Quote from: Opaopajr;683385That is a bit of a goalpost move, isn't it? We are talking about a shared D&D corpus here, right? Or is it really a separate game unto itself? We must pick one.

As far as I'm concerned, it is a separate game, just one that is enjoyable and has (as far as I'm concerned) a valid claim to the name.

Edit: And thus merits some consideration in a subsequent D&D that has an explicit goal of being the big tent of D&D.

Well see, there's the rub. Posters were stating that previously magical effects were being duplicated across classes in a rather dissociated manner. Hence the "fighters casting spells" comment. That created enough brand name cognitive dissonance for players to complain about the game's claim to direct ancestry.

Now I myself agree with you that it is on its face a very different game. And the only claim to ancestry is a few core functions and licensed characters. Thus a claim to direct successorship falls flat; a name, a die mechanic, and a licensed monster is not enough. If the game was labeled D&D Tactics a lot of this animus would not even be present.

However, there is an insistence to this "direct line" claim, and thus the kerfuffle -- and design struggle for Next's soul. If it were so easily traced a direct line, designing a happy medium wouldn't be this hard for WotC. But it isn't; and that's forcing a lot of past edition warrior claims to be eaten as crow instead. The complaining and dodging is expected, naturally.

Quote from: 1989;683312Guys, come on, the point is 4e sucks.

We all know that.

WotC knows that.

And anyone who drank the WotC Kool-Aid and supported that pile of shit should hang his head in shame.

Yep. Well said.

Hm, I've found myself agreeing with 1989 throughout reading this thread.

It's a kinda weird sensation.

Guys, if 4E was as awesome and wonderful as it is being reported to have been then why has the compony that published it declared it a failure and is coming out with a new version of D&D to replace it?

Sacrosanct, there's three reasons you're being dogpiled by people who play 4e and not being particularly defended by people who don't like it.

1. You're wrong. The resource management is similar to Vance for all classes, but legitimately "spell-like" effects are pretty damn scarce in 4e even for the spellcasters. There are a lot of very dull damage + minor effects powers for absolutely fucking everybody. And that's how everybody's on par. I'm not sure why 4e fans find this shit "exciting" or "important" in the same way as a spell. But making those claims is not the same as saying that something "replicates" a spell.

I would ask you to read 4e, but it is almost as tedious as the threads you linked, so I don't expect you to actually wade through it.

2. If you weren't wrong, you are still just feeding trolls. Who gives a shit? 4e is dead and whether martial powers replicated spells is entirely not relevant to a discussion of the next stage of the playtest of 5e.

3. The entire discussion is insanely boring. Okay you don't want to pull quotes for the people arguing against you. But nobody's going to read that shit to back you up either. You're conflating some stupid shit again and again ("on par" must be "replicating") and like four people have to repeat the distinction again and again. Everybody who wasn't involved in the tangent has had to sit there and read you guys restating your positions for several pages now.

Shit like this makes the RPGSite boring to lurk.

EDIT: Everybody arguing *against* Sac is still doing 2 and 3. Still insanely fucking tedious when everybody else does it.

Quote from: jeff37923;683433Guys, if 4E was as awesome and wonderful as it is being reported to have been then why has the compony that published it declared it a failure and is coming out with a new version of D&D to replace it?

Because (purportedly, I don't have the knowledge to verify it myself) the goals that Hasbro's higher-ups set for 4e were unrealistic for any RPG. The gamer market simply isn't big enough and the casual market is resistant to growth.

I emphasize again that this is what I've heard, not necessarily what I believe (though it wouldn't surprise me and it won't surprise me if Next falls to a similar fate).

Quote from: jeff37923;683433Guys, if 4E was as awesome and wonderful as it is being reported to have been then why has the compony that published it declared it a failure and is coming out with a new version of D&D to replace it?

Because it was released under the Dungeons & Dragon brand and did not sell as well as its predecessors. And it is obvious a major contributor to the reduced sales that despite the branding the game was not D&D.

It like if the International Chess Federation trying to push a new edition of Chess that turned about to be a game much like Go. Both International Chess and Go are good games but people come to the International Chess Federation expecting to play Chess not Go.

