Quote from: Mistwell;683174I started playing D&D in the late 70s, first with the blue cover basic book, and then AD&D 1e, and then Basic and Expert.

And I like 4e.

It's no longer my preferred edition, but I played it for many years, and I liked it.

You're lying.  Someone told me that we should never believe what some jackass says on the internet.  So you're lying.  You haven't played D&D that long.  I have no reason to believe you.

Quote from: Mistwell;683175And that's a 17 page thread to go with the 24 page thread and say "it's somewhere in there!".

WTF is wrong with your head that you can't link to the thing you're arguing from? Can you understand why we smell bullshit on your breath when you do shit like this now?

WTF is wrong with you?  Both of those threads are filled with the sort of quotes I was talking about.  Just read them.  It's not like it was just a post here and there buried under everything else.

The entire posts are your evidence, Mr. pretend lawyer dude.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683161When you've got a bunch of 4e fans saying that they feel excluded in Next because Next's fighters don't replicate the spells of mages and clerics like they do in 4e, and explicitly tell you, "This is what 4e style is" when you ask them.

I've read the thread linked to. Is this the bit you were talking about? (page 11)

Quote from: thecasualoblivionHaving 10976 options becomes less interesting when they all look the same, and none of them do a whole lot. None of those 10976 matches what a Mage or Cleric can do with a spell, compared to 4E Fighter powers which were on par with magic. There is also no customization beyond choosing the Gladiator path, compared to 4E where I can build four(at least 4) Fighters that bear almost no resemblance to each other without breaking a sweat.

Quote from: rajwaibelI bolded the part as to why you'll never agree.  Certain fans want mundane classes to have powers that replicate spells, both in effect and in style.  It doesn't matter if Next includes a lot of abilities, skills, and maneuvers into a mundane class.  Unless those abilities are just as "OMG Wow!" as a spell, they won't be happy.  Maybe it's PTSD from CODzilla, I don't know.  But I think I'm pretty safe in the assumption that most D&D players are perfectly fine with mundane classes being really good at mundane things and having spell casters good at fantastical spell casting things.  

I know I don't play a fighter because I want to replicate a spell caster's abilities in flash and in power.  I play a fighter because I want to be in the thick of battle knocking some heads together better than any other class.   And if the fighter can do that with his or her core abilities, then I don't need skills that replicte a teleport spell, or a polymorf spell, or a fireball spell, or whatever.

Because if so I think you misread these 'experts' quite a bit. One says he wants fighter stuff to be on par with (ie of equal power level to) wizards and clerics. The other then does a strawman thing where he says that 'other people' must therefore want their fighters to replicate spells like teleport and polymorph (sic). No-one AFAICS says that they want this, or that 4e already does this.

Quote from: Bobloblah;683187Ah, so as long as the roleplay is different, the two are totally not the same! That's why we had all the cool fluff descriptions of abilities in 4E - so we could tell them apart.

Obviously there are mechanical differences as well, such as the use of the spellcraft ability for spells that are cast, the use of orbs/wands/staves for changing spells, that sort of thing.  What I am saying is that, just because the range and number of dice involved are the same, that doesn't make the sword and the spell actually the same any more than it made it actually the same in ANY edition of D&D.

For example, there were plenty of times where a spell cast in 3e had the same exact range, attack, and damage mechanics as a mundane weapon attack.  That never made it the same in 3e either, however.

Quote from: ggroy;683189I liked 4E, until we reached paragon tier.

Even slightly before level 10, combat was slowing to a grind and keeping track of so many things.  (Throwing in minions to reduce some of the bookkeeping didn't really improve things much).

If I ever do play 4E again, I'll only do low level stuff.  (At this point, I don't think I'll be playing 4E in the foreseeable future).

Agreed.  Though I admit this is my bias for all versions of D&D.  I just don't like the complexities that come with high level play.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683190You're lying.  Someone told me that we should never believe what some jackass says on the internet.  So you're lying.  You haven't played D&D that long.  I have no reason to believe you.

OK, cool.

QuoteWTF is wrong with you?  Both of those threads are filled with the sort of quotes I was talking about.  Just read them.  It's not like it was just a post here and there buried under everything else.

The entire posts are your evidence, Mr. pretend lawyer dude.

I read the front page of both, and your argument is not mentioned even vaguely on either.  Please link to one single post that says this.  If the threads are so rife with it, like you say, this should not take you so long.  Indeed, it should take you less time than it took for you to type than two paragraph "it's there somewhere no really!" response.

My sense is there were two broad groups opposed to 4E:

1) Long-time players who saw the grid and metagame mechanics and thought really? Fuck, whatever. Not interested. There wasn't anger, so much as resignation that WotC was continuing on an unappealing trajectory. Note this wasn't all long-time players. Some seemed to really like it. Especially if they already liked tactical grid play.

2) Players who first played 3.x and had never witnessed WotC abandon an edition. This was the largest and fiercest contingent of the edition wars. They were mad. And they were largely ignorant of the history that WotC had pulled this shit before by scrapping AD&D. Which I find quite funny. You can still see all sorts of forum comments claiming there had been no edition wars before 4E. Dragonsfoot and TETSNBN say hi.

