With 5e here, what will 4e be remembered for?

[Neonchameleon]

Personally, and this is probably because I consider the game the mechanics and not the fluff, I see tons of things all versions of D&D but 4e have in common. The Vancian wizard was pretty darn close all the way through. AEDU was a huge departure.

Whereas to me there is a vast difference between the 1e "No automatic spells after first level" and the 3E "Two free spells.level".

The simple fighter as an option was possible all the way through

It turned up in Essentials, but this is actual gameplay and one I'm happy to concede.

They turned the entire healing system upside down. Surges, martial healing, magic that couldn't heal beyond your surges, and so forth.

The entire healing system had been shattered by 3E and 4E rebuilt it. The Wand of Cure Light Wounds being readily available was a complete gamechanger.

The healing system for the most part had not changed prior to 4e. The quantity of healing perhaps but not the fundamental system.

The idea that you could go into every fight at full HP (and indeed not to do so was simply bad logistics after about second level) wasn't a change?

So those things are what I consider a games identity. The actual mechanical structures. I realize some of you have some other viewpoint on what makes D&D D&D. For me the rules are always what make a game.

To me how the structures work are more important than that they look vaguely like each other.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is where, IMO, you fail to recognize and respect the diversity of play styles that other prior editions supported.

Supported? I think it's very hard to suggest that, mechanically, previous editions "supported" many play styles.

I think the issue with 4E is absolutely not what you claim, that is "supported" fewer play styles than say, 3E or 1E (2E is more complicated), but rather the issue is that 4E made it extremely clear what it did actively support and expect, and it was indeed the first edition of D&D that was actually transparent about that.

This discussion has been had at some length and is why people sometimes refer to 4E being kind of "indie" - it's that transparency on what it does actually, actively support.

I don't believe that you can make any kind of good case that, mechanically, 4E supported less of a "diversity" of play styles than previous editions (particularly 3.XE/PF, which is the most relevant). However, you can make a very good case, a very easy case, that 4E said what it did actively, intentionally, mechanically support.

With 1/2/3E, the issue was not that they strongly mechanically supported a wide diversity of play styles. They did not. What they did do, however, especially 1/2E, is avoid directly telling you what it was that they did support (in part because in those pre-90s days the concept of "play style" was poorly developed), which lead to people using them for a wide variety of games and not really minding that they didn't actually mechanically support X or Y play style well.

3E continued this - it was a bit more transparent and had more of a playstyle in mind, a somewhat confused one in which a desire to encourage rules-mastery sat side-by-side with encouraging the DM to just make up PRCs with no good guidelines, but one nonetheless.

Whereas 4E, being post-90s, post-Forge, post-Indie, post-OSR (to a large extent), very much knew what play style it wanted to support and was very open and clear about it.

Mechanically, though, it's no more narrow in support than any other edition. It undoubtedly supports DIFFERENT play styles mechanically to 3E (which supported different play styles to 2E, and so on), but less? Objectively less? You're not going to be able to demonstrate that, I'd suggest.

All that said, it's fine to object to 4E as not supporting your play style. It's just not really impressive to claim it supported "less diversity". No. It was merely more transparent about it's support, and people reacted against that very strongly. Ironically enough, 5E is somewhat similar to 4E in this - it's fairly transparent about the default play style (not as transparent, but closer than previous editions), which is precisely why it's catching so much flak on certain issues!

 

[Emerikol]

Whereas to me there is a vast difference between the 1e "No automatic spells after first level" and the 3E "Two free spells.level".

Not to me. Especially not compared to AEDU.

The entire healing system had been shattered by 3E and 4E rebuilt it. The Wand of Cure Light Wounds being readily available was a complete gamechanger.

Yes but wands of cure light wounds have been around from the beginning in one form or another. Yes 3e introduced magic mart and easy item creation. That was the big change. The healing system though was not changed. External factors like the availability of magic items was what changed things. If a DM changed the availability of magic items without touching the healing system, then all of your issues would go away. So it's not the healing system. I agree that easy magic item creation was an issue in 3e and I'm glad 5e dropped it.

