What is the essence of D&D

[doctorbadwolf]

Barbarians were a late 1e edition, Druid (much as I love it) was literally the least-popular class on the last D&D Beyond set of statistics I saw pasted up here, and the Barbarian & Monk were left out of 2e. Gnomes, IIRC, were always the least-popular race, too, the Bard was openly mocked for decades.

5 years... Psionics, though not a class, were in the 1e PH1, and in every ed since. The Warlord was in a PH1. They're not 'tertiary.'

More nit picking, and careening out of the way of the point.

It does not matter what was in the 1e PHB or a supplement for it. To players anticipating 4e, which is the only perspective that mattered at all, those classes needed to be available from day one. I won't quibble over word choice or whatever any further. If you have something to say about the actual meat of anything I said, I'm happy to discuss it.

 

[Oofta]

Saying that a false statement of an opinion doesn't save it from being false, either.

(Not that I'm saying you, specifically, do that, below...)

You are relating an opinion that sounds like it involves some facts, and you are setting it in the context of 4e being NOT-D&D, but presumably you don't find any similar issue in 5e (or 3.5?). And, that may need some clarification.

Now, within a given source, there are some /very/ similar powers, where you could do exactly that. File off the class & power name, and you have two martial encounter weapon attack powers that, say, let you shift half your speed and attack an enemy for 2W damage. Only the fluff text is that different. OK, maybe one uses STR and the other DEX (in 5e, that's just called a finesse weapon, not much of an issue). There aren't a tremendous number of such powers though, and there really aren't many that cross source lines.

So, like I said above, even I feel the aesthetic impulse to just consolidate powers by Source. I mean, that's my opinion on the matter.

OTOH, you have the Sorcerer, in 3.5 and 5e, alike, he had no spells that were unique to his list ("he" being Hennet, of course), likewise, in 5e, the Sorcerer has no spells that are only sorcerer spells. Not a problem, both eds are Really D&D, neither was Warred against (much, 3.5 caught some flack as a 'money-grab,' and grognards groused about it's 'grid dependence'). Yet, that some sorcerer spells, stripped of identifying marks and fluff text might be close enough to "look much the same," mechanically to Warlock or Wizard spells was an issue in 4e?

Or have the many spell-list duplications in past editions, in general, and the Sorcerer, in particular, always been appalling to you, as well?

Or is this opinion getting into the point Cambell, made, above, about 4e seeming more concerned with differentiating classes from eachother within roles, and other eds seeming more concerned with differentiating between casters & non-casters?

It's a fact that in my opinion the structure of 4E gave us powers that felt generic to me and several of the people I played with.

That's all.

 

[Campbell]

I absolutely believe that Bards, Barbarians, Druids, and Gnomes are more essential to most people's experience of Dungeons and Dragons then Psionics and Warlords.

I also believe that if Fifth Edition did not have Warlocks, Tieflings, and Dragonborn it would have had a minimal impact on its acceptance. Now it can't take that stuff out because new players love them too much but it absolutely could have at release.

Warlords are a mascot. They will never be a thing because they cannot be a thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

(a) Remember that it wasn't always a paid subscription model.

(b) People do in fact forget to cancel stuff like this. It may sound lazy and irresponsible to you and to me, but it happens a lot. Like @Tony Vargas said, the whole subscription model sort of expects people to do this.

I meant to cancel after 1 year forgot about it twice.

2nd 4E campaign was 2010, paying for it may as well use it. We had one really good session, wife like her dwarf fighter but then they changed the racial thing on DDI, group wasn't happy overall/mist of the time and it was just to hard using core books and a single DDI subscription so the players were kind if excluded from reading stuff at home.

Made it to level 8 and gave up.

I would probably play it if offered if option b was nothing but I wouldn't run it. Bard or Rogue would have been my choice. Even if I wanted to run it 2010 couldn't get the players and it works better with 5 than 3 players.

 

[Zardnaar]

I absolutely believe that Bards, Barbarians, Druids, and Gnomes are more essential to most people's experience of Dungeons and Dragons then Psionics and Warlords.

I also believe that if Fifth Edition did not have Warlocks, Tieflings, and Dragonborn it would have had a minimal impact on its acceptance. Now it can't take that stuff out because new players love them too much but it absolutely could have at release.

Warlords are a mascot. They will never be a thing because they cannot be a thing.

Warlocks and Tieflings have gone over well, still waiting on a Dragonborn. Young players like Tieflings.

On release I don't think cutting then would have mattered to much and they're opt in ad well.

Warlords and Psionics aren't the essence of D&D either.

 

[Lanefan]

Re: blown-uo Wand of the Magi

Sounds like a jerk DM to me

Er...where do you get this conclusion from?

