Evening the score.

[bloodshed343]

The 5e forum overtook us in number of posts!

[Waddacku]

Eh, GitP kinda hates 4e, it's no surprise. Also 5e has more than twice as many posts. It's only even in thread count.

[Dimers]

4e can take it as a compliment -- the system is easy to understand the right way the first time, neither contentious nor riddled with confusion and nonsense. Hell, we lose at least a thread a month just from having paladins unable to fall by default.

[georgie_leech]

Remember that since 4e was WotC "abandoning" 3.5, a sizable portion of the community here has a strong dislike of what they see as a player base-fracturing move. While a quick perusal of the 5e boards will reveal the Edition Wars are alive and well, the combined effects of it being less emotionally charged and closer to 3.5 in base mechanics leads to a better adoption rate, at least on these boards.

[Boci]

4e can take it as a compliment -- the system is easy to understand the right way the first time, neither contentious nor riddled with confusion and nonsense.

Exactly, that's why I hate it.

Also bear in mind 5e had its own forum from the get go, whilst 4th ed had been out for, at least a year and a half before getting its own forum. Even if the moderators manually moved everything from the D&D thread into the newly created 4th ed thread, it still meant for a long time people in the 3.5 thread. It was a noted complaint before the split that everything not 3.5 quickly got pushed off the front page by, well 3.5. This probably discouraged a fair few people from posting, whilst 5th ed has its own forum for people just coming to the game en mass.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

4e can take it as a compliment -- the system is easy to understand the right way the first time, neither contentious nor riddled with confusion and nonsense. Hell, we lose at least a thread a month just from having paladins unable to fall by default.

Hehe... and so many problems that are whinged about in the other editions already have an answer: "Well, in 4E, that's not a problem because...." ;)

[YossarianLives]

I feel that many people just write off 4e as being bad because it has combat powers when they don't actually know much about it. One of the best campaigns I ever ran was with 4e.

[Gritmonger]

I feel that many people just write off 4e as being bad because it has combat powers when they don't actually know much about it. One of the best campaigns I ever ran was with 4e.

I tried 4th. I never wrote it off - it was D&D, and I was more put off initially by the 3.0 - 3.5 debacle, where it seemed more a grab for cash.

I wouldn't call it bad. I would call it combat focused, which it turns out isn't as appropriate where balance issues are no longer the central concern.

[Waddacku]

We also don't get Monkday, so that's a hell of a lot of posts lost there, too.

[OracleofWuffing]

We could always start a weekly "invisible" vs. "hidden" discussion, if it's that important.

[Tegu8788]

Honestly, that wouldn't be a horrible thing.

[bloodshed343]

4e needs homebrew. Runepriests, assassins, binders, bladesingers, seekers, and vampires need love, and it ain't coming from WotC.

Furthermore: why don't warlocks start with ritual caster? How did they come into their Pact if not by a dark ritual?

Why is negotiating with an archfiend for power represented by constitution while channeling raw elemental power from an aloof primordial through your body is represented by charisma?

I play warlock a lot.

[Lord Raziere]

Why is negotiating with an archfiend for power represented by constitution while channeling raw elemental power from an aloof primordial through your body is represented by charisma?

I play warlock a lot.

....can't you just switch around the appropriate stats? its not as if it will make much difference.

just replace all the instances where they say "Constitution" with "Charisma" and vice-versa, and that problem is pretty much solved.

[bloodshed343]

....can't you just switch around the appropriate stats? its not as if it will make much difference.

just replace all the instances where they say "Constitution" with "Charisma" and vice-versa, and that problem is pretty much solved.

This is already what I've done. I was just mentioning my reasons for it since I was talking about Warlock anyway.

[Tegu8788]

Constitution-how much raw energy can I handle before I explode.

Charisma-how good a deal was I able to finagle when I made my Pact.

[Beta Centauri]

Hehe... and so many problems that are whinged about in the other editions already have an answer: "Well, in 4E, that's not a problem because...." ;)

Gotta love it.

[TurboGhast]

4e needs homebrew. Runepriests, assassins, binders, bladesingers, seekers, and vampires need love, and it ain't coming from WotC.

While I don't have the books for those classes, I agree with the adding homebrew stuff thing.

Also, having a quiet, yet still active forum is not a bad thing. As long as there still is activity, the forum is alive, even if it is more like a tree's activity than a dire bear's.

