The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

It was also in retaliation to what people complained a lot of the time in D&D, Caster Supremacy.

Yes to all of these things. Here's the issue - there is some nuance to how all these things are expressed at the table. To the degree that 4e diverges from what I, and apparently many others, felt about how these elements are mechanically expressed at the table - didn't feel like D&D. shrug.

I found 4e was so... formulaic? - it was those elements packed into a skirmish game. Which is my problem with it.

I've talked about Caster Supremacy many times in many threads around here. I don't think the answer to this issue in D&D is to handle it the way 4e handled it. I think they opted for a very closed system that essentially blurred too many assumed lines by class role. That by itself is not the total issue. I think it overall also expressed itself as a very watered down experience imo. There are ways to skin that cat without sacrificing the power-level of casters. The problem to me has never been that casters are too powerful. It's that in light of casters, non-casters, for the assumed form of play in D&D post-1e aren't powerful enough. /shrug. That's just my opinion of course.

Sure you could RP in 4e. But there is nothing specific that lends itself by implication mechanically to do so. It clearly is pushing combat-as-game. Let's not beat around the bush. That combat experience felt precisely what others have mentioned - like a skirmish-game. I would also say I had similar issues with 3e/PF - but less so than 4e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336One thing that I find amusing is how WoTC didn't see that what players say they want ISN'T what they really want.  The savage backlash that The Book of Nine Swords got when it came out should have been clue enough.  No matter how much people complain about how magic dominates, the moment you try and raise up any other non-caster to the same level as the Cleric or Wizard/Magic User you get an immediate push back.  Casters are the Gods of D&D and anyone who DARES upset that balance MUST burn in hell for blasphemy.  Paizo's forums at the time of Pathfinder's rise to prominence should have also been a clue.

I'll say this. I've been mulling this over. I think you might be right. However, my opinion that this cat could be skinned - is based only on one source: Fantasycraft. It happens to be the d20 system that actually raises non-casters to that level of caster-effectiveness (relatively) that satisfies my needs as a resolution to this issue. Nine-swords make casters out of non-casters which is not exactly the same thing as I like - but it certainly has its place. What I find amusing is how when dealing with this issue the only resolution seems to be to give magical powerz to non-casters as if that fixes things. When in reality I think what is needed is to increase power and options for non-casters so that the overall effect of non-casters takes similar stature. What people always griped about in 3e was casters ending fights with a single cast. So too should non-casters if given the right circumstances.

Fantasycraft did this very well by raising others up. 4e did it mechanically by watering things down.

4e in the Rearview Mirror...step on the gas.

Quote from: estar;963287But it wasn't D&D which proved to be it downfall.

Exactly.  It sorta looked like D&D, but it worked very differently, even when using the same labels.  That and it completely demolished the charop game (in comparison to 3e) and didn't pretend to be a "you can do everything" game, guaranteed that it lost a lot of 3e fans.

Quote from: estar;963287In D&D 4e's defense if you ignore the modules and organized play the core books supported traditional campaigns and roleplaying as well as any other RPG or edition of D&D.

I never played the official stuff, and I wasn't a 3e fan, which might explain why I didn't mind it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

Except that all of those things were either redefined or were on totally different scales.... wait...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;963345Just naming something "Hit Points" or "saving throw" isn't enough when you fundamentally rewrite the mechanics underlying those labels.

Yeah, that.

When "saving throws" are now something you do when you've been knocked unconscious, then they're no longer "saving throws" in the classic sense and are now something totally different - keeping the name actually makes it *worse* because when you having something called a "saving throw", people expect it to work like the thing they know as a "saving throw".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

It was also in retaliation to what people complained a lot of the time in D&D, Caster Supremacy.

One thing that I find amusing is how WoTC didn't see that what players say they want ISN'T what they really want.  The savage backlash that The Book of Nine Swords got when it came out should have been clue enough.  No matter how much people complain about how magic dominates, the moment you try and raise up any other non-caster to the same level as the Cleric or Wizard/Magic User you get an immediate push back.  Casters are the Gods of D&D and anyone who DARES upset that balance MUST burn in hell for blasphemy.  Paizo's forums at the time of Pathfinder's rise to prominence should have also been a clue.

