Quote from: ForgottenF on September 05, 2022, 01:13:38 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 12:16:14 PM
My argument is that players should play the classes for what they are instead of trying to make them all able to do more than their role. If you are using a traditional definition of a wizard, it'd be a bit of a recluse who is the power behind the throne. The wizard is able to influence major events in between spending time congregating with powerful otherworldly beings. They're not supposed to be the mayor of a town.  There supposed to be rare.  Don't cripple them, just make them less accessible to begin with.  Going with an Asian flavored wu jen or a native American medicine man? Just as rare and mysterious.

If you are using the traditional definition of "fighter" they're all cannon-fodder who sometimes rise above to become a king.  There's a lot more of them than there are wizards because the every criteria is so low - can you carry a spear? 

The fighter doesn't just represent the random rabble though. They're represented by the 0-level NPCs in older games, and by the NPC classes in 3rd edition. Going all the way back to Chainmail, a leveled PC fighter is supposed to represent an exceptional warrior, adventurer and leader. That's why they can go on fantasy adventures, and its why they had strongholds and followers built into their class progression.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 12:16:14 PM
But that's the role of them in any culture - the king/chief/jarl/shiekh is usually the most violent one of the tribe who rules until he shows weakness.

That's just not true. It's not even entirely true of apes, but in human societies, physical strength has never been the sole source of leadership. Charisma, intelligence and (perceived) virtue are every bit as important. Just being the most violent person in a society is likely to get you branded a criminal. Even the worst tyrants usually get into their positions either through accidents of heredity, or by a combination of wit, strength and charisma. And even then, they tend to have short reigns and come to sticky ends.

Yes, 0-level scum exists. The fighter is one step above - possibly coming from that rabble if he wasn't born into nobility. It's a warrior caste - whether rising up in the ranks from a simple shield-bearer or being raised in the saddle from birth. Medieval foot soldier, Mongolian horseman, or a member of the Jun Horde.

As to ruling through strength - we're not talking about merely physical strength. It's the ability to lead men - through intimidation, charisma, or because you're always giving them the best spoils of war.  Ancient kings typically ascend the throne as a result of killing or subjugating opponents. But they don't stay in power when they don't bring peace and prosperity to the commoners. If the harvest is disastrous leading to starvation, the king very likely will be deposed by someone else. That's where the wizard comes in - claiming the gods need a sacrifice to quell the rabble or telling the king the drought is due to black magic from the neighboring kingdom.

None of the WotC editions has any mechanical aspects to play out this type of scenario. 3.0 with 3PP supplements, in my opinion, fills this void the best.

There are other aspects as well. 3.0 Magic of Faerun, IIRC, had rules for spell duels. I don't think anything after that markedly improves this unless it's a wholesale magic system replacement.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 02:21:42 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 05, 2022, 01:13:38 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 12:16:14 PM
My argument is that players should play the classes for what they are instead of trying to make them all able to do more than their role. If you are using a traditional definition of a wizard, it'd be a bit of a recluse who is the power behind the throne. The wizard is able to influence major events in between spending time congregating with powerful otherworldly beings. They're not supposed to be the mayor of a town.  There supposed to be rare.  Don't cripple them, just make them less accessible to begin with.  Going with an Asian flavored wu jen or a native American medicine man? Just as rare and mysterious.

If you are using the traditional definition of "fighter" they're all cannon-fodder who sometimes rise above to become a king.  There's a lot more of them than there are wizards because the every criteria is so low - can you carry a spear? 

The fighter doesn't just represent the random rabble though. They're represented by the 0-level NPCs in older games, and by the NPC classes in 3rd edition. Going all the way back to Chainmail, a leveled PC fighter is supposed to represent an exceptional warrior, adventurer and leader. That's why they can go on fantasy adventures, and its why they had strongholds and followers built into their class progression.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 12:16:14 PM
But that's the role of them in any culture - the king/chief/jarl/shiekh is usually the most violent one of the tribe who rules until he shows weakness.

That's just not true. It's not even entirely true of apes, but in human societies, physical strength has never been the sole source of leadership. Charisma, intelligence and (perceived) virtue are every bit as important. Just being the most violent person in a society is likely to get you branded a criminal. Even the worst tyrants usually get into their positions either through accidents of heredity, or by a combination of wit, strength and charisma. And even then, they tend to have short reigns and come to sticky ends.

