Why is the Vancian system still so popular?

[Eldritch_Lord]

I'd rather say "per episode". The single point of 4e I always houserule when DMing is to change extended rests to be extended rather than 8 hours sleep. But then I believe pre-4e casters are also improved by this rule and needing a lab or a temple and several days to restock spells.

Number and frequency can both do a lot in their own right. Both are part of the problem.

Part of the problem, yes, but again I only claimed going back to 1e memorization and acquisition rules would solve one part of the problem. Spell nerfs and reinstituting dangerous combat casting solves another part.

And here is one of my problems. The fighter should be able to turn the wizard into cuisineart before the wizard can turn him into a frog. At high levels wizards should act as fighter delivery mechanisms.

I wasn't saying the wizard could nuke the fighter, just a roomful of random goblins or nobles or whatever. That the wizard can easily neuter the fighter is a different, but no less pressing, issue.

Emphatically. Or would be if the polymorph chain didn't contain quite so much stinky cheese (Alter Self being able to cover almost everything fly can do and do it for longer). Fly is effectively a reality-altering spell that changes what needs guarding against in the gameworld. Fly is every bit as much a gamechanger at level 3 as teleport is at level 4.

Fly really isn't the gamechanger people make it out to be. From an NPC/world perspective, there are already flying threats out there such as, say, one-half of the name of the game. (No, not flying dungeons, though those would be pretty awesome.) If you already have to prepare for every flying thing from allips to zombies, flying humanoids that are more easily stopped than other flying critters (e.g. dispelling) aren't any more of a problem.

From a PC perspective, fly doesn't really open up new avenues of exploration. If you're in the wilderness, you can already buy/find/borrow/tame flying mounts, and your reliance on the mount for flight is no more onerous than your reliance on the wizard for flight--and might actually be a benefit, if the mount you choose is intelligent and/or can fight well. If you're underground or in an otherwise-cramped space where you can't take a mount, flight isn't as much of an advance because you're limited in your flight ceiling and creatures can climb to get to you.

This part is right. The action economy is important. Or you can just hire minions. (I will say that the Necromancy rules suck even post-essentials).

Action economy is important, but that's not the concern here. As you said, you can hire minions already, and there are non-action-economy-breaking minions of other sorts, but undead have their own advantages, such as not breathing or sleeping, being totally loyal, being immune or resistant to different things than living creatures, and so on. And of course the most important reason to have necromantic minions is that some people want to play the Dread Lord Tim, Lich King Extraordinaire, not the Dread Lord Bob, Mercenary Leader and Human Resources Guy Extraordinaire.

Then try playing Essentials. No Martial Dailies. Martial classes use stances and basic attacks rather than at will powers. Seriously, just about every criticism you've made has been fixed in Essentials.

You can have a person sized image as an encounter utility power at level 2. (And I really dislike the 4e decision not to hand out the first utility power at level 1). This is once again in Essentials where they did a much better job with Illusionists.

I can't recall when the wizard gets the first Fly spell (they are definitely there). But my Monk was able to get a wire-fu short distance flight at level 2 (I think there's a level 1 way of allowing wire-fu flight for a monk). A sorceror can definitely have a sustainable-for-five-minutes encounter flight spell from level 6 (which does take serious sustaining).

Yes you can. I'm pretty sure there's a spell that does this at heroic tier in Essentials. And I know there's one that does this as a cantrip in Heroes of the Feywild.

The point is that you're a year and a half out of date in your source material. Now I'll admit that the PHB wizard with just PHB options can't do what you want.

Essentials was intended to be the new core.

It's interesting that Essentials seems to have everything I want, and I freely admit that I don't have much knowledge of it. It's interesting for a few reasons. First of all, the reason I'm not that familiar with it is that my 4e group doesn't like it at all and doesn't play with it, and since we don't use DDI I don't just run into the material. Second, Essentials discards a lot of the formerly-sacrosanct 4e design goals in favor of more 3e-esque design goals. Third, a lot of online advice surrounding 4e centers around non-Essentials material: the question "How do we handle out-of-combat stuff?" is usually "Rituals are amazing!!!" rather than "Non-combat utilities from Essentials are amazing!!!"