The problem is, WotC decided to...
1. Remove practically every single restriction on spellcasters from AD&D1
2. Give spellcasters a new set of summoning spells to give them melee OOMPH without using spell slots.
3. Act surprised when this led to LFQW
4. Think the "fix" was to make everyone a caster/superhero with the exact same types of damage powers, skinned from sources of Power like Primal, Testosterone, whatever.

The real answer was to simply roll back the idiocy.  But, the 3/3.5 caster players would have shit their livers.

5e's somewhat better, but it's still the wrong fix.  They now neutered the fuck out of the spellcasting abilities of casters, without instituting any of the sane restrictions from 1e and made them superheros with Pew-Pew cantrips to supplement damage output.  Instead of making all non-casters casters, they're moving casters towards non-casters.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

The '4e isn't D&D line' is all about feel, and no one gets a vote in how someone else feels. In other words, their argument doesn't really mean anything, but therefore it is unassailable. Either way, it doesn't matter. The people you would have to have made this argument to (that their argument didn't make sense) weren't the ones on the forums (who clearly were already lost causes) but who simply wandered off and found other things to do (be they other RPGs, no RPGs, or 3.5/PF).

QuoteIt was also in retaliation to what people complained a lot of the time in D&D, Caster Supremacy.

One thing that I find amusing is how WoTC didn't see that what players say they want ISN'T what they really want.  The savage backlash that The Book of Nine Swords got when it came out should have been clue enough.  No matter how much people complain about how magic dominates, the moment you try and raise up any other non-caster to the same level as the Cleric or Wizard/Magic User you get an immediate push back.  Casters are the Gods of D&D and anyone who DARES upset that balance MUST burn in hell for blasphemy.  Paizo's forums at the time of Pathfinder's rise to prominence should have also been a clue.

I saw some pretty strong abuse going the other direction as well. There were a lot of people in 2006-2008 that just couldn't understand how anyone could like that 'horrible' and 'unbalanced' 3rd edition (or TSR/OSR games) and were just as abusive. Likewise, 3e was often derided as the edition which was horrible because it made wizards so good (so, in one edition, the designers do make wizards like gods, and they get called everything from stupid to satan's eviler sibling; and in the next edition the designers make wizards roughly equal to everyone else and they get called everything from stupid to satan's eviler sibling). So when people ask, who is it that really got it unfairly during the great 3e/4e debates, my answer is always "the Mods."


To the OP. Yeah. 4e was never actually a bad game in any real way. You might say it was a bad product, since the buying public gets to decide that. It just hit the market at the wrong time, with the wrong things focused upon, making the wrong statements, and with the wrong baggage.

Scaling skill rolls just irked the shit outta me. Well, along with the incredible slog of combat.

Quote from: tenbones;963349I'll say this. I've been mulling this over. I think you might be right. However, my opinion that this cat could be skinned - is based only on one source: Fantasycraft. It happens to be the d20 system that actually raises non-casters to that level of caster-effectiveness (relatively) that satisfies my needs as a resolution to this issue. Nine-swords make casters out of non-casters which is not exactly the same thing as I like - but it certainly has its place. What I find amusing is how when dealing with this issue the only resolution seems to be to give magical powerz to non-casters as if that fixes things. When in reality I think what is needed is to increase power and options for non-casters so that the overall effect of non-casters takes similar stature. What people always griped about in 3e was casters ending fights with a single cast. So too should non-casters if given the right circumstances.

Fantasycraft did this very well by raising others up. 4e did it mechanically by watering things down.

The thing is about lifting the non-caster to caster level is because the magic system is inherently superiour.  Each single spell operates within it's own special rules, often only interacting with a Saving Throw, but bypassing a lot of restrictions that other mechanics have.  There's no 'swing' that an attack roll gets, often bypassing damage all together for an effect.  Now 5e, changed that, but for the most part in the older editions, it was this way.

And here's the thing about 'magical powers', when you have literary sources in which you have non-casters able to do incredible feats like St. George and The Dragon, Beowulf, Finn Mac Cool, why do players of D&D balk when others want to do similar stuff, but not be wizards or clerics?

I liked the tactical elements, but hated the complete emphasis of it. AEDU didn't bother me much, but it does kind of make the characters all "samey." The Essentials stuff was a nice change of pace. As the edition went on, the books got more interesting.

I hated the online character builder, but used it just like everyone else, that is until I started buying books and doing it the old fashioned pencil and paper style. The Char Builder was stupid easy, had no soul, and just dumb for a company trying to make money in publishing.