Yes, 0-level scum exists. The fighter is one step above - possibly coming from that rabble if he wasn't born into nobility. It's a warrior caste - whether rising up in the ranks from a simple shield-bearer or being raised in the saddle from birth. Medieval foot soldier, Mongolian horseman, or a member of the Jun Horde.

As to ruling through strength - we're not talking about merely physical strength. It's the ability to lead men - through intimidation, charisma, or because you're always giving them the best spoils of war.  Ancient kings typically ascend the throne as a result of killing or subjugating opponents. But they don't stay in power when they don't bring peace and prosperity to the commoners. If the harvest is disastrous leading to starvation, the king very likely will be deposed by someone else. That's where the wizard comes in - claiming the gods need a sacrifice to quell the rabble or telling the king the drought is due to black magic from the neighboring kingdom.

None of the WotC editions has any mechanical aspects to play out this type of scenario. 3.0 with 3PP supplements, in my opinion, fills this void the best.

There are other aspects as well. 3.0 Magic of Faerun, IIRC, had rules for spell duels. I don't think anything after that markedly improves this unless it's a wholesale magic system replacement.

At this point I'm not even sure we're in the same conversation or if this is two different threads crossing streams. You seem to be discussing a very specific campaign setting with its own batch of house rules that has nothing to do with which WotC edition is actually the best.

To which, again, for me the answer is post-Essentials Only 4E for making fighers more than I hit it with my sword and making spellcasters more specialized vs. masters of all while also having some of the most evocative and easy to use ib play monster stat blocks of any edition and transparent math that let me set up in under an hour what would have been 5-6 hours prep in prior editions.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 05, 2022, 02:41:52 PM
At this point I'm not even sure we're in the same conversation or if this is two different threads crossing streams. You seem to be discussing a very specific campaign setting with its own batch of house rules that has nothing to do with which WotC edition is actually the best.

To which, again, for me the answer is post-Essentials Only 4E for making fighers more than I hit it with my sword and making spellcasters more specialized vs. masters of all while also having some of the most evocative and easy to use ib play monster stat blocks of any edition and transparent math that let me set up in under an hour what would have been 5-6 hours prep in prior editions.

Ahhh, I see the disconnect.   As someone who recently played a 4e campaign for about a year now, I think you missed a part of the question.   If the question had been for the best RPG produced by WotC, then I think you would have a pretty good case.  But the question was about the best WotC version of D&D.  And 4e, regardless of its strengths, is about as far from actual Dungeons & Dragons as you can get...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 05, 2022, 03:32:19 PMAnd 4e, regardless of its strengths, is about as far from actual Dungeons & Dragons as you can get...

Id say 3e was far away from the OSR style vision already. While 4e was a more complete and understood vision of what it wanted to be. 5e is just gobblygook and OSR fans like it because it just looks vaugely like OD&D while cribbing tons of mechanics from 3e and 4e.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 05, 2022, 03:32:19 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 05, 2022, 02:41:52 PM
At this point I'm not even sure we're in the same conversation or if this is two different threads crossing streams. You seem to be discussing a very specific campaign setting with its own batch of house rules that has nothing to do with which WotC edition is actually the best.

To which, again, for me the answer is post-Essentials Only 4E for making fighers more than I hit it with my sword and making spellcasters more specialized vs. masters of all while also having some of the most evocative and easy to use ib play monster stat blocks of any edition and transparent math that let me set up in under an hour what would have been 5-6 hours prep in prior editions.

Ahhh, I see the disconnect.   As someone who recently played a 4e campaign for about a year now, I think you missed a part of the question.   If the question had been for the best RPG produced by WotC, then I think you would have a pretty good case.  But the question was about the best WotC version of D&D.  And 4e, regardless of its strengths, is about as far from actual Dungeons & Dragons as you can get...

Yeah, I should have been clearer - 4e is it's own form of insanity that isn't D&D.

I just think that 3e was a pure attempt to clean up AD&D and both 3.5 and 5e (and PF)  tried to fix things that weren't broken other than in the minds of people who just couldn't accept that there were moments of gameplay that weren't equitable.  You *don't* have to balance everything with everything else, the PCs aren't special insofar as there are other events, other NPCs, other schemes that continue to progress even without their involvement, and time waits for no man...

