What is the essence of D&D

[Garthanos]

That's why I have always said the real problem in layman's terms is specifically 4E classes as designed

You are talking about as presented ... which is a different distinction.

 

[Zardnaar]

You are talking about as presented ... which is a different distinction.

Presentation didn't help it's the 4E playstyle. That playstyle is mostly class/power related along with them shoehorning it in.

That's why 5E killed it and carried some things forward.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But if you want to re-fight the edition war with appeals to popularity, commercial success, anecdotes, misperceptions, factual errors, and subjective opinions, well, I'd had more than enough of that by 2014.

"If there's a particular bit of outright nonsense you'd like to hitch your wagon too, though, I'd go ahead and refute it for the nth time. I'm a sucker that way."
--- not me

"Which is why I haven't enumerated it. Believe it or not I'm trying to avoid yet another edition war conversation."
--- not you

You emphatically do not give the impression that you're done with the edition war. If you sincerely believe that you are, you need to reexamine how you present yourself. And if you sincerely believe that the guy who has done his damnedest not to make any concrete criticisms of 4E which would be irrelevant to his point (in spite of your constant demands for them) is the one looking to pick that fight... well, I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but you really need to stop trying to read other people's minds.

That's why I'm not even trying to "prove" some sort of direct, sole, causation - it's too fraught a subject. I'll stick to facts, about the game, itself. They're easily verified.

So, I suppose I'm relatively "vulnerable" to the assertion that 4e Really Was D&D, since it's contrary status is by general acclaim, and gets into all that fraught edition war subjectivity and emotion.

And lo, he was enlightened.

You want to argue facts, but this topic lies entirely in the domain of perceptions. Your refutations of people's negative opinions about 4E can be as well rehearsed and factually verifiable as a Broadway production by Wittgenstein, and they will still be pointless. When someone tells you that saving throws or whatever are what make 4E "not D&D", you can't say, "That doesn't make sense because of the facts! It must be something else!" That's just throwing away important data. You have to take a second look and figure out how it does make sense, to them.

Now, it may sound here like I am asking you to read other people's minds. Far from it. I know how well that's likely to turn out. I'm asking you to credit other people's words, which is precisely the opposite endeavor.

 

[Garthanos]

That playstyle is mostly class/power related along with them shoehorning it in.

I have as a fighter climactic daily abilities and that I can only use once a day is bad?
(only look at 3e feats didnt some of the martial ones also had daily restriction).

4e could have increased the cosmetics by making those martial feats...

 

[Zardnaar]

I have as a fighter climactic daily abilities and that I can only use once a day is bad?
(only look at 3e feats didnt some of the martial ones also had daily restriction).

4e could have increased the cosmetics by making those martial feats...

Late 3E maybe, a lot if people probably didn't have the late 3E stuff and a lot if it was also junk, I striped buying most of it.

 

[Garthanos]

Presentation didn't help it's the 4E playstyle.

You need to bring up actuals about the play style ... the assumption that you arent a newbie apprentice at level 1 but rather a newbie hero.(5e equivalent level 5) They kept the cosmetic of being level 1 but changed the meaning

Is likely a play style difference ... not sure *(its your word use so)

 

[Garthanos]

Cause labelling level 1 to 9 is definitely not playstyle

 

[Zardnaar]

Cause labelling level 1 to 9 is definitely not playstyle

Irrelevant people like it. It's D&D.

 

[Garthanos]

They made unnecessary differences which were not even needed for the goals of game play (like the spell level labels) is a very good point

 

[Zardnaar]

You need to bring up actuals about the play style ... the assumption that you arent a newbie apprentice at level 1 but rather a newbie hero.(5e equivalent level 5) They kept the cosmetic of being level 1 but changed the meaning

Is likely a play style difference ... not sure *(its your word use so)

The whole powers thing, heavy reliance on battlematts, powers, long combats, lots of conditions to keep track of, martial healing, Grindy combat etc.