to challenge tactically savvy players with enemy group synergies.

For example, let us consider an encounter against a group of xivort darters (level 1 artilleries) who have tamed a bunch of thornskin frogs (level 1 brutes) and wolf packmates (level 1 minion skirmishers).

http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster5029
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster4879
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster4614

The xivort darters can daze PCs, which is annoying enough. However, the thornskin frogs can move in to deal heavy damage and knock PCs prone. Standing from prone takes a move action, and a dazed creature can take only one action on their turn, so a dazed PC who wants to use a standard action will have to settle for staying prone. Unfortunately, the wolf packmates can then move in to deal extra damage to the prone PCs. Simple but nasty enemy synergy.

How about a positioning challenge for PCs of a slightly higher level? Let us say a couple of centurions of the Iron Circle (level 6 soldiers) have rounded up several dwarf warriors (level 1 minion artilleries) and a couple of extremist wilden ancients (level 4 artilleries [leader]) to stir up trouble.

http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster6025
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster115713
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster5027

The Iron Circle centurions are highly accurate against PCs with no other adjacent PCs... but if the PCs cluster up, then they might just be smacked by nasty area attacks from the wilden ancients, who can also buff the centurions. Worse, the dwarf warriors are many in number, and any PC not in cover is liable to be pincushioned by the extra damage from the crossbow attacks.

I like how 4e is a 30-level game, yet even lower-level encounters can have a surprising amount of tactical depth just with some good enemy selection, to say nothing of terrain.

>>96320041
Minions are for feeling cool after your fireball or something nuked 4 fags at once.
Also so villagers vs invanding goblins in the background while PCs fight the lieutenant doesn't turn into a slog.

>>96320074
There’s nothing like a fake minion to auto die to make incompetent no skill zoomers feel good

>>96320083

Depending on encounter composition and positioning, minions can be rather dangerous. They cost little in terms of XP budget, so the DM can field plenty of them.

For example, a large quantity of level 1 minion artillery dwarf warriors, spread out as pairs, can be a real menace to a party with middling multitargeting capacities.

https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster115713

>>96320083
Minions were basically an admission on the design team part that they royally fucked the math on day 1 and they had to come up with a patch

>>96320083
Zoomers were 11 at the most when 4E came out.

>>96320083
Five minions are worth one normal opponent and if you aren't careful they can flank you and gangbang you with their +2 per ally and +2 with advantage against you.
Which is what would actually happen to single adventurer going to kobold or other shitter's den.

>>96320124
No they weren't, minions came well before the HP buff. Minions exist to allow the DM to threaten a party with enemies you don't have to track anything other than initiative.

>>96320126
Zoomer is a state of mind like boomer, stop being so fucking literal and actually interact with society

>>96320160
Minion exist to take another steaming shit on immersion in the moment the players interact with the environment like they would in a RPG instead of a MMORPG

>>96320137
They exist to make the characters feel good about being able to kill loads of enemies and trick them into thinking they’re better than they are

>>96320338
Sound like a player (non)issue.
>having fun is bad

>>96320349
If you ever played ACKS, you'd know the real satisfaction of killing "minions" by leading armies of millions...

>>96320302
If minions break your immersion, you're a retard.

>>96320349
>having fun is bad
Wrong understanding, it’s not fun because the players know they’re designed to be meaningless enemies. It’s like getting a participation trophy for showing up.

>>96320564
That's why you use them in combination with regular enemies + terrain + positioning + any additional effect.
MM and DMG even tell you basic combinations for making encounters.

>>96320395
See >>96318909
Once again - this attitude from the fanbase and design team doomed 4e.

>>96320338
>and trick them
They don't. You literally don't feel like you did great because... they are minions.
It's all meta.

>>96320376
ACKS has literally the worst mass combat rules ever written. Just setting up a battle is a trial of extremely monotonous busy-work, and the actual combat is somehow even slower and duller. It's worse than doing a book of 3rd grade math problems, because you're supposed to be simulating an exciting battle and it's worse than filing your taxes.

>>96299709
EO Shogun is way more warlord than Princess.

>>96320667
>ACKS has literally the worst mass combat rules ever written
Just a curiosity, not familiar - how different is the ACKS mass combat from the BECMI one?
I would ask in OSR general but they are such purists people have a meltdown just naming BECMI.

>>96311000
No, freud anon is right. You're trying take something cool and turn it into the martial equivalent of a healslut. You're the biggest freak here, and that's saying a lot in an Edna thread.