So if the way to satisfy my complaints is to note that those complaints are inherent to pre-Essentials 4e, and if the Essentials material "broke the base" a bit among 4e players precisely because it is more 3e-like than standard 4e, turning around and saying that the pre-Essentials 4e way of doing things is great doesn't really jibe with that. If Essentials is the best way to unite 4e fans and AD&D/3e fans on the topic of martial dailies, utility magic, and so forth, I don't see why people are complaining about Vancian casting and too-versatile wizards and all that.

Which kind of makes my point. No one cares about the Vancian system. They care that spells aren't written like 4e.

Here's a hypothetical: 5e instead gives you the entire list of 1st level dailies in a vancian fashion for Wizards. Then they add the entire list of Arcana and non-skill based Rituals from level 1 to 4 and make them all 1st level dailies that you can prepare instead of any of your normal dailies. Then they change the casting time of all 10 minute or less rituals to 3 rounds. Then remove the component cost for any ritual that currently costs less than 20gp per level of the ritual(leaving the ones that are supposed to be expensive still have a cost). Then do the same for 5-8th level rituals to become 2nd level spells, 9th-12th become 3rd and so on.

This means you still get the variety of a vancian system, choosing between utility and combat spells, without making utility spells break combat(since 3 rounds is too long to make most of them viable in combat without some planning and protecting the wizard).

You say that no one cares about the Vancian part, but you've just described a Vancian system. I like it, actually, and I do the same when I run 4e (make rituals Vancian alongside daily powers, I mean). Part of the appeal of Vancian casting is not only the daily preparation part but the part where you have the effects at your fingertips (if you thought ahead to prepare them, that is) to allow on-the-spot use and creative combinations. It is the Vancian part that I appreciate--I don't mind if it takes 10 minutes to cast the Knock ritual, as long as I can hang it at the end and release it later when I need it, because a 10-minute Knock simply isn't useful compared to a rogue or your fist while a 1-round Knock might be.

A number of these spells are EXTREMELY combat capable depending on your DM. Which is my real problem with them.

"Hey, Mr DM, I create an image of the typical food of the creature. Every time the creature attempts to hit it, the image jumps out of the way. Since it had virtually no intelligence it doesn't get a chance to disbelieve or think it's an illusion. It doesn't even know what illusions are. Every time we attack, I'll have the illusion leap up and attack the same spot so he'll think it's the illusion attacking. Also, in combat, who do you think it's going to attack, its favorite food or us? Perfect. My spell has negated all damage done by the enemy."

Some DMs will say "No, that's stupid. I'm not letting you use a first level illusion spell to negate more damage than a 9th level actual combat spell." Some will say "Awesome, since you are being so creative with your illusion spells, I will reward you by having it succeed and the monster never attacks you."

Out of combat their power can increase to almost limitless levels. With a couple of low level illusions., some creativity, and a DM who goes along with stuff, you could nearly conquer the entire world.: Invisibility to sneak past guards, illusions to look like important people or charms to make important people do whatever you want them to. Soon entire armies and kingdoms are at your command and it doesn't take much more than 3rd level spells to do it.

Certainly there should be some cost for these extremely powerful abilities that isn't "I need to wait until tomorrow to continue my plot, since I have no more charm spells today". I don't mind some sort of gold cost for these sorts of abilities...though it needs to be lower than 4e. They went overboard.

I would point out that, in that particular example, even an unintelligent animal would probably not go after something that looks like a prey creature but smells like nothing. In the general example, countermeasures to all of those spells exist, and the vast majority of the time the countermeasures are at the same spell level as those abilities (invisibility vs. see invisibility, charm vs. protection from X) or even lower-level (major image vs. detect magic).