The idea that you could go into every fight at full HP (and indeed not to do so was simply bad logistics after about second level) wasn't a change?

You confuse "system" with practical usage. Plenty of groups did not use cure light wounds wands. The healing system didn't change as a result. I agree that access to magic items was an issue in 3e. The healing system though was the same one (mostly) from all prior editions. The magic item creation system was what was new. It should have been presented as far more optional than it was.

To me how the structures work are more important than that they look vaguely like each other.

Of course. Being a 4e person, the outcome is all that matters. How you get there is of no concern. That is why we "war" because for me that is not acceptable. And I use the "we" part in the loosest sense.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

DMs narrative: "The orc cuts you across the chest with his black blade. At the sight of your blood, the horde howls with excitement."
Warlord's mechanic: "Buck up camper!" (hit points return to max)
DM's narrative: "Uh..you feel better, turns out it was just a scratch...again."

This has been debated a great deal, and I know there are other ways to rationalize the warlord's powers, but my issue is that it IS a rationalization.

When you are magically healed, the narrative continues, it isn't retconned.

Like I said though, all IMO. I know many people have no problem with it, and there are other ways to handle the narrative.

So why even make this post? Genuine question.

All you've done is give a transparently bad example, claimed it involved "retcon" and "rationalization", then admitted that there are "other ways to handle the narrative", suggesting that you understand your example is extremely weak. You are creating your own problems here, and you that "other ways" suggests that you are completely aware that you are creating your own problem! If you didn't insist on narrating HP in that very specific and somewhat "meat point"-ish way, you wouldn't have had the problem.

So I'm asking: what are you even trying to communicate here, beyond the fact that you can set up a straw man and knock it down?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Of course. Being a 4e person, the outcome is all that matters. How you get there is of no concern. That is why we "war" because for me that is not acceptable. And I use the "we" part in the loosest sense.

For you the process matters and the outcome doesn't. For me the outcome matters and if the process leads to a different outcome then you fix the process. Yes, we do have enough of a basis we're never going to agree

 

[Emerikol]

Mechanically, though, it's no more narrow in support than any other edition. It undoubtedly supports DIFFERENT play styles mechanically to 3E (which supported different play styles to 2E, and so on), but less? Objectively less? You're not going to be able to demonstrate that, I'd suggest.

My evidence is that during 3e everyone was playing D&D. When 4e arrived, half the playerbase left D&D because of playstyle issues. A war erupted because of these playstyle issues and here we are.

I realize that there were two reactions to 4e: "Finally", "OMG what where they thinking".

I dislike most indie games for the same reasons I dislike 4e. It might appear that there are countless games out there with one approach and D&D is just behind the times. The problem is that D&D is pretty much the size of an air craft carrier next to a fleet of tug boats when it comes to market penetration. Sure most of the people really happy with core D&D were playing it prior to 4e. The indie companies were trying to peel away people with variant approaches. It's not like it's a technological advance. Indie is no better than anything else. It's just another flavor.

Wotc made the grave mistake of thinking that the number of indie games indicates a pent up desire amongst the D&D playerbase for those types of approaches.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

External factors like the availability of magic items was what changed things. If a DM changed the availability of magic items without touching the healing system, then all of your issues would go away. So it's not the healing system. I agree that easy magic item creation was an issue in 3e and I'm glad 5e dropped it.

You are objectively wrong to call that an "external factor". In 3E, the availability of magic items is absolutely not an "external factor" to the PCs, RAW, because the primary mode of magic item access (certainly wands) is via Feats, not via "magic mart" or them dropping from monsters or the like.

The very fact that it was not "external" is precisely why this was a real issue. If it wasn't wands of CLW (which were merely the optimal way to do it), there were other ways to create large amounts of healing items of various descriptions very efficiently and in player control in 3.XE.

