Dude, you're preaching to the choir here- I'm the poster boy for allowing different playstyle preferences. Note the "I thinks" and "I don't thinks" in my post.
That said, if we don't voice our opinion and feedback, we may well end up with a monstrosity of mismatched rules that don't fit together at all.
And IMHO fighters don't need "powers"- if the 5e fighter is going to emulate the 4e version (and I think there should be options for it), it should be closer to the Essentials model, with stances and the like, rather than the AEDU model. I think the very term "power" when it comes to fighters rubs a lot of D&D players the wrong way (thus leading to so much of the divisiveness that 4e brought to the D&D fan base), and I think it would be much better to choose another term. (In fact, everything we've seen so far concerning the complex fighter seems to imply that they have done just that- I've seen a lot of references to manuevers, rather than to powers).
Even if there are options for fighters to pretty much follow an AEDU model, I hope they don't call their abilities "powers".
I actually whole-heartedly agree with this. The term should never have been referred to as "powers." That only set the edition up for the constant "this isn't a 'supes' game, rawr!" arguments.
Oh sure, so long as said grognards realize they're being very selective about the terminology they choose to be pissed off about.
If there's a better term, use it. The problem is, where does that stop? See the examples I used: if each of those were changed for something more descriptive, that would also piss off those grognards.
I don't disagree here, however, certain terms, like "Powers" in contemporary culture have associations that, say, "hit points" did not 35 years ago in its own time. That's really the problem here. When you hear "powers" in reference to a game most people immediately think of a video game or comic book. Neither of those endear older players to the table top version of our favorite game. ("D&D isn't WARCRAFT!!!")
Well, that's a damn shame...I mean that "we" have to "appease 4e players."
I've read this sentence over and over...and I STILL have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Enjoy whatever Mike Mearls gives to you...?...I guess?
--SD
I've read enough of your posts to know we feel differently about D&D. That's fine, but as someone else said, there is no need to poison the discussion.
That said, the "we" you used is a bit unfair. I made reference to Mike Mearls and his people working on appeasing people like me. The entire supposed appeal of the coming edition is one that bridges ALL editions, not just those you personally deem worthy. Beyond that, the plan is to make the game modular, therefore, you personally can ignore whatever you want to, while the game still allows me to play as I see fit. So the "we" you refer to doesn't actually have to include "you."
I'm not sure how that's a "damn shame" in any way shape or form.
As for what I meant, I'm not sure how I was unclear. Mike Mearls specifically stated in his Reddit conversation that they recognize that the current iteration of the playtest lacks appeal for 4E fans (like myself). He specifically stated that he was currently working on options for people (like myself) to fill in the gaps we feel are there right now. Perhaps you didn't read the Reddit conversation, in which case you might not have any idea what I'm talking about. That's fair enough. However, if you have an incomplete understanding of the topic, simply because you didn't put in the research, it's a tad unfair to point a finger at me for your lack of understanding.
We really really really need to get rid of the strawmen players who only like one edition. Because that's nowhere near reality. Gamers have different preferences and D&D editions are crude representatives for that. Even if two people prefer the same edition they probably like completely different things about it and their respective groups play D&D in completely opposite ways.
TL;DR: Stop that crap, you're poisoning the discussion.
Absolutely agree. You won't find me saying that fans of 0,1,2,3,.5E shouldn't be made happy in D&DNext. There is space for us all at the dinner tables around the world.
Honestly it shouldn't be about "appeasing" anyone. It's about finding the right mix of options to bring the most value to as many people as possible. Honestly, at this point the community isn't big enough for WotC to be able to afford the economic cost of leaving fans of any particular edition out of the equation. Personally I question if they can manage to produce a game that appeals to all the disparate elements of the community, but not considering possible customers in today's low consumer confidence economy is beyond stupid. Honestly, the initial release might not be that difficult, but marketing supplemental material to a divided fan base might prove to be fairly difficult.
Absolutely agree. I don't expect the game to be "my" D&D. I just expect options to allow me to make D&DNext mine at
my table. I agree it's a tall order and I fluctuate between thinking it's doable and not. I'm hopeful though.
I'm on the opposite end of this spectrum, I think they should look very closely at their terminology and revise when the term has lost touch with its definition. Defense instead of Armour Class, Combat Points instead of Hit Points and a Cure Light Wounds that actually heals a light wound (by splitting physical damage from everything else hit/combat points represent) might not have the traction and imprint of almost four decades of gaming but my goodness it would be refreshing!!!
And by the way, I thought "fighter powers" in 4e were officially called "Exploits"... which I think is pretty cool. It's all about being careful with the connotative aspect as well as denotative aspect of a definition. It really should not be that hard.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
I don't have a problem revising terms either. Also, while I initially disliked the word "Powers" I didn't care much. The problem is, in order to grab a segment of the market they're looking to recapture, they're going to need to be careful with every term they use/discard.
Perhaps because exploits are a subset of the general term powers (to describe all preset actions in 4e), that technically makes an exploit a power and thus the consternation. Perhaps if you scrap the general term (powers) and just be left with exploits, spells and invocations that are each designed to have their own nuances, you change one of the hindering perceptions of that term and edition. Otherwise just term them all "Actions".
As for invocations, in terms of the definition it is absolutely spot on for primal powers. However, invocation has a strong arcane connotation which muddies that whole natural world and spirit world thing that should be going on. Primal "Manifestations" might be a better term for some of these invokings but I'm not sure that resonates either. And this is perhaps the best indication that rather than trying to put all the activities of a primal character under the one tree, it should instead be scattered across several terms each with its own nuanced idea.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
This is what I've advocated for years now. They should never have had the broad term "powers" though I suspect that word was used simply so they'd have a term to gather everything under when they produced the unified level progression table.
It was a misstep, and caused more harm to the edition's identity than a single word should warrant. However, as I said above, the term "powers" in contemporary culture has a certain connotation to it and 4E has spent all of its lifetime fighting against an identity it created with its use.