There's a difference between a DM rewarding creativity, which is desirable, and a DM rolling over and letting the PCs take over kingdoms. Countermeasures exist for all of these abilities that are not only just as common as those abilities themselves but are also quite logical to use with a bit of thought, and the abilities have limitations that are frequently ignored (lack of senses for illusions, volume affected for creation/shaping spells, features not granted by polymorph spells, etc.). Granted, you shouldn't require a DM who thinks about the world for 5 minutes to figure out why the world isn't already under the control of invisible, charming 3rd-level casters, but it isn't too much to ask for, and a section in the DMG on fitting abilities into the world and making the world coherent would go a long way to helping with that.

Most of the drawbacks could be worked around so they were non-existent:

I'm a elf...1 year of my life? Let me know if I cast it over 900 times.

Wish was and still is a stupid spell, because its text basically said "Your DM should make whatever you say hurt you badly. But feel free to wish for anything you want." If you worded it correctly, it could give you the power of a god(and your DM was nice) if you didn't, casting it meant the death of your entire party. Without the safe options, Wishing for lunch would often get you killed. No one in their right mind ever cast it.

Spells being able to be dispelled isn't a drawback, that just makes them spells like anything else. Against non-casters or in low magic worlds it isn't a drawback in the slightest. And in most games, that's 95% of encounters. I understand that some DMs have worked around this issue by making nearly 100% of encounters against casters and given every guard in existence the ability to dispel magic and see invisibility. But in most games, it means "If one of the 3 wizards who lives in this city casts a dispel on you, it'll suck. Luckily only one of them is high enough level to cast it and he works at the brewery making beer."

Elves being less susceptible to aging was admittedly a feature rather than a bug according to many people, including one of my 1e DMs, to reinforce the whole magical elves thing, but several effects did scale the penalty based on race. Age may not be a large penalty, but it does have an effect; you can't cast haste for every combat of every day, because then adventuring for a year or so could kill you--aging wasn't there to stop you from using something or make you think long and hard before using it, just to disincentivize using the same abilities over and over again. Wish has more significant drawbacks than just aging (not the DM-screwery, the resting afterwards), as do polymorph and other things, so aging isn't the only drawback.

And dispelling isn't a huge drawback in general, I'm referring specifically to the fact that many 3e spells with an Instantaneous duration (particularly animate dead) had a Permanent duration in 1e. A dispel magic in 1e can wipe out a half-dozen undead per casting, antimagic field suppresses undead while it's up, and so forth. Necromancers' hordes of undead are much less powerful in such a situation. 3e wizards can build entire castles out of thin air with wall of stone; 1e wizards shouldn't do that unless they want a determined rival to be able to dispel their castle out of existence. That difference did in fact limit a lot of the more powerful world-altering strategies in 1e that 3e casters have easy access to.

 

[innerdude]

Look at the 4e psionics system: you have a bunch of encounter powers, and a bunch of power points, and you can upgrade your encounter powers into daily-equivalents using power points, so you aren't locked into the same AEDU structure every other class has. Psion "daily powers" are (in theory, at least) equivalent to other sources' daily powers, but they don't have to use daily powers 1/day each, so they have a more organic/logical feel. Why couldn't martial powers use that sort of system, where they have the same power as a magical class but a resource system that is different, tactically and flavor-wise, from the magical classes? Why does "I don't like martial dailies, use a different resource system" automatically translate to "I love wizards and hate fighters"?

I would LOVE a system like this, applied equally to all classes. Every class has a "resource" (willpower, fatigue, focus) that they can apply to the things their class is good at. Apply more power now for more powerful effects, but leave yourself vulnerable down the road.

There's no "daily" effects, only effects you can use within your power "pool" constraints.

Every class is using a point / mana system, but maybe martial classes get more "at will" effects that don't require points, while casters get some potentially more powerful effects, but require more points to spend.