Magic items are (and should be!) fragile enough that some of them breaking becomes a very real possibility if you get nailed with a fireball, lightning bolt, or similar and blow your save.

And wands, when they break, have a chance of going >boom!< - an unintentional version of the 'retributive strike' you can get by breaking one intentionally.

The character in question just got immensely unlucky. Them's the breaks, pun intended.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I absolutely believe that Bards, Barbarians, Druids, and Gnomes are more essential to most people's experience of Dungeons and Dragons then Psionics and Warlords.

I wouldn't consider /any/ of those (nor the Artificer) essential to "most people's" experience of D&D. I'd hardly credit much beyond the Big 4 being /essential/ to /most/.

OTOH, they're all candidates for creating a 'Gnome Effect,' if that ever really was a thing. The Warlord is merely /new/ compared to the others. The Artificer is coming because it's essential to Eberron. And psionics can't come later than Athas with borking that setting.

Warlords and Psionics aren't the essence of D&D either.

Warlords were contrary to the Primacy of Magic, in their only appearance, because they rivaled casters in the formal Leader Role, they enabled viable martial-only parties. So, yeah, not only not the Essence of D&D, but the antithesis, under this theory (ouch).

Psionics, OTOH, are supernatural powers, in each of their incarnations they've been powerful, unique, & limited in manageable ways. They fit fine. And, while they were more notorious than beloved back in the day, they have come back in every single ed since. They may not be /vital/ to the Essence of D&D, but they're surely compatible with it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I wouldn't consider /any/ of those (nor the Artificer) essential to "most people's" experience of D&D. I'd hardly credit much beyond the Big 4 being /essential/ to /most/.

OTOH, they're all candidates for creating a 'Gnome Effect,' if that ever really was a thing. The Warlord is merely /new/ compared to the others. The Artificer is coming because it's essential to Eberron. And psionics can't come later than Athas with borking that setting.

Warlords were contrary to the Primacy of Magic, in their only appearance, because they rivaled casters in the formal Leader Role, they enabled viable martial-only parties. So, yeah, not only not the Essence of D&D, but the antithesis, under this theory (ouch).

Psionics, OTOH, are supernatural powers, in each of their incarnations they've been powerful, unique, & limited in manageable ways. They fit fine. And, while they were more notorious than beloved back in the day, they have come back in every single ed since. They may not be /vital/ to the Essence of D&D, but they're surely compatible with it.

They are you can put anything in D&D but there's a time and place for it. Doesn't have to be in the phb.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, it is fine, it's just a trade off.

For example,

Here are the 11 first-level spells one of my magic-users knows:

• Charm Person
• Comprehend Language
• Dancing Lights
• Detect Magic
• Detect Secret Doors
• Feather Fall
• Identify
• Magic Missile
• Mending
• Read Magic
• Unseen Servant

He had tried and failed to learn Tensor's Floating Disc and Write.

When he was low level, Sleep would have been very tempting. Given the option later in his career, I don't think he'd swap anything for it.

Strong enough list, but one question: where does Detect Secret Doors come from? Is that a spell from UA (most of which we tossed)? Or is it something your MU self-designed (if so, cool!)?

And even at high level I'd still take Sleep over Mending.

 

[Lanefan]

Here's a quick anecdote from a 3.5 game I ran:

The group has cleared an ancient monastery of bandits and are doing a final pass to clean up/check for secrets before heading out. They notice via the Druid's Detect Magic that one of the mosaics in the living areas is a magic item. The Wizard casts Identify and discovers it is a teleport link to somewhere and learns the command word. The Wizard has other interests he wants to get to, but the group decides to scout it out.

A quick recon of the arrival point area doesn't find a matching magic portal to bring them back to the surface, but by talking to a friendly spirit they discover it is a forgotten city of the dwarves lost since the Great War. The Druid, the Fighter, and the Barbarian strongly want to explore further, the Wizard strongly wants to leave and the other two PCs have no opinion. The Wizard is the only character with long distance travel capability. He announces he is leaving and anyone who doesn't want to be trapped with unknown dangers with no known escape route are welcome to join him. They return home.

Quiz time!
How was the magic discovered? How would a fighter find it?
How was the magic unlocked? How would a fighter do it?
Who decided the group needed to leave regardless of what the other members wanted? What gave him that power?

And who, when the chance was there, failed to bump the wizard in mid-casting thus ensuring the whole party had to stay put until s/he could memorize up another teleport? The Druid, Fighter, and Barbarian did have a choice in the matter...

And given that the thing that was discovered (the portal) was itself magical, I don't see it as unfair that it took magic to find and 'unlock' it. Had it been a non-magical secret door, that's different...though I notice the party has no Thief/Rogue in its lineup so even there the options would come down to magic or hammers.