So 4E was a step too far for a lot of old-school gamers, but they were largely disengaged from WotC anyway. The real vitriol came from the 3.x generation, who had never considered that they too could be fired as fans.

Quote from: Bobloblah;683180Yeah, I agree with him on this, too, so he's not completely out to lunch. This fact is actually a serious part of the problem, as many people who jumped on the D&D bandwagon during 4E only did so because it was not like what had come before. There's a bunch of other ridiculousness that I've only ever seen in online forums, but that last one? I've had several 4E fans tell me that in person; that 4E "fixed" D&D, finally. I can understand feeling that way about one's favored edition - nothing wrong with that - the problem is that that edition and many of its key design conceits are mutually incompatible with earlier editions. This is the reason that the loudest of those called 4vengers are so stridently opposed to Next, as there's just no way for Next to be a sop to 4E and pre-4E at the same time.

The TSR editions are different iterations of the same basic game.

3e is an attempt to copy paste the 'feel' of the TSR editions over a different, more complex and less balanced mechanical framework and add in a hefty dollop of 'play is about using the mechanics to overcome challenges tactically'. So you can kind of squint at 3e and think it's the same as TSR editions, but unless you drift (or simply ignore) the rules a lot, play will not bear this similarity out.

4e is an attempt to fix the maths and structure of 3e to achieve the 'play is about using the mechanics to overcome challenges tactically' goal. It succeeds at this, albeit by turning the dial on some of the gamey parts of the system all the way to 11. It is impossible to squint at 4e and think it is the same as TSR D&D.

I can respect people coming from the TSR edition perspective saying that 3e and 4e are 'not D&D'. But anyone coming from the 3e perspective who says that 4e (only) is 'not D&D' is wrong. 4e is just 3e done right, and almost all of the criticisms applied to 4e are equally as valid against 3e.

Quote from: soviet;683197I've read the thread linked to. Is this the bit you were talking about? (page 11)





Because if so I think you misread these 'experts' quite a bit. One says he wants fighter stuff to be on par with (ie of equal power level to) wizards and clerics. The other then does a strawman thing where he says that 'other people' must therefore want their fighters to replicate spells like teleport and polymorph (sic). No-one AFAICS says that they want this, or that 4e already does this.

Keep reading.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683215Keep reading.

Fuck that mate, I've done enough legwork trying to find the evidence for your argument. Direct quotes or it didn't happen!

Quote from: Haffrung;683209My sense is there were two broad groups opposed to 4E:

1) Long-time players who saw the grid and metagame mechanics and thought really? Fuck, whatever. Not interested. There wasn't anger, so much as resignation that WotC was continuing on an unappealing trajectory. Note this wasn't all long-time players. Some seemed to really like it. Especially if they already liked tactical grid play.

2) Players who first played 3.x and had never witnessed WotC abandon an edition. This was the largest and fiercest contingent of the edition wars. They were mad. And they were largely ignorant of the history that WotC had pulled this shit before by scrapping AD&D. Which I find quite funny. You can still see all sorts of forum comments claiming there had been no edition wars before 4E. Dragonsfoot and TETSNBN say hi.

So 4E was a step too far for a lot of old-school gamers, but they were largely disengaged from WotC anyway. The real vitriol came from the 3.x generation, who had never considered that they too could be fired as fans.

I fit into category 1. Had already given up on 3e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683215Keep reading.

Powers, not spells. In 4E, everyone gets powers.

Quote from: soviet;683220Fuck that mate, I've done enough legwork trying to find the evidence for your argument. Direct quotes or it didn't happen!

I provided the links to where they could be found.  I sure as hell ain't gonna hold your and reread all that crap again.  And certainly not for a guy who's position comes down to the assumption that everyone must be lying all the time.

Yeah, I know it's hard for you and Mistwell to admit that a group of the most vocal 4e fans say something you don't agree with re: 4e.  Cry me a river.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;683229Powers, not spells. In 4E, everyone gets powers.

Potato, potato.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683230I provided the links to where they could be found.  I sure as hell ain't gonna hold your and reread all that crap again.  And certainly not for a guy who's position comes down to the assumption that everyone must be lying all the time.

Yeah, I know it's hard for you and Mistwell to admit that a group of the most vocal 4e fans say something you don't agree with re: 4e.  Cry me a river.

I assume you're talking about me, and I assure you I never said Fighters used spells. I probably said powers a few times, and as Soviet posted above I had said I wanted Fighters to have powers that were on-par with spells in terms of power or concept.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683230I provided the links to where they could be found.  I sure as hell ain't gonna hold your and reread all that crap again.  And certainly not for a guy who's position comes down to the assumption that everyone must be lying all the time.

Yeah, I know it's hard for you and Mistwell to admit that a group of the most vocal 4e fans say something you don't agree with re: 4e.  Cry me a river.

So, to be clear:
You state a daft position about a game you haven't read
When challenged for an explanation you say 'the 4e experts said it, nothing to do with me'
When asked for a direct link or a quote you say no
When the person you say you were paraphrasing turns up in the thread, he denies saying what you claimed he said
And the moral of the story is that 4e fans suck?

Come on dude