I liked the revamp of the the multiverse and various monster lore. The new Forgotten Realms didn't bother me at all. The Dark Sun book is pretty cool.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

You forgot about Class and Level. The problem with your thesis is that everything you mention plus the overall concept of class and level is fully explained in two letter sized page. And yes it is largely the same. It the other 319 pages that is problematic and makes it not D&D. Hit Points, Armor Class, Attributes, Class, Saving Throw and Level are used in unique ways not found in previous editions. Not just in additions like feats were in 3e, but the whole system underlying those concepts you mentioned.

The prime piece of evidence is the length of low level combat which took a considerable amount of time resolve compare to 3e and classic editions. The game was fundamentally changed in ways that didn't happen with 3e or later 5e.

I dunno, I think 3e was a pretty significant departure, especially by the time 3.5 rolled around.  The multiclass rules and the plethora of classes available fundamentally changed the game, not to mention the addition of the highly detailed grid-based combat rules.

However, it was far more similar to previous editions at first glance - hit point totals, saving throws, a lot of things at least *looked* compatible with previous versions.  When it first came out the people I was playing with had zero clue of what it would turn into with time.  It looked like a cleaned up version of D&D, and hell, was probably intended as such and playtested as such.

There were a couple things about 4E I actually liked, among them Saves being a static number, and rarer, since targets now had multiple defenses, and a spell/power "attacked" them, rather than having to roll a mod versus a static attack (i.e., the way saves traditionally work).  I like mages to roll their attacks and such, because they, too, should experience the joy of Crits and Fumbles, like the rest of us.:-)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

The problem is that customers are never wrong about being unhappy. If people say it doesn't feel like D&D, they'll never be argued out of that.

QuoteOne thing that I find amusing is how WoTC didn't see that what players say they want ISN'T what they really want.  The savage backlash that The Book of Nine Swords got when it came out should have been clue enough.  No matter how much people complain about how magic dominates, the moment you try and raise up any other non-caster to the same level as the Cleric or Wizard/Magic User you get an immediate push back.  Casters are the Gods of D&D and anyone who DARES upset that balance MUST burn in hell for blasphemy.  Paizo's forums at the time of Pathfinder's rise to prominence should have also been a clue.

Yeah, there's the paradox. It's true in every industry. You gotta listen to customers when they say they're unhappy, but if you do what they say they want, you might just piss them off even more. 5e illustrates this as well. People said they hated 4e because it didn't have enough charop, because fighters shouldn't have powers, because healing surges a stupid idea, because monsters shouldn't have powers players can't get...and they got an edition with the fewest fiddly bits since 1e, fighters with short-rest powers, expendable hit dice, and a Monster Manual packed with creatures with unique powers. And yet, we have what may be the highest-selling D&D edition ever.

Turns out Vancian casting is basically a comfort blanket, so as long as you've got your familiar old spells in a pyramid-like slot system, and whatever else you find mostly looks kinda like what you remember AD&D as with cleaned-up numbers and some different things added on, people will be pretty happy.

WotC should have listened to the winds. It was very clear lots of people loved 3e and lots of people loved 0e-2e. They should have kept those editions evergreen AND then launched 4e with another name, like DragonQuest and pimped it as tactical minis roleplay which does have an audience. They could have derailed Paizo by cranking their own 3.75 and used their own damn OGL to create the DM's Guild years beforehand. Instead of OSRIC and the OSR, WotC could have championed people writing for AD&D.

Instead of vitriol, they would have the "family of D&D" united under their brand and company, just playing different editions.

Quote from: Spinachcat;963405WotC should have listened to the winds. It was very clear lots of people loved 3e and lots of people loved 0e-2e. They should have kept those editions evergreen AND then launched 4e with another name, like DragonQuest and pimped it as tactical minis roleplay which does have an audience. They could have derailed Paizo by cranking their own 3.75 and used their own damn OGL to create the DM's Guild years beforehand. Instead of OSRIC and the OSR, WotC could have championed people writing for AD&D.

Instead of vitriol, they would have the "family of D&D" united under their brand and company, just playing different editions.

You mean like they do now?  And no, I'm not being snarky, I'm dead serious here.  There is no vitriol or anger from WoTC.  They'd like it if you bought their stuff, but the idea seems to be that any edition or version you play is fine, no need to replace.  Their stated goal has been to be everyone's second favourite version of D&D.

I think they succeeded.