D&D Next Chat Transcript (Mike Mearls & Jeremy Crawford)

[nillic]

This idea of "lapsed" D&D players is silly. When people say "lapsed" what they mean is not playing the current edition. But I promise those "lapsed" players are opening their OD&D, AD&D, 1st ed, 2nd ed, and whatever books and having a great time. The language being thrown around by WoTC and others implies that there are these players languishing in dark basements all over the world, just waiting for a savior. But trust me, if they're still opening those 20+ year old books there is a reason. Because they're happy.

 

[thzero]

This idea of "lapsed" D&D players is silly. When people say "lapsed" what they mean is not playing the current edition. But I promise those "lapsed" players are opening their OD&D, AD&D, 1st ed, 2nd ed, and whatever books and having a great time. The language being thrown around by WoTC and others implies that there are these players languishing in dark basements all over the world, just waiting for a savior. But trust me, if they're still opening those 20+ year old books there is a reason. Because they're happy.

They did the same thing back when 3rd and 4th editions were released, so it really isn't surprising.

 

[Kobold Boots]

At-will magic for fighters and rogues? What a crock! Fighters should fight, rogues should steal and backstab. Leave the 4E homogenization in 4E where it belongs.

1. That is why Fighters and Rogues can opt-in. It's not core.
2. Fighters have an at-will sword, Rogues have an at-will stealth roll. Mages have magic missile. - At will was not a 4e creation.

 

[Kobold Boots]

This idea of "lapsed" D&D players is silly. When people say "lapsed" what they mean is not playing the current edition. But I promise those "lapsed" players are opening their OD&D, AD&D, 1st ed, 2nd ed, and whatever books and having a great time. The language being thrown around by WoTC and others implies that there are these players languishing in dark basements all over the world, just waiting for a savior. But trust me, if they're still opening those 20+ year old books there is a reason. Because they're happy.

I completely understand where you're coming from, but I'd argue that your interpretation of what they mean is what's silly.

From a business perspective they're trying to get back the people who were spending money on D&D products that are now not doing so. There have been many articles on Wizards.com and statements made here where it's clear they (WoTC) understand people are playing the other editions, like them, and are happy staying with them.

It's not wrong for them to be classified as a non-paying customer, thus lapsed, and not a bad idea to try and get some of them to monetize by putting out a better product.

 

[thzero]

2. Fighters have an at-will sword, Rogues have an at-will stealth roll. Mages have magic missile. - At will was not a 4e creation.

Yes, yes it was. Neither wizards nor sorcerers ever had an "at-will" magic missile or anything of the sort; not until much later in some of the 3.5 splat books and even that fell far short of what 4e has described. And really there is no good reason a rogue can't have the exact same melee attack (screw the "at-will" verbage) as a fighter; they just tend to go about it in different manners.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Yes, yes it was. Neither wizards nor sorcerers ever had an "at-will" magic missile or anything of the sort; not until much later in some of the 3.5 splat books and even that fell far short of what 4e has described. And really there is no good reason a rogue can't have the exact same melee attack (screw the "at-will" verbage) as a fighter; they just tend to go about it in different manners.

The concept of at-will long pre-dates 4E.

 

[Bedrockgames]

2. Fighters have an at-will sword, Rogues have an at-will stealth roll. Mages have magic missile. - At will was not a 4e creation.

this is really stretching the term in my opinion.

 

[Kobold Boots]

this is really stretching the term in my opinion.

I'll agree, but stretching is needed considering the collapsed and sometimes revisionist view taken by some proponents of earlier systems.

 

[thzero]

The concept of at-will long pre-dates 4E.

No, really it doesn't. And even if you did, as another poster put it, you've stretched it well beyond the definition it holds in the context of 4E. But hey, more power to ya.

 

[Kobold Boots]

No, really it doesn't. And even if you did, as another poster put it, you've stretched it well beyond the definition it holds in the context of 4E. But hey, more power to ya.

Any monster that has an at-will ability in any 2e or 3e monster manual has an at-will ability. That is not stretching the term. At most, the 4e characters have abilities that were once only the realm of the Monster Manuals.

This is natural evolution, not stretching.

Now using my original elaboration on sword, stab, at-will.. sure. That's stretching, hence I agreed with B.