Do away with stacking of bonuses fixes 99% of the parts of 3e that becomes a problem. Like - no stacking at all, just pick the highest bonus.  There was never a need for 3.5 or 5e - 3e is already nearly perfect.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 05, 2022, 03:32:19 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 05, 2022, 02:41:52 PM
At this point I'm not even sure we're in the same conversation or if this is two different threads crossing streams. You seem to be discussing a very specific campaign setting with its own batch of house rules that has nothing to do with which WotC edition is actually the best.

To which, again, for me the answer is post-Essentials Only 4E for making fighers more than I hit it with my sword and making spellcasters more specialized vs. masters of all while also having some of the most evocative and easy to use ib play monster stat blocks of any edition and transparent math that let me set up in under an hour what would have been 5-6 hours prep in prior editions.

Ahhh, I see the disconnect.   As someone who recently played a 4e campaign for about a year now, I think you missed a part of the question.   If the question had been for the best RPG produced by WotC, then I think you would have a pretty good case.  But the question was about the best WotC version of D&D.  And 4e, regardless of its strengths, is about as far from actual Dungeons & Dragons as you can get...

::Looks at 4E books::
Yup, they say D&D on them.

::Looks at 4E campaign notes::
Yup, played pretty much like every other version of D&D at our table. Essentials even felt more old school than anything 3e tried to be.

So forgive me for being dense, but where is this great evidence that 4E isn't D&D? And no, I don't consider "I don't like it so it doesn't count" to be a valid answer. Show me where mechanically it significantly deviates from late 3.5e or early 5e in terms of what it can and cannot actually do at the table.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 05, 2022, 05:34:54 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 05, 2022, 03:32:19 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 05, 2022, 02:41:52 PM
At this point I'm not even sure we're in the same conversation or if this is two different threads crossing streams. You seem to be discussing a very specific campaign setting with its own batch of house rules that has nothing to do with which WotC edition is actually the best.

To which, again, for me the answer is post-Essentials Only 4E for making fighers more than I hit it with my sword and making spellcasters more specialized vs. masters of all while also having some of the most evocative and easy to use ib play monster stat blocks of any edition and transparent math that let me set up in under an hour what would have been 5-6 hours prep in prior editions.

Ahhh, I see the disconnect.   As someone who recently played a 4e campaign for about a year now, I think you missed a part of the question.   If the question had been for the best RPG produced by WotC, then I think you would have a pretty good case.  But the question was about the best WotC version of D&D.  And 4e, regardless of its strengths, is about as far from actual Dungeons & Dragons as you can get...

::Looks at 4E books::
Yup, they say D&D on them.

::Looks at 4E campaign notes::
Yup, played pretty much like every other version of D&D at our table. Essentials even felt more old school than anything 3e tried to be.

So forgive me for being dense, but where is this great evidence that 4E isn't D&D? And no, I don't consider "I don't like it so it doesn't count" to be a valid answer. Show me where mechanically it significantly deviates from late 3.5e or early 5e in terms of what it can and cannot actually do at the table.

Just because it says D&D doesn't make it D&D. 4e was so focused on every class doing stuff in tactical combat, that it was actually closer to Chainmail then D&D. I didn't not like 4e for what it was, but there was really no significant out of combat stuff. Even BECMI or 1e had done modicum of exploration. For example, Isle of Dread was a textbook case of how to do a hexcrawl...

I would simply say that trying to improve on 3e just led to more problems.  3.5 tried to fix 3e but just added bloat . 4e tried to make 3.5e cleaner and give everyone something to do, but left it soulless. 5e tried to revive 1e's feel but was a pale imitation because it was mechanically cleaner than 1e.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 08:11:38 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 05, 2022, 05:34:54 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 05, 2022, 03:32:19 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 05, 2022, 02:41:52 PM
At this point I'm not even sure we're in the same conversation or if this is two different threads crossing streams. You seem to be discussing a very specific campaign setting with its own batch of house rules that has nothing to do with which WotC edition is actually the best.

To which, again, for me the answer is post-Essentials Only 4E for making fighers more than I hit it with my sword and making spellcasters more specialized vs. masters of all while also having some of the most evocative and easy to use ib play monster stat blocks of any edition and transparent math that let me set up in under an hour what would have been 5-6 hours prep in prior editions.

