What is the essence of D&D

[Xenonnonex]

I get what you're saying, so, let's ignore that. Let's ignore the comparisons between editions and how this or that edition does this or that. IOW, let's cut out the cruft and look at what's actually the point here.

Let's lay it out:

P1 Only one edition of D&D is routinely described by fans as being "not really D&D". Typically it isn't even a knock on the game really. It's often phrased, "It's a good game, it's just not D&D to me." Fair enough. That's the perception.

P2. 4e shares a great deal of mechanics and flavor with other editions. Someone coming out of 3e having been using things like Book of 9 Swords and Tome of Magic probably didn't see a huge shift in mechanics. And, moving from 4e to 5e, there are a number of elements shared. So, if the element is shared, then it's not essential to D&D since 4e is the "not D&D" edition. Lots of games share elements with D&D but are not considered D&D. No one calls Rolemaster D&D, despite Rolemaster and 3e sharing a great number of mechanics.

P3. 4e is the only edition to achieve parity between casters and non-casters. The parity isn't perfect, but, it's far closer than in any other edition.

P4. We have yet to see other elements that appear in 4e that don't appear in other editions to explain why 4e is set aside as "not D&D".

Conclusion: It is the primacy of magic in every edition of D&D that is essential to the D&D experience. Remove the primacy of magic, make magic equal to or weaker than mundane, and it is "boring" and "not D&D".

------

Now, that all being said, none of that is a judgement of any of the games. Nor is it a judgement of those who play the games. Liking magic to be magical is not a bad thing. Liking mundane to remain in the realm of real worldish physics is not a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with that. Obviously. since we have about 40 years of D&D doing exactly that and people liking it. Remove that element - making magic equal to or weaker than the mundane - and you get an experience that people label as "not D&D".

Is that a fair summation?

This is a good argument because it is fair and balanced and does not devolve into irrelevant commentary and sniping.

 

[Garthanos]

Something like come and get it doesn't really work logically. Is every enemy an idiot?

They look like you have a massive opening for a melee attack and are already a huge tremendous nonsensical raging 10 feet away ... perhaps an enemy is an idiot to ignore that apparent opening plus you know they only fully fell for that opening if you get the attack in if you went no wait that isn't real he is faking me out you stop short. How a power works can depend on the situation but really arrogance is exploitable too. In Kendo there is a stance which is basically one where you expose your belly and dare the enemy to take the stroke. I saw a boxer staggering back word pulling in his opponent before they were ready he ended it by pulling a haymaker up from the ground (ie where your fist almost hits the ground behind you before you unleash it). It looked very much like a 1 enemy come and get it. Thing is that boxer did that same trick every single fight and one using it all the time. If it didnt work he couldn't get the attack off even though yeh they took the bait up to a point.

Additionally the thing I see about powers is the player gets to choose when a bunch of situational elements come together so it may work... ie it wouldn't have worked two rounds later or two rounds before but it does now this is more true of the daily powers than others but can be true of

 

[Zardnaar]

They look like you have a massive opening for a melee attack and are already a huge tremendous nonsensical raging 10 feet away ... perhaps an enemy is an idiot to ignore that apparent opening plus you know they only fully fell for that opening if you get the attack in if you went no wait that isn't real he is faking me out you stop short. How a power works can depend on the situation but really arrogance is exploitable too. In Kendo there is a stance which is basically one where you expose your belly and dare the enemy to take the stroke. I saw a boxer staggering back word pulling in his opponent before they were ready he ended it by pulling a haymaker up from the ground (ie where your fist almost hits the ground behind you before you unleash it). It looked very much like a 1 enemy come and get it. Thing is that boxer did that same trick every single fight and one using it all the time. If it didnt work he couldn't get the attack off even though yeh they took the bait up to a point.

Additionally the thing I see about powers is the player gets to choose when a bunch of situational elements come together so it may work... ie it wouldn't have worked two rounds later or two rounds before but it does now this is more true of the daily powers than others but can be true of

The problem is it works every time regardless of the situation. I can buy into it working some of the time but a feint to me is something like advantage to hit.

I suppose you could have enemies immune to it but in that case it should have something like mind influencing so it doesn't work on certain enemies.

 

[Garthanos]

The problem is it works every time regardless of the situation.

If you didnt hit every enemy it didnt work every time. it only started to work and they resisted.

 

[Garthanos]

This is a massive example of how things must be simplistic or it isnt martial... and tricks must be chancy and unlikely unless they are magic. AND how the fighter is actually noticing its time that the trick will work.

 

[Garthanos]

But that means the player is given the choice... player agency

 

[Garthanos]

Oh Its not a feint its more of a false opening conceptually different... one induces an enemy to attack when they shouldn't because you are ready for it. (it creates an opportunity for you that you didnt have at all instead of improving one you have)

 

[Tony Vargas]

[

. By devolving an argument into snide and sniping remarks just means the argument presented is a poor one and relies on the crutch of attacking behavior.

I'm used to the personal attacks in response to reasonable ideas, supported with factual evidence.

It's just the internet, really.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I am talking about the tone of the substance of the discussion.

In general this is by far and again something I have encountered. Sure say your piece and opinions. By devolving an argument into snide and sniping remarks just means the argument presented is a poor one and relies on the crutch of attacking behavior. It heavily skews an argument into a completely meaningless and irrelevant direction. It makes the argument presented pointless and needless.

Just to clarify I am talking about this in general.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem is it works every time regardless of the situation. I can buy into it working some of the time

It does only work some of the time: at most, 1/encounter, if you hit their WILL.

I suppose you could have enemies immune to it but in that case it should have something like mind influencing so it doesn't work on certain enemies.

The charm keyword was added in a later update. It's manipulation, not mind control, but I guess they figured the abstraction was close enough.

Really, though, at bottom, it's transparently an action-movie-reality power.
D20, in general, especially modern, could do with more abilities so on the money as C&GI.