But here's the problem . . . this isn't going to "feel like D&D" to a lot of people. An elegant, fun, interesting solution that rewards good play, provides interesting resource management, and can easily be placed into the mechanical / fluff contexts necessary for a "believable" world.

But it won't "feel like D&D." So the designers won't use it.

Vancian magic is never going to be a 100%, foolproof, "have your cake and eat it too" mechanic. There's simply too much baggage, history, and general "process" behind it. Thus, why are we trying to make something "Vancian" out of some nod to "tradition," when the circumstances seem to dictate that the optimal solution is to go another direction?

 

[triqui]

I would LOVE a system like this, applied equally to all classes. Every class has a "resource" (willpower, fatigue, focus) that they can apply to the things their class is good at. Apply more power now for more powerful effects, but leave yourself vulnerable down the road.

There's no "daily" effects, only effects you can use within your power "pool" constraints.

Every class is using a point / mana system, but maybe martial classes get more "at will" effects that don't require points, while casters get some potentially more powerful effects, but require more points to spend.

But here's the problem . . . this isn't going to "feel like D&D" to a lot of people. An elegant, fun, interesting solution that rewards good play, provides interesting resource management, and can easily be placed into the mechanical / fluff contexts necessary for a "believable" world.

That's how Mike Mearls did in Iron Kingdoms. Pathfinder new classes mostly work like this: Monks and ninjas have "Ki", Samurais have "resolve", Gunslingers have "grit", etc. Old classes have something similar (paladins spend "lay on hands" resource for several effects, barbarians can spend "rounds of rage", clerics have channels per day, bards have the songs, etc)

I'd like it. It has the best of both systems, in my opinion.

 

[YRUSirius]

Hm, why not make these class specific ressources something that all classes share? Let's say every class uses let's say "action points" to power their abilities? Every character gets a pool of action points and uses these to power their spells, rages, songs, maneuvers, etc.

The new Neverwinter MMO uses something like this for the daily powers of the characters.

-YRUSirius

 

[Neonchameleon]

Part of the problem, yes, but again I only claimed going back to 1e memorization and acquisition rules would solve one part of the problem. Spell nerfs and reinstituting dangerous combat casting solves another part.

And that's why I was citing Gygax. The 1e wizard was still considered too powerful.

And of course the most important reason to have necromantic minions is that some people want to play the Dread Lord Tim, Lich King Extraordinaire, not the Dread Lord Bob, Mercenary Leader and Human Resources Guy Extraordinaire.

Agreed. I'd be happy with two types of minion that were permanent for Necromancers. The first is the shambling zombie. Not a serious threat except in large numbers. And the second is the programmable skeleton. Not a combat threat - but excellent at doing manual repetative tasks. And armed with pikes or in a shield wall a military force.

It's interesting that Essentials seems to have everything I want, and I freely admit that I don't have much knowledge of it. It's interesting for a few reasons. First of all, the reason I'm not that familiar with it is that my 4e group doesn't like it at all and doesn't play with it, and since we don't use DDI I don't just run into the material.

Seriously I'm going to try to sell you on some of Essentials later in the post, but Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to Nentir Vale are two of the best monster manuals ever written.

Second, Essentials discards a lot of the formerly-sacrosanct 4e design goals in favor of more 3e-esque design goals.

Here I disagree. The design goals for Essentials are more like AD&D or even OD&D than they are like 3e. There's none of the annoying fiddliness of 3.X and they are much more about archetypes than about options. And IMO pre-Essentials 4e had gone almost as far as it could go, so they needed something new, expanding the system. Martial Power 2 was an excellent book - and I believe there was some space for Arcane Power 2 (although it would have been a disappointment). But there are only so many splatbooks you can produce and have the splatbooks extend. (I also believe that Essentials is about there - the last big hole I saw in Essentials was the "simple blast mage" - filled by the Elementalist Sorceror who has absolutely no dailies and only a single type of encounter boost power based on their at wills).