Ahhh, I see the disconnect.   As someone who recently played a 4e campaign for about a year now, I think you missed a part of the question.   If the question had been for the best RPG produced by WotC, then I think you would have a pretty good case.  But the question was about the best WotC version of D&D.  And 4e, regardless of its strengths, is about as far from actual Dungeons & Dragons as you can get...

::Looks at 4E books::
Yup, they say D&D on them.

::Looks at 4E campaign notes::
Yup, played pretty much like every other version of D&D at our table. Essentials even felt more old school than anything 3e tried to be.

So forgive me for being dense, but where is this great evidence that 4E isn't D&D? And no, I don't consider "I don't like it so it doesn't count" to be a valid answer. Show me where mechanically it significantly deviates from late 3.5e or early 5e in terms of what it can and cannot actually do at the table.

Just because it says D&D doesn't make it D&D. 4e was so focused on every class doing stuff in tactical combat, that it was actually closer to Chainmail then D&D. I didn't not like 4e for what it was, but there was really no significant out of combat stuff. Even BECMI or 1e had done modicum of exploration. For example, Isle of Dread was a textbook case of how to do a hexcrawl...

Just a question; how many mechanics do you actually need for outside of combat?

Do you want every conversation outcome handled by dice rolls? Or should those things largely be left to players and DMs doing actual roleplaying? Do you need much more than a reaction table and an engaged DM?

How many tables do you need for climbing, jumping, swimming, opening locks and noticing traps? How many pages did AD&D devote to such things?

Every edition of D&D has a disproportionate amount of its rules devoted to combat. The stakes are high enough that many players would be dissatisfied with leaving the outcome to a single random roll. But you know this. You just want to only level the criticism at 4E.

3e's phb combat chapter was 26 pages (not counting the spellcasting combat chapter). It's adventuring chapter just 6 pages.

2e's phb combat chapter was 24 pages (not counting spellcasting). It's equivalent exploraration chapters were 10 pages.

4E's phb has 32 pages for its combat chapter (including spellcasting combat rules) and 8 for its adventuring chapter.

Essentials has 10 pages for combat and about 6 pages for each race and class discussing how to roleplay them in their PHB equivalents (most of the adventuring rules from baseline 4E got moved into the skills and equipment chapters so making a fair comparison isn't nearly as easy).

Tell me again... how is 4E significantly different from the other editions when it comes to balance of combat vs. non-combat rules?

As to "soulless"; that's entirely subjective. I found myself far more engaged with the lore of the 4E default setting than any of the (to me) ridiculous Great Wheel settings. It had real mythological elements to it complete with a Titanomacy (the Dawn War) that explains the cultural phenomenon of adventuring parties as acceptable parts of society (the gods in the setting are the prototypical adventuring party; members who teamed up to face the much stronger primordials) and an Eschatology (the Dusk War). It actually made giants into a central part of the mythos and created much more evocative to story Otherworlds (the feywild and shadowfell) that could be reached just by stepping through the wrong crop of stones or visiting the wrong crypt on a moonless night... much more in line with actual folklore than godly realms only accessible to high level spellcasters.

In short, it actually had a more cohesive and, more importantly, more useable setting than any prior D&D setting I've encountered. It also finally delivered mechanically on all those "you play heroes" settings of AD&D that the older mechanics of "run a bunch of randomly-rolled dirt farmers through death traps while grubbing for gold until one finally survives long enough for you to bother naming" ever allowed.

Soulless to me was early D&D's gotcha monsters and insta-ganks where there was no point in even placing any investment into a PC until they'd lucked their way through enough adventures to not be at obvious risk of death any time hungry rats or a few goblins showed up. That felt like soulless wargaming to me.

I'm not saying you have to like 4th Edition (I certainly have no love for any of the TSR-era D&D's), but saying "it's not D&D" comes off as petty and judging with a double standard that convinces no one not already a fellow traveler of your position.

ETA: follow-up on "soulles." These are books, not people or even animals. That means in terms of "soul" you mostly find what you put into them; whether it's O, B, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5e. I've seen entirely soulless games of AD&D because no one was engaged with them material. I've seen people utterly engaged with atrocious systems because the GM was putting their heart and soul into them. None of these systems have souls. The people engaging with them are responsible for easily 90% of a game's feel.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 06, 2022, 08:17:17 AM
Just a question; how many mechanics do you actually need for outside of combat?

