What is the essence of D&D

[Zardnaar]

The financial or popular success or failure of 4e is orthogonal to the point that is being made though.

The basic premise is that one of the elements that differentiates 4e from other editions is the lack of primacy of magic. Magic items are massively toned down in power and the classes are far more on par with each other. Martial classes are given abilities that equal (or even exceed) what magic can do.

That's not edition warring or complaining. That's just true. It's demonstrably true. A 4e rogue is capable of reliably performing feats that any other edition rogue couldn't possibly replicate. Such as "Cloud Jump" a 22nd level utility that lets the rogue chain two jump checks together without landing in between. IOW, it's a low powered fly spell, that, by that level, would likely allow the rogue to "jump" about 60 feet or more as a single move.

In any other edition, doing this would be impossible for a rogue. It would REQUIRE magic to replicate. There is just no way for a rogue, without magic, to do this.

Again, folks keep adding in value judgements here that do not exist. It's not that 4e is good, bad or indifferent. It's not. It's just DIFFERENT.

And that difference is a big difference. So many of the criticisms of 4e can be boiled down to the lack of "magical ness" in magic. The fact that 4e characters and the 4e system, makes magic far less "magical".

Other criticisms, like "reliance on the battle grid" apply to other editions and can be safely ignored. 3e was nearly as dependent on the grid as 4e. It was certainly expected in 3e that you would play on a grid (you don't have several pages of forced movement and Attacks of Opportunity rules for nothing). Did 4e take it further? Sure. Of course it did. It flat out presumed that the battle map would be used and leveraged that use in the rules. But, it's not like 3e presumed theater of the mind combat. Or 1e for that matter which has a large chunk of rules (mostly ignored to be fair) that relied on using a battle map, including things like space/reach and facing rules.

So, using a battle map isn't essential to the game, since Basic/Expert, 2e and 5e aren't really focused on needing a battle map, but 1e, 3e and 4e all do.

That's why the argument keeps getting brought up that most of the elements of 4e that people complain about DO exist in other editions. Maybe not to the same degree, but, they are there. OTOH, the one distinct element of 4e that differentiates it from all other editions is the degree to which magic plays a role in the game.

When trying to pin down the essential element of D&D, looking at the exceptions seems to be the logical route to take.

If you have Rogue double jumping 60 feet without an explaination it's getting into a different genre. That's superhero or wuxia.

If you can't see how that's not D&D as most people would understand it there's not a lot of hope. Doesn't have to be a magical explaination but low gravity would explain it.

That's different genre stuff.

 

[Imaro]

OTOH, the one distinct element of 4e that differentiates it from all other editions is the degree to which magic plays a role in the game.

Being based around set piece battles vs. numerous smaller battles of attrition seems pretty distinct to me.

 

[Eric V]

The financial or popular success or failure of 4e is orthogonal to the point that is being made though.

The basic premise is that one of the elements that differentiates 4e from other editions is the lack of primacy of magic. Magic items are massively toned down in power and the classes are far more on par with each other. Martial classes are given abilities that equal (or even exceed) what magic can do.

That's not edition warring or complaining. That's just true. It's demonstrably true. A 4e rogue is capable of reliably performing feats that any other edition rogue couldn't possibly replicate. Such as "Cloud Jump" a 22nd level utility that lets the rogue chain two jump checks together without landing in between. IOW, it's a low powered fly spell, that, by that level, would likely allow the rogue to "jump" about 60 feet or more as a single move.

In any other edition, doing this would be impossible for a rogue. It would REQUIRE magic to replicate. There is just no way for a rogue, without magic, to do this.

Again, folks keep adding in value judgements here that do not exist. It's not that 4e is good, bad or indifferent. It's not. It's just DIFFERENT.

And that difference is a big difference. So many of the criticisms of 4e can be boiled down to the lack of "magical ness" in magic. The fact that 4e characters and the 4e system, makes magic far less "magical".

Other criticisms, like "reliance on the battle grid" apply to other editions and can be safely ignored. 3e was nearly as dependent on the grid as 4e. It was certainly expected in 3e that you would play on a grid (you don't have several pages of forced movement and Attacks of Opportunity rules for nothing). Did 4e take it further? Sure. Of course it did. It flat out presumed that the battle map would be used and leveraged that use in the rules. But, it's not like 3e presumed theater of the mind combat. Or 1e for that matter which has a large chunk of rules (mostly ignored to be fair) that relied on using a battle map, including things like space/reach and facing rules.