Third, a lot of online advice surrounding 4e centers around non-Essentials material: the question "How do we handle out-of-combat stuff?" is usually "Rituals are amazing!!!" rather than "Non-combat utilities from Essentials are amazing!!!"

Non combat utilities have always been amazing - far better than anything 3.X ever offered. But this doesn't cut wizards apart from other characters.

So if the way to satisfy my complaints is to note that those complaints are inherent to pre-Essentials 4e, and if the Essentials material "broke the base" a bit among 4e players precisely because it is more 3e-like than standard 4e, turning around and saying that the pre-Essentials 4e way of doing things is great doesn't really jibe with that.

Pre-Essentials was limited. Mages were conjurers or evokers. And there were no simple classes.

If Essentials is the best way to unite 4e fans and AD&D/3e fans on the topic of martial dailies, utility magic, and so forth, I don't see why people are complaining about Vancian casting and too-versatile wizards and all that.

Who says it is. IME it works well between 4e and OSR.

But I'd seriously recommend getting a copy of Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms to see what the fuss is about. The Mage is flat out more evocative than the Wizard despite changing very little (being an Illusionist, an Evoker, or an Enchanter is far far more interesting than an Orb Wizard, a Staff Wizard, or a Wand Wizard). The only downside being they didn't give it Ritual Caster. But ultimately very little has changed (you now get a choice of cantrips and get Magic Missile (post errata) as a cantrip, and some minor bonusses to replace the implement bonusses and Ritual Caster).

The Slayer is a simple "I hit it" class - and absolutely wonderful for NPC fighters. Two handed weapon. Melee basic attacks. Two stances and encounter powers that just add 1[W] after you attack. The Knight on the other hand is a simple defender. No marks to worry about - instead you own the space around you and everyone in it is de facto marked while adjacent (a real mark trumps that). Again no daily attack powers and only encounters to boost. Both good for people who want to say "I hit it".

But the real gem of a class is the thief. If it's from any previous game it's definitely pre-3e. Encounter-backstab and no dailies. And some useful tricks that allow lots of roguey stuff in addition to your encounter powers. The whole thing looks vanilla but fits together well. And breaks the 4e design precepts (and every other version of D&D's). Just don't make it a charge-build; that's the cheesy way.

You say that no one cares about the Vancian part, but you've just described a Vancian system. I like it, actually, and I do the same when I run 4e (make rituals Vancian alongside daily powers, I mean).

When 4e fans say they don't like Vancian Casting, what they are normally IME trying to get at is the whole thing that says "Wizards must have more flexibility than anyone else". Vancian Casting is disliked because it is a way to give wizards Awesome Powah while locking other classes into tight little niches. And it's a lot of book keeping. The prepare some spells daily isn't itself a problem to any 4e player I'm aware of (4e having daily powers and giving wizards choices).

Re: Flying Dungeons I sometimes love RPG.net threads

 

[Hussar]

There's a reason it's nearly universal. It's because it's fundamentally true except for narrow definitions of quality. Quality may be defined to measure how suitable something is for a particular purpose. In that case, there may be some objectively better fits than others. But if we're talking about coming up with quality rules for an RPG, we'd have to be a lot more specific about the purposes we're trying to support. Coming up with the best RPG, for example, is far too broad. And when do engage in getting more specific, there's a lot of subjectivity in what those purposes should be.

This is why taste matters a lot. 4e gets lauded for being great design. That design may be high quality in fitting the purposes of the 4e game. But its quality is terrible when fitted to other purposes, like producing a game that feels like AD&D. Whether the former is more important for a game in the D&D line of products than the latter depends on taste, not any objective metric.

But, is that actually true?

Ok, sure, out of the box, yes, it's totally true that 4e will not reproduce a 1e experience. That's fair enough.

But, is it possible to modify the 4e mechanics to the point where it will? After all, 3e's Back to the Dungeon approach was certainly aimed at the goal of producing an iconic game play experience while not reproducing the mechanics of AD&D. 3e is very, very far away, mechanically, from 1e. Yet, it manages to capture the "iconic feel" of D&D for many gamers.