You have Players, and you have Characters.  The Characters have abilities that the players may not (likewise, I'm sure most of my players have skills that their characters lack, like computer use and Algebra).  When characters have abilities that players lack, it's almost a requirement that you let dice step in and determine whether the CHARACTER can succeed. 

If the player wants to give an epic speech before a battle, maybe he channels some Henry V or Braveheart, or maybe he doesn't.  If the player flubs his epic speech, I don't necessarily want to penalize the CHARACTER and detract from the perception that he is supposed to be an inspiring leader.  Playing an RPG can be a bit of escapist fantasy, and it's neither NECESSARY nor RECOMMENABLE to highlight a player's shortcomings when they're not able to do do things 'in real life' that their character is supposed to do. 

So the answer to the question is 'you need enough mechanics to support the character abilities that you have in your game'.  If that includes social abilities, you need social mechanics.  If that includes crafting objects, you need crafting mechanics.  If that includes leadership/attracting followers, you need leadership mechanics.  When a player and a GM both know what a character OUGHT to be able to do, it's easier to support those things.  If there are no rules about followers, you CAN trust to roleplay, but that may not be fair and may result in issues of balance/less enjoyable play. 

This all assumes that you have GOOD MECHANICS.  Bad Mechanics are almost ALWAYS worse than NO MECHANICS - a competent GM can probably make things work, but very few GMs started as good as they are now.  Mechanics help new GMs become good GMs - it gives them a guide until they develop an instinctual understanding of what works, and what doesn't and WHY. 

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 05, 2022, 10:32:16 AM
Why would the wizard let the fighter be a king?

Per the common literary trope, one of the laws of wizardry might be "don't interfere with politics," enforced by a conclave of the most powerful wizards.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 06, 2022, 09:54:14 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 06, 2022, 08:17:17 AM
Just a question; how many mechanics do you actually need for outside of combat?

You have Players, and you have Characters.  The Characters have abilities that the players may not (likewise, I'm sure most of my players have skills that their characters lack, like computer use and Algebra).  When characters have abilities that players lack, it's almost a requirement that you let dice step in and determine whether the CHARACTER can succeed. 

If the player wants to give an epic speech before a battle, maybe he channels some Henry V or Braveheart, or maybe he doesn't.  If the player flubs his epic speech, I don't necessarily want to penalize the CHARACTER and detract from the perception that he is supposed to be an inspiring leader.  Playing an RPG can be a bit of escapist fantasy, and it's neither NECESSARY nor RECOMMENABLE to highlight a player's shortcomings when they're not able to do do things 'in real life' that their character is supposed to do. 

So the answer to the question is 'you need enough mechanics to support the character abilities that you have in your game'.  If that includes social abilities, you need social mechanics.  If that includes crafting objects, you need crafting mechanics.  If that includes leadership/attracting followers, you need leadership mechanics.  When a player and a GM both know what a character OUGHT to be able to do, it's easier to support those things.  If there are no rules about followers, you CAN trust to roleplay, but that may not be fair and may result in issues of balance/less enjoyable play. 

This all assumes that you have GOOD MECHANICS.  Bad Mechanics are almost ALWAYS worse than NO MECHANICS - a competent GM can probably make things work, but very few GMs started as good as they are now.  Mechanics help new GMs become good GMs - it gives them a guide until they develop an instinctual understanding of what works, and what doesn't and WHY.

Okay, now show me where other editions covered any of this more extensively than 4E did and maybe you'll have a point that is relevant to 4E not being D&D. 4E devotes more proportional space to adventuring than 3e did (8 of 40 pages in 4E vs. 6 of 32 pages in 3e), but it's decried as having nothing outside of combat.

I can get more detailed on breakdowns of material between editions if you want. Should we count pages devoted to skills/non-weapon proficiencies? I left the spellcasting chapter out of the combat page count in 3e even though everything spellcasting related was included in the 4E page count.

Again, if you don't like 4th Edition, that's fine. It's the declaring it "not D&D" that I find to be childish; akin to a kid claiming to their friends that their unpopular brother was adopted lest they feel tainted by mere association.