So, using a battle map isn't essential to the game, since Basic/Expert, 2e and 5e aren't really focused on needing a battle map, but 1e, 3e and 4e all do.

That's why the argument keeps getting brought up that most of the elements of 4e that people complain about DO exist in other editions. Maybe not to the same degree, but, they are there. OTOH, the one distinct element of 4e that differentiates it from all other editions is the degree to which magic plays a role in the game.

When trying to pin down the essential element of D&D, looking at the exceptions seems to be the logical route to take.

I really don't understand why this is seen as such a controversial idea, or why people are getting offended by it. People may like or dislike a game for certain reasons, but that's not what's being discussed here. It's specifically the "Doesn't feel like D&D" statement (didn't Oofta just repeat it above?) that is being examined. The game made a shift to rely less on magic; it's a defining feature of it that -isn't- found in other editions. It's right there in the game and not really debatable.

Hussar is right, this is just the logical route to take. It's not about like/dislike. The visceral responses to something so evident are really perplexing...

 

[Eric V]

Double post.

 

[Hussar]

Counterpoint:

1. No. It's not.

2. That's not what people say.

Ergo, no.

Huh, really? Because, here's the response right under yours.

If you have Rogue double jumping 60 feet without an explaination it's getting into a different genre. That's superhero or wuxia.

If you can't see how that's not D&D as most people would understand it there's not a lot of hope. Doesn't have to be a magical explaination but low gravity would explain it.

That's different genre stuff.

Seems like it's EXACTLY what people are saying. We're got @Zardnaar, right here, saying that 4e isn't D&D. Do I need more examples @lowkey13?

 

[Hussar]

Being based around set piece battles vs. numerous smaller battles of attrition seems pretty distinct to me.

This is a bit problematic.

1. The notion that 4e is based around set piece battles isn't true. The live plays that Chris Perkins did during 4e's run showed this not to be true. Particularly when he would run multiple encounters, as in 5 or 6 encounters, in a 2 or 3 hour session. Some were set piece, but, not all.

2. Set piece encounters are found in every edition of D&D. Going back to every single module ever published, you'll find set piece encounters routinely detailed. Whether it's the Hall of the Giants, or whatever, set piece encounters are part and parcel to adventure design in every edition.

So, as far as set piece vs numerous smaller battles goes, that's largely in the eye of the beholder. I can find examples of both within and without every edition of D&D.

To be fair, 4e tended to follow the 3e route of balancing on the encounter, rather than over the course of the day. 3e achieved this through cheap magic items like wands of cure light wounds and scrolls. I could see if you played 3e without healing wands, it might seem like a bigger difference.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Arnwolf666]

If you have Rogue double jumping 60 feet without an explaination it's getting into a different genre. That's superhero or wuxia.

If you can't see how that's not D&D as most people would understand it there's not a lot of hope. Doesn't have to be a magical explaination but low gravity would explain it.

That's different genre stuff.

You mean like 1E oriental adventures. That was very wuxia. I still play with that product. Although 90 percent of the time I don’t want wuxia in my ad&d there is a rare time when the ninja bug hits me.

There was also a 2E ninja handbook.
There is a monk class in the 1E phb. And RC has the mystic class that was just the monk with a different name.

And the monk first premiered with all its wuxia in the 1975 blackmoor supplement.

 

[Zardnaar]

You mean like 1E oriental adventures. That was very wuxia. I still play with that product. Although 90 percent of the time I don’t want wuxia in my ad&d there is a rare time when the ninja bug hits me.

There was also a 2E ninja handbook.
There is a monk class in the 1E phb. And RC has the mystic class that was just the monk with a different name.

And the monk first premiered with all its wuxia in the 1975 blackmoor supplement.

Monks semi magical and OA is a wuxia type splat book. Generally I don't care what goes in splats. Raven Queens Guide to Nerath big whoop. 5E OA who cares. 5E Book if Nine Swords knock yourself out.

I don't care what they add to D&D I do care how/where they do it especially if they remove stuff. I don't like Ravenloft but it's opt in so I don't care if it exists. It's not for me and to make it appeal to me it would alienate fans of RL and I don't expect that.

Also like 2E no Monks.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you have Rogue double jumping 60 feet without an explaination it's getting into a different genre. That's superhero or wuxia.

If you can't see how that's not D&D as most people would understand it there's not a lot of hope. Doesn't have to be a magical explaination but low gravity would explain it.

That's different genre stuff.

I was kind of startled that the example of this super-jump was used as an example. So 4e reduced this imaginary "Primacy of Magic" by...giving rogues magical powers? WTF?