>>96320813
There is nothing cool about magically making time move faster and magically closing wounds with 'inspiring words.'

>>96320858
In ACKS, if you want to be a warlord, you roleplay it.

>>96320877
Who cares? I don't want to play ACKS.

>>96320858
NTA but is cringe. Is making a martial just a caster with no internal gameworld consistency.
A well designed warlord would make people avoid injuries more often, add more openings for AOOs, help against fear etc.
And you don't necessarily need 4e for that.

>>96320924
I can quite empathically promise you that the vast majority of people interested in playing a martial leader-type character will be too busy having fun going "Wake the fuck up Wizard, we got an encounter to burn" to care about your asinine obsession with gameplay abstractions not perfectly lining up with simulationist logic.

The fact it's the 4e class concept with by far the most industry longevity that keeps getting reinvented every other year and getting overwhelmingly positive reception every time is enough proof that you're just contrarian.

>>96321030
>industry longevity
In 4e remakes? I guess because it’s catering to a specific playerbase

>>96321030
>to care about your asinine obsession
Once again see >>96318909

>The fact it's the 4e class concept
It isn't btw

>>96321030
>the vast majority of people interested in playing a martial leader-type character
Holy shit, all three of them?

>>96321030
>industry longevity
4e failed as a game.
PF2e was a flop.
Draw Steel was a flop.

>>96321163
>PF2e was a flop.
Pure delusion.

>>96321193
99% of games are still 5e.

>>96320792
The B/X mass combat is fairly bare bones and a little dated, but functional in the abstract. Most people prefer just running combat as normal, but having each unit represent 10x-100x for mass combat.
ACKS mass combat is a mess of charts and tables where you first have to set up each army with rules written like someone tried to copy a game of warhammer but watched it in a foreign language, added five extra spreadsheet for good measure, and forgot to add the part where you had any interesting decisions to make. The actual combat is a long, drawn-out affair where you essentially know who's going to win right from the start but for some reason you have to go through all the motions and "procedures" and abstract rituals just to move on, with no meaningful way of influencing the outcome. It's a fucking nightmare.
Imagine an imitation of a wargame made by someone that didn't know anything about wargames, written by someone who was getting paid by the word, and playtested by people who valued their own time very highly (so they barely bothered with any playtesting) but didn't give a shit about other people's.

>>96321300
No, and if they were, that's irrelevant to whether PF2E flopped or not.

>>96321373
>The B/X mass combat is fairly bare bones and a little dated, but functional in the abstract.
Is the B/X and the Companion one the same system?

>>96321486
They're essentially compatible. B/X stands for Basic/Expert and is the 2nd version of Basic (the 1st version), and BECMI is Basic/Expert/Companions/Masters/Immortals and is the 3rd, but they're all largely compatible, with 1st being a bit more different than the other two.

>>96321635
B/X and the Basic/Expert part of BECMI are almost identical, not just compatible.

>>96321137
>Once again see >>96318909
Not relevant to the actual argument, given your intellectually dishonest ass was been given a list of 4e flaws as acknowledged by an actual 4e-player and conveniently avoided engaging with it, hmmm.

All you seem to be interested in is insisting that the "immersion-breaking" mechanics of Warlord are at the heart of the design choices that killed 4e, but if you follow the actual discussion then there's maybe one other anon that agrees with you. Everyone else is either calling you a retard or dogging on 4e for reasons entirely disconnected from your personal pet peeve.

>>96321373
>ACKS mass combat is a mess of charts and tables where you first have to set up each army with rules written like someone tried to copy a game of warhammer but watched it in a foreign language, added five extra spreadsheet for good measure, and forgot to add the part where you had any interesting decisions to make. The actual combat is a long, drawn-out affair where you essentially know who's going to win right from the start but for some reason you have to go through all the motions and "procedures" and abstract rituals just to move on, with no meaningful way of influencing the outcome. It's a fucking nightmare.
Damn that sounds awful.

After running many mass combats myself, I've come to the conclusion that the more complicated a system is, the worst it will actually be at actually doing mass combat. There's too many possible exceptions and small little tricks and traps and too many different possible scales to work with for any ruleset to cover and still be playable. You want something simple, mostly reliant on the referee, and where player decisions or referee calls decide how a fight is won. IRL, almost nobody except a handful of geniuses could see how a battle was gonna unfold.