It would only be an external factor if the DMG had merely advised dropping wands of CLW like they were candy. It did not. What 3E did was put the power in the hands of the players when it came to accessing magic items, to a greater degree than any other edition (including 4E, which puts magic items largely back to being an "external factor", albeit with suggested guidelines and so on - but explicitly allows for you to ignore those and provides mechanical support for doing so, and indeed for removing magic items from the game entirely).

To change this, the DM has to remove access to all those Feats, to edit the classes which get them as part of their natural progression, and or to drastically re-cost all magic items. That's a big deal, not a little one.

So 3E did change the de facto healing system. It just changed in a way that didn't concern you as much, because whilst it was a massive change, it merely meant tons and tons more magic healing, rather than other forms of healing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My evidence is that during 3e everyone was playing D&D. When 4e arrived, half the playerbase left D&D because of playstyle issues. A war erupted because of these playstyle issues and here we are.

That's terrible "evidence".

By the end of 3.5E, it's numbers were massively down. The later books were not good sellers. OSR games and alternative FRPGs were growing in popularity. 4E was already dealing with a divided market. 4E's marketing was terrible. Paizo capitalized on that. QED.

I realize that there were two reactions to 4e: "Finally", "OMG what where they thinking".

No. There was an entire continuum of reactions, which you want to break down into two. That's completely false. I never thought "finally" about 4E.

I dislike most indie games for the same reasons I dislike 4e. It might appear that there are countless games out there with one approach and D&D is just behind the times. The problem is that D&D is pretty much the size of an air craft carrier next to a fleet of tug boats when it comes to market penetration. Sure most of the people really happy with core D&D were playing it prior to 4e. The indie companies were trying to peel away people with variant approaches. It's not like it's a technological advance. Indie is no better than anything else. It's just another flavor.

Wotc made the grave mistake of thinking that the number of indie games indicates a pent up desire amongst the D&D playerbase for those types of approaches.

I think you've profoundly and utterly missed the point, which is that 4E didn't support "less diversity" overall, it just:

A) Arguably a different main play style from 3E.

and

B) Explained this fact in detail right up front!

The second point meant that 4E "forced the issue" in a way no previous edition did.

 

[Gargoyle]

So why even make this post? Genuine question.

All you've done is give a transparently bad example, claimed it involved "retcon", then admitted that there are "other ways to handle the narrative", suggesting that you understand your example is extremely weak. You are creating your own problem, and you that "other ways" suggests that you are completely aware that you are creating your own problem!

What are you even trying to communicate here, beyond the fact that you can set up a straw man and knock it down?

Because for me, this isn't an argument. I'm not trying to "win". I was responding to his post with more detail about my opinion. I'm not trying to change his opinion or even disagree with him, so I acknowledged there are other viewpoints. Sorry if I didn't communicate that, but that's what I was going for.

I know these forums have become a debate club for some people, but I don't care about that; I'm not going to go down a checklist of logical fallacies to make sure I "win". I see the point of intelligent discussion, and I really do try to think about what I post, but I refuse to spend the time and effort to post a perfect argument to support all my opinions. And I try not to be critical of the opinion's of others, even when I believe they are flat out wrong, because I don't have the time for it, and would prefer just discussing D&D, rather than arguing about it. I'm a casual poster here, bordering on being a lurker, because I don't care for the confrontations. Some people thrive on it, I don't.

Back to the topic:

I disagree that I "created my own problem." I don't like non-magical healing because I can't describe wounds (something that DM's are encouraged to do) and then retroactively undescribe them without my suspension of disbelief suffering. It's just a minor nitpick I have, because I really do love the warlord class and the teamwork it created. My workaround when running 4e was to infer that their abilities were indeed magical.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Anybody who wishes to deny that 4e was a divisive edition that spawned lots of vehement arguments about it’s legitimacy and purpose, merely needs to take the microcosm of this very thread as evidence. We’ve had five years of this - thank goodness it’s coming to an end!