D&D 4E So all these wacky arguments are still about 4e, right?

[dmgorgon]

... or vice versa. An insistence on what should be modular and what should be default fits back into my general thesis statement that these arguments are more about being right - about the true soul of D&D - than they are concrete mechanical concerns.

The true soul of D&D has be shattered a few times over.

 

[dmgorgon]

Funny...I interpretted the OP as the exact opposite...that 4e folks who don't want to see the game regress to older editions are guilty of edition warring...whatever...its a game. New editions will have new rules that change the nature of the game a bit...I'm an old school gamer...I liked 4e when I first tried it but quickly realized it is overburdenned with things that slow the game down. So I want to see a return to a simpler, purer game but I don't want to se the baby thrown out with the bathwater...there is a lot to like in 4e.

Stating that the game might regress towards older editions is edition warring.

The idea that 4e is an evolution is also offensive. IMO, 4e simply appeals to a different play-style.

 

[Remathilis]

Other than the Bo9S stuff, which was mostly (near as I can tell) about it being too "anime", I don't remember major flame-wars about Marshalls, Knights, Dragon Shamans, Reserve Feats, etc.

I do!

I recall LOTS of debates about Knights having Aggro-control abilities and reserve feats "breaking" spell slots. Hell, I recall one thread (now gone) on how the Dragon Shaman's healing aura/touch of health reserve feat meant HP was meaningless since a PC always was at 1/2 hp unless taken out in one hit. (Bit of an exaggeration, that). I also remember a lot of "banned" warlocks due to their at-will touch attack eldritch blast making the wizard obsolete (snicker).

If Pathfinder counts, add "at-will cantrips" and "burst healing for clerics" debate to the list.

 

[Ichneumon]

Many of the issues tie into two schools of thought which have often been at loggerheads.

The first says that resources - hp, spells,consumables, etc - should be run on a very tight ship, and the PCs should not expect regular replenishment. Got no spells left, or nothing that looks useful? Deal with it. Low on hit points? Deal with it. Advocates for this approach would tend to not like at-wills or HD/healing surge type mechanics.

The second claims that regular replenishment is required to keep yielding a rewarding play experience during a game session. This gives the PCs more confidence to approach encounters, and more latitude to keep using the 'cool stuff' on their character sheet because the resources for it are more consistently available.

There's merit in both approaches, and either can be taken to extremes ('Name your PC at 3rd level' for the first, and '5MWD' for the second). For some reason, a mechanic that aligns well with either of these, particularly the second, has the potential to start fights.

 

[Uller]

Stating that the game might regress towards older editions is edition warring.

The idea that 4e is an evolution is also offensive. IMO, 4e simply appeals to a different play-style.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't what I was saying...the post I was responding to was accusing the OP of attacking those wh don't like 4e. I read the OP as the opposite...(not attacking really). So many folks want to plant their flag as either anti-4e or not and see all those not explicitly in their camp as against them...like I said...there was a lot I like about 4e that I don't want to see lost (and there is much that I like from each edition)...most notably that martial classes should have more to do in combat than stand still and attck, certain classes should not be the only source of healing in the game and everyone should have something interesting to do in combat since that is such a big part of the game. But I found 4e to be so cumbersome to play due to the length of combat encounters I was happy to see 5e come along. If it hadn't I'd probably have gone back to 3e or tried pathfinder. I was unaware that stating those opinions make me an edition warrior and offensive...thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I (dis)like 3e and 4e equally.

As a self-proclaimed neutral observer it appears that the most zealous 5e 'resistors' are 3e/PF players who are railing against the few 'Started in 3e but made infamous in 4e' elements that survived the cut and got ported over into D&D Next.

Obryn is right, the lates spat of "I hate this mechanic" threads have all been these people. They seem rather ignorant and confrontational, and have terrible myopia - inflating minor mechanics into overblown dealbreakers and soapboxes to vent their hatred of 4e and WotC.

Fortunately they usually find themselves dismissed after creating a few angry edition-warring threads.

 

[Derren]

I agree with Umbran

A very transparent attempt by the OP (and others) to dismiss any criticism on 5E with "4E haters" accusations.
Well, guess what. People who disliked all those mechanics in the previous edition still dislike them in the next one. Not the number before the "E" is the problem, but the mechanics itself and as long as they are not changed a segment of the playerbase will complain about them, at least until they lose any interest in D&D and don't care any more.

 

[Phototoxin]

Frankly, scrap next, support AD&D/2E, 3.5 and 4E. Everyone whinging want it to either be 2E or the next version of 3E if it's not perfect they won't change over so whats the point?

 

[Umbran]

Take the DoaM debate. It would not be happening if WotC would just recognize the playstyle differences related to hit points.

This seems more like a shouting match than a debate, to be honest. It seems less, "the debate would not happen if WotC recognized playstyle differences", and more "the debate wouldn't happen if WotC did exactly what I say on every... single.... point....".

The designers do recognize there are differences - my understanding is that they are all of them veteran gamers, who have had plenty of opportunity to try various things. But, no finite and tractable set of rules will satisfy *every* style. If WotC tries to shove everything that anyone gripes about into an optional bucket, there will be no core mechanic at all! There must be some concrete choices made. Very few people will like *all* of those choices.

As a practical matter: There will be things you don't like in the ruleset. Period. Full stop. Get used to the idea. There will be some things you do like, that will be in optional rules. Some things you like won't appear at all. It will not be perfect from your point of view. If you are unwilling to accept compromise, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

Each person should look at the list of the things they feel are "unacceptable", and stop and think if meeting that particular list is a reasonable demand to make of a company that has to serve more than just you.

You can put DoaM, martial healing, coddling resting rules, surges, etc into an optional play-style bucket for those who like them.

Or, those things could be core, and your preferred stuff can be in the optional bucket.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Frankly, scrap next, support AD&D/2E, 3.5 and 4E. Everyone whinging want it to either be 2E or the next version of 3E if it's not perfect they won't change over so whats the point?

This is not true. Most people on this forum have money in hand waiting to buy 5e the day it comes out.
Many of us like what we see, and consider D&D Next's potential to the swansong edition.