>>96321373
I can't help but notice that you're making a lot of shit up and providing zero sources or excerpts to support your bullshit whining.
Show me on the doll where Macris touched you, anon.

are you guys unironically edition-warring in 2025?

>>96324094
It would be terrible if it weren't for the minor issue that the anon you're replying to is a well known lying faggot.
They basically lurk the archive waiting for anyone to mention ACKS so they can come shitpost about it over here.
In reality ACKS mass combat is:
>Both sides figure out their BP
>3 zones, centre + flanks, pop your troops in them
>Roll a D20 for each BP in a zone, anything 16+ (Can be lowered by vet units, ect) does 1 BP of damage to the enemy
>You have shooting and melee rounds
>PCs can do heroic forays to reduce enemy BP
>Do this 3 times, roll morale, reposition troops, next turn starts and continue
Simple, elegant, variable assuming even sides and, more importantly, it keeps the focus on the PCs for the most part.
ACKS mass combat is 300, or the Battle of Pelennor Fields and it's great for it.
If you care to see proof that I'm not just making shit up:
>Rules are in the SRD which is free
>Anti-ACKSiggers previous posts can be seen by looking up ACKS in the archive and seeing he's quite literally everywhere. Pick any thread and go read his bullshit, I'd give it 3 threads tops before you go 'Ahh, he's a fucking freak then' or find him raving about Milo or some shit.

>>96325253
>Simple, elegant
What you described sounds like anything but that.

>They basically lurk the archive waiting for anyone to mention ACKS so they can come shitpost about it over here.
I do not believe you as the conversation took a fairly natural progression to me.
That and the idea that only one person can dislike a system is absurd.

Doesn't look like the rules are in the SRD either.
https://tkurtbond.github.io/ACKS/acks_srd.html#chapter-7-campaigns
Unless they're tucked away somewhere else, I'm not CTRL+Fing anything for "Mass Combat" except under a proficiency.

>>96298364 (OP)
I think trying to give party buffs to a nonmagic class is silly, just let the Fighter do cool stuff and not be constrained by realism.

>>96325382
>replying to a psycho-shill
You should probably leave him alone. He's not mentally well.

>>96325444
Probably, but I'm bored.

>>96325382
>the idea that only one person can dislike a system is absurd.
Oh don't get me wrong, there are other people that dislike ACKS out there. But there's exactly one freak on /tg/ who writes the way he writes. As for it coming out naturally:
>Someone posts the word ACKS
>Within an hour he pops up with his usual bullshit about how ACKS is the worst thing ever, boring, tedious, it uses math guyz, it's like doing taxes/accounting/bookkeeping :(
>Squats the thread from that point on to shit and seethe whenever anyone points out he's mudslinging at best and lying at worst, proceeds to call anyone who disagrees with him a shill
He's been at this for 3 years by this point, he's over in the /osrg/ threads daily, shitting the place up any chance he gets.
He's, and I'm not making this up, an angry redditor upset that ACKS isn't banned here because of politics-bullshit.

If it's not on the SRD then shit, my bad, that's how it's done in II though and having ran it in practice, it works pretty well, for me at least. Not just once either mind you, my group has dealt with
>A running retreat from a dungeon after its ruler decided to summon a shitload of demons to go after them
>A night time raid on a cult compound
>A pitched battle against an army
>Two conquests of small holdings
Under the system and it's worked for us.
You do you though. What system do you use out of interest?

>>96325444
>Squats the thread from that point on to shit and seethe whenever anyone points out he's mudslinging at best and lying at worst, proceeds to call anyone who disagrees with him a shill
Called it in one.

>>96325453
Do you have proof for any of these claims?

>What system do you use out of interest?
I run a modified version of Vernois' KS that I just adapt to whatever setting I'm using.

>>96325253
>>Both sides figure out their BP
>>3 zones, centre + flanks, pop your troops in them
>>Roll a D20 for each BP in a zone, anything 16+ (Can be lowered by vet units, ect) does 1 BP of damage to the enemy
>>You have shooting and melee rounds
>>PCs can do heroic forays to reduce enemy BP
>>Do this 3 times, roll morale, reposition troops,
That doesn't sound too bad-
>next turn starts and continue
Jesus Christ.

>>96325488
It somehow sounds extremely simple yet cumbersome to resolve. Which is like, the worst possible way to go about it imo.