Quote from: Zalman on September 06, 2022, 10:07:35 AMPer the common literary trope,

Based on what? What literary trope is so common it would mean a 3e wizard wouldn't have reason to rule everything.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 06, 2022, 10:25:24 AM

Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 06, 2022, 09:54:14 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 06, 2022, 08:17:17 AM
Just a question; how many mechanics do you actually need for outside of combat?

You have Players, and you have Characters.  The Characters have abilities that the players may not (likewise, I'm sure most of my players have skills that their characters lack, like computer use and Algebra).  When characters have abilities that players lack, it's almost a requirement that you let dice step in and determine whether the CHARACTER can succeed. 

If the player wants to give an epic speech before a battle, maybe he channels some Henry V or Braveheart, or maybe he doesn't.  If the player flubs his epic speech, I don't necessarily want to penalize the CHARACTER and detract from the perception that he is supposed to be an inspiring leader.  Playing an RPG can be a bit of escapist fantasy, and it's neither NECESSARY nor RECOMMENABLE to highlight a player's shortcomings when they're not able to do do things 'in real life' that their character is supposed to do. 

So the answer to the question is 'you need enough mechanics to support the character abilities that you have in your game'.  If that includes social abilities, you need social mechanics.  If that includes crafting objects, you need crafting mechanics.  If that includes leadership/attracting followers, you need leadership mechanics.  When a player and a GM both know what a character OUGHT to be able to do, it's easier to support those things.  If there are no rules about followers, you CAN trust to roleplay, but that may not be fair and may result in issues of balance/less enjoyable play. 

This all assumes that you have GOOD MECHANICS.  Bad Mechanics are almost ALWAYS worse than NO MECHANICS - a competent GM can probably make things work, but very few GMs started as good as they are now.  Mechanics help new GMs become good GMs - it gives them a guide until they develop an instinctual understanding of what works, and what doesn't and WHY.

Okay, now show me where other editions covered any of this more extensively than 4E did and maybe you'll have a point that is relevant to 4E not being D&D. 4E devotes more proportional space to adventuring than 3e did (8 of 40 pages in 4E vs. 6 of 32 pages in 3e), but it's decried as having nothing outside of combat.

I can get more detailed on breakdowns of material between editions if you want. Should we count pages devoted to skills/non-weapon proficiencies? I left the spellcasting chapter out of the combat page count in 3e even though everything spellcasting related was included in the 4E page count.

Again, if you don't like 4th Edition, that's fine. It's the declaring it "not D&D" that I find to be childish; akin to a kid claiming to their friends that their unpopular brother was adopted lest they feel tainted by mere association.

I'd ask the following: is there a A Magical Medieval Society Western Europe for 4e? What about downtime rules like PF or 5e?

It's "not D&D" because the feel during play is vastly different - you could just as easily be playing a card game with the applicable daily, per encounter, and at will powers listed. Everything revolves around combat effectiveness and balance while non-combat activities are cinematic at best. Is that closer to 1e? Sure, but we're talking about best WotC versions.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 06, 2022, 01:07:41 PM
I'd ask the following: is there a A Magical Medieval Society Western Europe for 4e? What about downtime rules like PF or 5e?

I mean the amount of purist magical medieval Europes is absolutely miniscule in the scale of D&D before WOTC and the downtime rules in D&D have always been small snd vestigial. 5e and 3e especially so.

Pfs downtime rules also blow.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 06, 2022, 02:35:31 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 06, 2022, 01:07:41 PM
I'd ask the following: is there a A Magical Medieval Society Western Europe for 4e? What about downtime rules like PF or 5e?

I mean the amount of purist magical medieval Europes is absolutely miniscule in the scale of D&D before WOTC and the downtime rules in D&D have always been small snd vestigial. 5e and 3e especially so.

Pfs downtime rules also blow.

I was referring to the fact that MMSWE contains rules that allow you to mechanically buy/sell/trade all of that loot to the point of starting your own wagon train or trade routes. The downtime rules do the same for things like running a business or doing magical research.

4e doesn't have these types of things - and for those who are used to the extreme focus on having battlemaps because of how tactical 4e combat is, expecting cinematic theater of the mind noncombat activities is a big let down - to the point that many DMs or players just hand-wave it.