4th edition: Not happy with the new direction.

[ForeverSlayer]

A) What makes you think they aren't?

B) Why is this important anyway?

Because the overall mechanic is the same. It's important to me because I want more than just fluff to be the difference between the two.

4th edition doesn't give me what I want.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I guess I'm just not really sure I understand all this 'new direction' stuff.

Me either. I think this is what the Op is talking about:

I will say that is not a game I have any interest in.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

In fairness, I do at least get the point about wanting martial, divine, arcane, etc. classes to be different, even mechanically. Being away from Dand D for 20 years, and coming back to 4e, that was the biggest "shock" to my system. However, Going "classless" and making everything "a la carte" would:
A) Be a nightmare to me
B) Not actually solve the problem.

In fact, for me, it would be the worst possible scenario for my game enjoyment.

 

[Dannager]

Because the overall mechanic is the same.

...I ask you what makes you feel that the mechanics are the same and your answer is "The mechanics are the same,"?

Really?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

...I ask you what makes you feel that the mechanics are the same and your answer is "The mechanics are the same,"?

Really?

It's not a difficult answer to comprehend so I don't know why you are trying to make it more complicated than it is. The mechanics for the classes are essentially the same and this is not what I want.

 

[Umbran]

Really?

I think that to a large extent, he's got you on this one.

The effects of powers may vary somewhat, but every class uses the same structure of powers to express those effects - so many at-wills, encounter, and daily powers. The mechanics (roll an attack against some defense, hit get one result, miss get another result) are all the same.

So, yes, really.

 

[FireLance]

...I ask you what makes you feel that the mechanics are the same and your answer is "The mechanics are the same,"?

I'm not sure what he is referring to, either. Both of the usual possibilities are unlikely:

1. The AEDU power structure. However, since this was changed in Essentials, and he has already said that he doesn't like the direction in which Essentials is going.

2. Everyone rolls an attack roll against a defense. However, this was the case even pre-Essentials, so it is hardly a "new" direction.

Now, if he had said that he doesn't like the new direction of Essentials because the mechanics are different, then he might make more sense to me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure what he is referring to, either. Both of the usual possibilities are unlikely:

1. The AEDU power structure. However, since this was changed in Essentials, and he has already said that he doesn't like the direction in which Essentials is going.

2. Everyone rolls an attack roll against a defense. However, this was the case even pre-Essentials, so it is hardly a "new" direction.

Now, if he had said that he doesn't like the new direction of Essentials because the mechanics are different, then he might make more sense to me.

No, he's talking about 4e in general, the whole kitten kaboodle or why would he be talking about AEDU at all? It amounts to a "I don't like 4e, WotC needs to make the game I like!" thread. Which is fine, everyone has their likes and dislikes. The thing is 4e IS structured that way. Even Essentials isn't really a big huge break from that and it is pretty hard to see 4e ever doing away with powers for all as a basic core concept. Thus there's not really anything to talk about here. We can all debate how much the OP dislikes 4e, but it isn't going to change, and you already said it, if he doesn't like Essentials even MORE then well, we're just at "don't like anything about this game."

So, my suggestion to the OP would be to go to the general forum and start an "I don't like 4e and here's why" thread. Or maybe another "4e bites, 5e needs to be..." thread. Because while 4e lives he's not really going to get what he likes.

And as for D&D going classless, ever, no. Not even Mearls dares contemplate that beyond "that would not be D&D." There are many excellent skill based games and engines, including several d20 hacks, GURPS, etc. Far too many to list really. 4e is about strong archetypes playing in a fairly stereotyped environment. I don't think it fits with classless systems. Nor can you design a workable classless system with the steep power curve of 4e, unless you actually only wish to have a couple of build types that pretty much dominate the game.

 

[Pentius]

I think that to a large extent, he's got you on this one.

The effects of powers may vary somewhat, but every class uses the same structure of powers to express those effects - so many at-wills, encounter, and daily powers. The mechanics (roll an attack against some defense, hit get one result, miss get another result) are all the same.

So, yes, really.

I agree that ForeverSlayer has got Dannager on this one, but for different reasons than you do, I think. Why are they the same? Because they're the same. What's the same? They are. They're the same, and it's bad. They were changed to be different? No, they're still the same, and also bad.

It's not an easy stance to argue with.

 

[Dannager]

It's not a difficult answer to comprehend so I don't know why you are trying to make it more complicated than it is. The mechanics for the classes are essentially the same and this is not what I want.

I'm asking you: what makes you believe that the mechanics are the same?

They are demonstrably not the same - there are almost no powers which are identical to one another, so the issue isn't whether they're the same, it's how similar they are. And in order for us to be able to discuss similarity, you have to tell me what qualifies as similar to you. I can start making assumptions about your position (and trust me, somewhere deep down inside, this what I'd really like to be doing) but I won't, because you ought to speak for yourself.

I agree that ForeverSlayer has got Dannager on this one, but for different reasons than you do, I think. Why are they the same? Because they're the same. What's the same? They are. They're the same, and it's bad. They were changed to be different? No, they're still the same, and also bad.

It's not an easy stance to argue with.

Essentially, this. It's like trying to argue with a fundamentalist of any sort. Their conclusion is justified with their conclusion.