>>96325474
>Do you have proof for any of these claims?
Shit man, like I said, go to the archive, search ACKS and roll on.
I'm not going to pretend I have links to hand, but his nickname over on OSR can be found: https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/95986824/#95999245 - here
And him raving about his real reason for being a fucktard about ACKS/having a mask off moment can be found: https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/96287701/#96291630 - here
Anything beyond that I don't give quite enough of a shit about to just keep to hand on the casual.

How does Vernois' KS work? I gave it a google and it's not coming up with anything. I'm always interested to hear about how different systems do things.

>>96325488
In defence the 3 mini-rounds to one big round thing is so you can have things like flanks collapsing for bonuses and players having the chance to balance out the slaughter before morale checks fuck them over, ect. Some battles last less than a full round in my experience.
It really is one of those 'Plays better than it reads' situations. Doubly so since I'm describing it off the cuff.

Now the Domains of War system; that's some bullshit that even I didn't like, bugger that for a game of soldiers.

>>96325516
Fuck it, one more for the road, here's a thread of him doing all his usual bullshit over on OSR a while back:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/95551347/#95572051
It's got the works.

>>96325488
He's also conveniently understating what the process of "figure out their BP" is, which is a frustratingly long process, especially when "heroic units" are involved, and it's an ongoing process that needs to be done over and over again in every phase of combat.

>>96325516
>>96325549
>my proof is my own posts just repeating the same claims
...Are you okay?

>>96325516
>https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/95986824/#95999245 - here
A post deleted by a janny?

>And him raving about his real reason for being a fucktard about ACKS/having a mask off moment can be found: https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/96287701/#96291630 - here
The post you linked to has no admission that I can see, and there's no evidence whatsoever that they're the same poster. They don't even format their posts in the same way, as >>96321373 doesn't use line breaks while the poster in the archive does.
Actually reading more, in the first archive link >>96000672 seems to be calling out the opposite situation.

>How does Vernois' KS work?
Vernois' KS (Kriegsspiel, the grandfather of wargames) was an alternative take on the more rigid approach of the original ruleset that advocated for the Umpire to have greater control and use his own experience and knowledge to judge outcomes, or assign possible results to a die roll, rather than using a rigid set of rules to define outcomes.

Ideally, it's aided by having an Umpire who knows his shit front to back (Vernois, being an accomplished General, likely came up with it for this very reason), and for less knowledgeable participants a brief guide outlining the fundamentals of warfare for whatever setting you're in. The sort of thing a real officer would read or be taught, basically.

>>96325580
>Vernois' KS (Kriegsspiel, the grandfather of wargames) was an alternative take on the more rigid approach of the original ruleset that advocated for the Umpire to have greater control and use his own experience and knowledge to judge outcomes, or assign possible results to a die roll, rather than using a rigid set of rules to define outcomes.

>Ideally, it's aided by having an Umpire who knows his shit front to back (Vernois, being an accomplished General, likely came up with it for this very reason), and for less knowledgeable participants a brief guide outlining the fundamentals of warfare for whatever setting you're in. The sort of thing a real officer would read or be taught, basically.
Sounds neat, I'll give it a look in, though I'll admit I prefer systems where the GM has to make less off-cuff rulings since I feel, personally, that it reduces the players ability to make informed, pre-planned decisions without slowing the game down as they double-check what each ruling would be.
That is just me though.

>>96325580
(Cont'd)
The benefits of Vernois' system at the time were immediately apparent because it enables officers to be trained without rules becoming outdated or teaching fundamentally flawed concepts. It's all based on the experience of the Umpire, and still offers him ways to resolve situations without any inherent bias.

It works even better in a casual setting since there's no need to be 1-1 with reality either. All the Umpire has to do is stay internally consistent, and all the Players need to do is use logic and personal knowledge.
It's also easy to adapt to any other time period or conditions as well. I've used it to run everything from Medieval skirmishes in bumfuckistan, to Roman Legions fighting Carthaginians across Italy to Nazi Vampires fighting Catholic Paladins in the streets of Berlin.

To top it off, it's easy to add rules in if it's deemed necessary. For example, I've introduced random chance into some combats just by having each side roll a pool of d6 if one side doesn't have a clear advantage to determine who wins that turn, and the players could add to their units rolls every turn by spending their skill points as a resource.

>>96325563
That looks like a mess.

>>96325579
It's not very coherent to me either.
I also think the assertion that someone is using the archive is false. I chose three random posts in the archive that mentioned ACKS positively, and they had no replies.