Why is it that 4e doesn't? Is it strictly the mechanics? Is it presentation? Could you modify 4e mechanics to taste? We've seen multiple methods for shifting 4e's Surge mechanics to pretty closely model 1e's HP's, without forcing the need for a cleric in the group.

If I can get 1e style pacing but loosen the restrictions placed on the game by 1e's mechanics, isn't that qualitatively better?

I do not believe that, "It was done this way before" is ever a sufficient justification for any game element. If you have two ways of doing something and one is demonstrably better in some way and not demonstrably worse in others, then that is a better mechanic.

What is it about having 1 spell per day that is so appealing to some gamers? Why is it so difficult for people to articulate reasons for why they like something? "I like it because I just do" adds nothing to the conversation. Hey, great for you. Why should I care?

 

[billd91]

But, is it possible to modify the 4e mechanics to the point where it will? After all, 3e's Back to the Dungeon approach was certainly aimed at the goal of producing an iconic game play experience while not reproducing the mechanics of AD&D. 3e is very, very far away, mechanically, from 1e. Yet, it manages to capture the "iconic feel" of D&D for many gamers.

I think it's a matter of conjecture whether or not 3e is very, very far away or just "some distance" away. And in any event, 4e is still farther. I would even call 4e very far from 3e.

Why is it that 4e doesn't? Is it strictly the mechanics? Is it presentation? Could you modify 4e mechanics to taste? We've seen multiple methods for shifting 4e's Surge mechanics to pretty closely model 1e's HP's, without forcing the need for a cleric in the group.

Really, it's both mechanics and presentation. Could you modify 4e mechanics to taste? It would take a lot of work, probably to the point where they wouldn't be particularly 4e-ish any more. I think healing surges, for the most part, would have to go, as would martial dailies.

If I can get 1e style pacing but loosen the restrictions placed on the game by 1e's mechanics, isn't that qualitatively better?

Depends on what you want. What if some of the restrictions from 1e mechanics are one of the things you want?

I do not believe that, "It was done this way before" is ever a sufficient justification for any game element. If you have two ways of doing something and one is demonstrably better in some way and not demonstrably worse in others, then that is a better mechanic.

Demonstrabily better by what standards? To use an example, are the NAD defenses in 4e demonstrably better than 1e defenses? I really don't think so, in part because I think the 1e/2e range of saves works really well - nearly always within the range of the rolled d20 . I don't even think they're as good as the saves in 3e because 3e's saves work great with the 3e action point system, which I enjoy. But some people think they are? Which one of us is right?

What is it about having 1 spell per day that is so appealing to some gamers? Why is it so difficult for people to articulate reasons for why they like something? "I like it because I just do" adds nothing to the conversation. Hey, great for you. Why should I care?

What's so appealing? What's so appealing about playing computer games on difficult mode? It's a challenge. It's a challenge that some people like and, as far as I'm concerned, that's enough.
As far as simulating a particularly representative of the genre, think of Galen in Dragonslayer. He's a wizard's apprentise and can barely cast a spell. He has to resort to other methods. For some people, the neophyte adventurer fits that sort of mold. He has a little magic and is content to resort to his crossbow (or darts) when he runs out.

 

[Hussar]

I think it's a matter of conjecture whether or not 3e is very, very far away or just "some distance" away. And in any event, 4e is still farther. I would even call 4e very far from 3e.

3e is mechanically far closer to 4e than it is to 1e. Virtually every single mechanic in 1e is absent in 3e - variable xp tables exchanged for unified xp advancement, completely reworked caster systems (Save DC's based on caster, number of spells per day, sheer number of spells in the books, changing spells based on feats), combat mechanics that are entirely different, addition of feats, completely different system for balancing encounters, on and on and on.

I know people want to distance themselves from 4e, but, this is pretty easily disproved. 4e mechanics are very much d20 based and virtually all 4e mechanics appeared at some point or other in 3e D&D.