[Nightgaun7]

4e needs homebrew. Runepriests, assassins, binders, bladesingers, seekers, and vampires need love, and it ain't coming from WotC.

Agreed. 4E homebrew can be more work, but honestly I think it's about comparable with the time I invested in 3.5 stuff.

I have a few homebrew things that are in various states of stasis - a Bladesinger fix, an Avenger buff, a Warlock based on the WoWlock, a minion/creature-based Necromancer (not very far on this one, and I saw a few other attempts at it from others)...

Right now I'm working on a group of monsters for what I suspect may end up as a whole adventure module. Curse my compulsion to tinker!

[Kurald Galain]

4e needs homebrew. Runepriests, assassins, binders, bladesingers, seekers, and vampires need love, and it ain't coming from WotC.

Well here's the thing. Why would you put a lot of time into fixing a mechanically poor class, when you could instead take a mechanically strong class and reflavor it?

For instance, the Rogue makes a strong and flavorful assassin, and the Wizard and Swordmage are great stand-ins for the binder and bladesinger respectively.

[its_all_ogre]

i've had a game with a runepriest player.
I don't think they're underpowered, under optioned certainly, but if anything I found them a little too powerful.
arguably it was a strongly synergistic party, but it certainly did not strike me as weak at all.

I think 4E could very easily be made into a modular character creation approach:
choose role
if defender choose style of mark strategy:
mark when attack someone
mark when enemy starts adjacent to you
mark 1 enemy with minor action no range limitation but mark stops if you don't attack/move adjacent
mark 1 enemy within 2 square burst, mark does not end until you mark someone else
mark every enemy in burst 1 as free action
(feel free to add more)

if striker choose option:
roll twice to hit one target in certain situations
attack adds primary and secondary stat modifier
choose target as minor: they take additional damage until end of encounter or until dead or until you choose another
deal additional damage when you have CA
add 1W damage a number of times per encounter based upon level

I'm sure there is a pattern with leaders (all of the healing powers are slightly different) and controllers (I have less experience with these).

as to the OP there is a similar post discussing why this is, I'm fine with it as at least I can see all the updates every day.

[Dimers]

Rogue makes a strong and flavorful assassin, and the Wizard and Swordmage are great stand-ins for the binder and bladesinger respectively.

Man, I don't feel that Swordmage makes a great stand-in for anything. It's an interesting kind of defender, but it can't strike or lead worth a darn, and the shielding and assault aegises are awfully hard to refluff. Not a bad class -- but to me it's exactly what it says on the tin.

[georgie_leech]

Man, I don't feel that Swordmage makes a great stand-in for anything. It's an interesting kind of defender, but it can't strike or lead worth a darn, and the shielding and assault aegises are awfully hard to refluff. Not a bad class -- but to me it's exactly what it says on the tin.

I'd disagree in this specific context. Bladesingers are people that dance into combat with sword and spell. Swordmages wade/teleport into combat with sword and spell.

[Dimers]

I'd disagree in this specific context. Bladesingers are people that dance into combat with sword and spell. Swordmages wade/teleport into combat with sword and spell.

Quite true. I was thinking in terms of party role, not manifestation. Of course, numerous extant classes could fulfill the appearance -- paladin, avenger, seeker, ranger, warlord, bard, assassin, artificer, cleric and rogue all have close and distant attacks, and six of those ten might use both weapons and implements.

[bloodshed343]

Man, I don't feel that Swordmage makes a great stand-in for anything. It's an interesting kind of defender, but it can't strike or lead worth a darn, and the shielding and assault aegises are awfully hard to refluff. Not a bad class -- but to me it's exactly what it says on the tin.

Swordmage is a second-tier defender but a top-tier striker. It lacks nova potential but is overall comparable to a ranger in at-will dpr for most levels. It also has a lot of off-action attacks. A swordmage|warlock can reach 130 at-will dpr at epic levels, which isn't far behind a ranger's 150 (assuming reasonable and not cheesy levels of optimization) and is better with leaders due to its dpr coming from a strong MBA. It, unfortunately, lacks a strong nova without zone abuse or IA's.

[Kurald Galain]

Swordmage is a second-tier defender but a top-tier striker.

Maybe you'd care to show some evidence thereof, instead of just stating it?

[Tegu8788]

Being behind the ranger at-will doesn't make you a great striker, because what makes a great striker is the Nova potentional they have. The Swordlock can do great things, but saying the Swordmage is anywhere near the Ranger is, well, not accurate.