>>96319384
Crickets,
Lmao

>>96325599
You shouldn't really need to make off-the-cuff rulings much, the guide should cover general principles that the Umpire understands and has fully internalized. That's the real bottleneck though: If you just want something quick and easy and that requires little effort on the Umpire/GM/Referee's part, KS is NOT what you want.

>that it reduces the players ability to make informed, pre-planned decisions without slowing the game down
This though I can say from experience is absolutely not the case. The only way the game runs slow is if an Umpire chooses to let it by letting indecisive players wait or fawn over every detail and troop movement, or you start introducing mechanics so less tactically competent players can still try to contribute.

>>96325653
Honestly, sounds like a system I'd be interested in then. I'll give it a nose and see if it's to my taste.
Thanks for the recommendation.

>>96325666
Hope you have fun. If your usual group isn't interested the IKS is a good place to have a gander at, it's pretty easy to find games there.

>>96321697
>hmmm
Don't care, people are talking about OSR mass combat, way better topic - shut the fuck up

>>96321697
>but if you follow the actual discussion then there's maybe one other anon that agrees with you.
Make it two.
I think immersion breaking mechanics are a pretty important thing to a lot of players. The players who don't give a shit and never ask "Wait, how does that make any sense?" are in a pretty small minority. The type of people who numb their brains to that are either autists, or turbo normies. And turbo normies don't like tabletop shit to begin with.

>>96325563
Funny how the ACKS shill never responded to you.

>>96325772
What's there to reply to? He's lying again.
BPs are listed for various units in the monster manual the same way HP is and going 'Oh but you have to heckin' reduce it' is the same as going 'Man, combat is so hard, my HP goes down every turn and I have to keep track of it!'
If keepint track of a reducing number is impossible for you that locks you out of almost any system out there that isn't PbtA.
I don't respect you, or your retarded argument enough to shit the thread up further, I've pointed you out and that's enough.

>>96325516
>Anything beyond that I don't give quite enough of a shit about to just keep to hand on the casual.

You've been trying to invent a boogeyman out of everyone that doesn't like ACKS for years now. You seem to care quite a lot.

>>96325799
Posting the rules is lying, got it.

>>96325549
>Posts from 2023 making the exact same arguments and acting the exact same way.
Incredible, you're actually right. The only thing that's changed is he's stopped using reddit spacing.
Probably after being called a redditor so often.

>>96325808
Right? Every other post in the archive is this guy seething. He's made over 100 posts at minimum specifically seething about his bogeyman.

>>96325563
To be fair he didn't even know what was in the fucking SRD so I doubt he's even read the mass combat rules.

>>96325818
He's trying to downplay the BP business again. I think he's genuinely neurotic to some degree.

>>96325832
>2etard = fishfag = janny troll confirmed
It's actually kind of funny how strong his boogeyman-making behavior is.

He's Richard Petty, he's been trolling /tg/ for a decade straight.

>>96317937
You mean the 5'6" manlet wasn't short because "that was the average height at the time". No, he was considered short which is why he was denied entry into the infantry and cavalry and had to become a artillery officer. Wellington and Blucher were both above 6 feet, as well as the majority of the officers in most European armies because the average soldier and officer tend to be taller than the average peasant, it was such an important consideration that the fuckin shako was adopted as headwear just to make soldiers look taller.
Also nappy was a gutless faggot who tried to coup the French government but they freckled him so hard during his attenpt he fainted like the bitch he is and his brother had to do it for him

>>96299253

The Avenger core mechanic is strong, but (if anything over-)balanced by their powers being designed to be a level weaker than normal strikers. You can make a lot of little adjustments like that in a system where multiclassing isn't a pointbuy mechanic.

>>96299832

The Warlord is one of the least tactically demanding leader classes and can be run quite effectively by pure UNGA-BUNGA players who just want to hit things and also give out free bonuses for existing on the board.

The leader class you're describing where it falls apart if the player isn't both the most tactically gifted member of the party and understood to be in charge is if anything Bard.

>>96327229
I could not imagine ever being this butthurt about the French Emperor.

>>96327297

>The leader class you're describing where it falls apart if the player isn't both the most tactically gifted member of the party and understood to be in charge is if anything Bard.

This really has not been my experience with the 4e bard. I would say it is no more complex than a warlord, aside from, say, having to watch for Virtue of Cunning triggers and perform the slide.

>>96325453
>Oh don't get me wrong, there are other people that dislike ACKS out there.
>But every single one of them is this one guy, trust me I can recognize his typing styles!
Schizos are something else man