Likewise D&D 4e is not a D&D game. It is a fun game with a good design for detailed tactical combat but it still not D&D. And because of that it failed in the marketplace and Pathfinder became for many the current D&D edition.

And remember it failed as a D&D game, failed as a Wizards product. Any other RPG Company would be ecstatic with the sales of D&D 4e.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;683268This is a fantasy game and a fantasy world. A heroic Fighter PC is not mundane as far as I'm concerned, especially not a high levels. He's more like Jubei from Ninja Scroll than joe blow #6 with a sword. There is no such thing as mundane terms, the point is to not be mundane. My fantasy isn't so narrow that magic is the only not-mundane.

Thats great. Enjoy. I just prefer that D&D remain D&D. I'm not against ninja scroll warriors existing-it just isn't D&D.

Quote from: Rincewind1;683352

:rotfl:

Quote from: LibraryLass;683378None of those spells have the same effect-- fuck, most of them don't even exist in 4e. I'm pretty sure Charm Person is the only one that does, in fact. Now if they did, could they have the same result-- that an unwilling target is moved closer to the fighter? Yes, but in different ways or for different reasons. It's no more the same than Finger of Death is the same as a poisoned arrow. Argue like you mean it.

If the poisoned arrow didn't require an arrow, poison, and a bow to fire it sure they are roughly the same.

The D&D game is one of fantasy and magic. There is a very distinct line regarding what is supernatural/magic and what isn't.

4E is a game of powers, each with its own power source. All powers just "do stuff". Magic or mundane isn't an issue. Powers just work because they do.

4E is thus, a supers game. The PCs wear armor or robes instead of spandex but underneath the fantasy dressing, the genre is supers.

1) Everyone has powers and is "special".
2) The default assumption is that PCs are heroic.
3) This pretty much defines the supers genre.

So 4E is a fine fantasy supers game but it has fuckall to do with D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;683464Thats great. Enjoy. I just prefer that D&D remain D&D. I'm not against ninja scroll warriors existing-it just isn't D&D.
.

I really enjoy wuxia style fantasy games, but this is how I feel as well about D&D. A wuxia or anime module would be great to fit on top of the core system, but it shouldn't be default. I don't see most of my normal D&D campaigns going that direction.

I recently ran a wuxia D&D game, and I opted to use 3E instead of 4E for it. My lack of experience with 4E may have been a factor, but I found I had greater flexibility with 3E, by picking and choosing which prestige classes, feats, etc to allow and by putting in a few optional rapid heal rules. 4E may have been a good choice as well, but I just didn't know the system as well.

Quote from: Opaopajr;683385That is a bit of a goalpost move, isn't it? We are talking about a shared D&D corpus here, right? Or is it really a separate game unto itself? We must pick one.

"4e powers do not replicate spell effects, so that entire argument if false!"

"Here you are."

"Well, not spells that are in 4e anyway...."

:facepalm


Especially when we're talking about what should go into Next, and is not 4e specific.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683485"4e powers do not replicate spell effects, so that entire argument if false!"

"Here you are."

"Well, not spells that are in 4e anyway...."

:facepalm


Especially when we're talking about what should go into Next, and is not 4e specific.

I meant spells in 4e (i.e., arcane powers) all along. I thought you did too, up until that point. That's not a goalpost move, that's us not communicating.

That's ok. Reading what someone meant, instead of what they wrote, is pretty much the foundation for scholarship.

Wait, I don't think I'm helping much, am I?

Quote from: Opaopajr;683514That's ok. Reading what someone meant, instead of what they wrote, is pretty much the foundation for scholarship.

Wait, I don't think I'm helping much, am I?

I suspect we're beyond helping at this point, doomed to clash pointlessly until one of us gets bored and wanders off, leaving the other to smugly claim victory. (Spoiler alert: I'm the one who's bored)

Anyone defending 4e is automatically the loser.

Quote from: 1989;683542Anyone defending 4e is automatically the loser.

But that's not very balanced or fun, is it?

With all these editions, powers, weapons and abilities we should all be WINNERS!

Anyone who says otherwise is obviously having badwrongfun and intentionally playing against the systems to prove a hollow point.