Really, it's both mechanics and presentation. Could you modify 4e mechanics to taste? It would take a lot of work, probably to the point where they wouldn't be particularly 4e-ish any more. I think healing surges, for the most part, would have to go, as would martial dailies.

But that's the thing. No they don't. I wish I had bookmarked the thread, but, there's been multiple instances of taking 4e surge mechanics and recreating 3e healing with a couple of minor tweaks. Disconnect being able to access surges from individual characters and give the power back to clerics or items and you're done. It takes about two sentences.

As far as martial dailies go, yeah, you could pull them out. Let's be honest, it's already done in Essentials. Not a major deal.

Depends on what you want. What if some of the restrictions from 1e mechanics are one of the things you want?

Then add them in. That's easy enough. They don't need to be in the base mechanics, because that would make them too restrictive. But, adding it in to recreate other editions isn't that difficult.

Demonstrabily better by what standards? To use an example, are the NAD defenses in 4e demonstrably better than 1e defenses? I really don't think so, in part because I think the 1e/2e range of saves works really well - nearly always within the range of the rolled d20 . I don't even think they're as good as the saves in 3e because 3e's saves work great with the 3e action point system, which I enjoy. But some people think they are? Which one of us is right?

That's why game designers get the big bucks. My point is, it's not about being right or wrong. It's about being able to at least attempt to be objective.

What's so appealing? What's so appealing about playing computer games on difficult mode? It's a challenge. It's a challenge that some people like and, as far as I'm concerned, that's enough.
As far as simulating a particularly representative of the genre, think of Galen in Dragonslayer. He's a wizard's apprentise and can barely cast a spell. He has to resort to other methods. For some people, the neophyte adventurer fits that sort of mold. He has a little magic and is content to resort to his crossbow (or darts) when he runs out.

Now, is it possible to get this from other magic systems. If we went with an AEDU system, the stripped out the at-wills, would it work. Now, Galen isn't really a D&D wizard at all, so, using him as an archetype is a bit difficult. But, if we did drop the at-wills for wizards, but kept encounters, would that satisfy people? I don't know.

 

[billd91]

3e is mechanically far closer to 4e than it is to 1e. Virtually every single mechanic in 1e is absent in 3e - variable xp tables exchanged for unified xp advancement, completely reworked caster systems (Save DC's based on caster, number of spells per day, sheer number of spells in the books, changing spells based on feats), combat mechanics that are entirely different, addition of feats, completely different system for balancing encounters, on and on and on.

I know people want to distance themselves from 4e, but, this is pretty easily disproved. 4e mechanics are very much d20 based and virtually all 4e mechanics appeared at some point or other in 3e D&D.

Sure, there are quite a few mechanical differences between 1e and 3e and yet 3e plays a lot like 1e. We've played mostly 1e adventures for 3e and they play a lot like they did back when I ran them in the 1980s with 1e. 3e designers worked at designing new and more systematic rules structures but also worked to preserve most of the feel of earlier editions of D&D. I think they proved reasonably well this can be done, wedding different mechanics with earlier edition feel, so I have some hopes for 5e.

Contrast that with 4e in which designers have implied sacred cows didn't have immunity any more, and I take that to mean elements of feel as well as mechanics. There are even 4e fans on this site who have posted that 4e feels like a different game though 3e didn't. For a lot of people, 4e broke D&D out of a groove that had been very similar from 1e through 3e. Even WotC recognizes this, hence the, at least rhetorically, different direction for 5e.

 

[billd91]

That's why game designers get the big bucks. My point is, it's not about being right or wrong. It's about being able to at least attempt to be objective.

I don't think you're making much sense here. How can it not be about being right or wrong when you're trying to be objective? If you're being objective, there are objectively right answers. That's rather the point.

But I think, for the designers, it really is more about being right or wrong - right or wrong in their estimations about what designs the market will want, accept, and tolerate based on the subjective judgment of the buyers.