AbdulAlhazred
Legend
So, what you're saying is someone mocked you first and you don't need to be even a little accommodating. Well, I guess my feelings about the D&D Community are being born out...The problem is that D&D is a luxury item so there's very little incentive to be somewhat accommodating... As to being told 4e was badwrongfun by a very large number of people how soon we forget but 4e was created as a response to people continually telling those who enjoyed 3.0/3.5 that they were having broken badwrongfun and that even WotC took a mocking tone towards those who had enjoyed the game... If anything 4e set the precedent for the squeakiest wheels getting the oil.
I don't know who mocked your 3e or whatever. It wasn't me. I heard this "WotC mocked 3.5" meme a few times, and when I've looked at the supposedly mocking materials I didn't find a huge amount to complain about. You COULD construe them to be mocking, IF you wanted to, but it wasn't the only way to parse it.
But what I'm saying is that I don't believe you have to make a huge number of trade-offs.But the devil is in the details... I don't think too many people objected to the goals of 4e... in fact I'd say this was one of the reasons 4e sold so well initially with the corebooks... but when the final implementation was revealed the side effects, trade-offs, etc. were enough to sour many on the end result.
I'll just say I disagree here. There were things fundamental to 4e... like Skill Challenges, how DC's were computed, the power structure, long set-piece battle fights, and so on that really rubbed people the wrong way but are some of the cornerstones that many 4e fans declared they love about the game... IMO there are some things that are irreconcilable as far as play style goes. And no me heavily house ruling and modding the game to work isn't really an option either... I mean we've got 4e fans in the 5e forum right now that are complaining that some of the monsters don't have cool powers but when it was suggested they design some, the answer was "I shouldn't have to, that's what the designers are paid to do..." D&D is a luxury item and for most people the point of purchasing a luxury item is that it caters to one's wants or desires... just saying.
Well, lets look at these things:
SCs, you didn't ever HAVE to undertake an SC, but they really aren't fundamentally different from what DM's do anyway. Nor are the SCs as they exist in the current RC version of 4e particularly problematic. Certainly if you play any sorts of games that have an option for abstract resolution (like many games have a quick combat system for instance) or many indie game's then you will find the SC to be very much in keeping with that. Its not an 'optional' part of the rules, but its not one you must actually use either, much like some monster you don't care for, you just don't play with it.
DCs, meh, again there is NO COMPROMISE??!! Really? I think at least some 4e people would be happy enough with much of 5e's approach to DCs, but even those who aren't certainly are usually interested in improvements like reducing the size of die modifiers. Things like (dis)advantage could have easily fit into a system that was a bit more like 4e.
I don't think setpiece battles have to be the only alternative. I don't actually think that the 4e designers were aiming quite for what they got here to start with. Nor do I think most of us would demand that fights remain exactly like they are in 4e. Certainly there needed to be a way to abstract a fight and pass over it quickly or put more emphasis on the story aspects of less interesting ones.
PERSONALLY I think in terms of powers that some elements could be closer to earlier editions and again if there's some abstract resolution system then that inherently would allow for more abstract power use as well.
On the whole my feeling was that some things about 4e characters are a little too obtuse. I 'get' what they were trying to do there with e-classes, but again I think it could be done using a more elegant rules solution that has the strengths of the 4e approach vs just going entirely to the opposite extreme of a 'hodge podge' like 5e does.