D&D (2024) People on this forum are creating confusion. Not WotC.

[aco175]

I find myself only casually interested in the playtest and the 'making of the sausage' of the new edition/revised 5.0/ whatever. I find it a bit like asking children what they want for dinner and getting 20 things. Instead I just give them 2 options and let them pick. Asking everyone what they want in a new edition of course makes for many people thinking that their option is the best and they argue for that one, even when others have moved on. Like what @FitzTheRuke said about people being stubborn instead of trying to create problems.

Creating a new edition seems like it creates more discussion than when we talk about things like what HP mean or how many classes we should have. We cannot even agree on that, so changing spells or making a perfect druid or wizard not more powerful than the playtest fighter that was moved on from months ago seems more confusing for most not following intently.

 

[HammerMan]

4e was harmed by being undercooked and not enough runs through a editor and some playtesting.

Yes it was BUT it also 4e was harmed by a few people spreading anecdotes and rumors, even provable untrue ones (everyone has spells)

 

[Corinnguard]

Yes it was BUT it also 4e was harmed by a few people spreading anecdotes and rumors, even provable untrue ones (everyone has spells)

This has likely happened with every edition of D&D that has come out, not just 4e.

 

[aco175]

Yes it was BUT it also 4e was harmed by a few people spreading anecdotes and rumors, even provable untrue ones (everyone has spells)

I suppose some could say that 5e everyone has spells- from a certain point. I mean fighters can take eldritch knight and thieves can be arcane tricksters. Partial truth from a certain point of view. Maybe overhearing something and running with it?

 

[Oofta]

Yes it was BUT it also 4e was harmed by a few people spreading anecdotes and rumors, even provable untrue ones (everyone has spells)

If we aren't going to engage in edition wars, how about not telling people that their opinion on what powers were was wrong? Powers followed exactly the same structure as spells and many had just as much a supernatural feel to them.

For example my 4E fighter had an aura of automatic damage, could pull creatures (even ones that didn't share a language in) in so he could smack them. There was no way to envision these things as anything other than supernatural. So yes, it felt like Come and Get It was a spell. Disagree? That's fine. But don't claim I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm lying.

In other editions of D&D, the things fighters do rival what you would see James Bond or what-his-name in the Fast-and-Furious movies. But the base champion fighter (or many rogue or even barbarian builds) wouldn't look out of place in an action flick set in pre-modern times.

 

[HammerMan]

For example my 4E fighter had an aura of automatic damage, could pull creatures (even ones that didn't share a language in) in so he could smack them. There was no way to envision these things as anything other than supernatural. So yes, it felt like Come and Get It was a spell. Disagree? That's fine. But don't claim I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm lying.

It is a martial exploit that is from a heroic warrior. If we have to take what WoTC says then that is what they said

 

[Morrus]

Ok. I refer to the recent threads about the new Crawford Video, the 8th June statement about the game and every similar thread before. Everywhere people call the game 5.5 and so on and say WotC is creating confusion, when I see quite clear communication.

Well, I feel that whether or not a version of a game constitutes a new edition is very much a valid topic for discussion, WotC’s statements notwithstanding. Last time I checked nearly 50% of EN World respondents and a whopping 70% of Twitter respondents felt that it was a new edition.

WotC is certainly clear about what they want folks to call it. That is inarguable.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Well, I feel that whether or not a version of a game constitutes a new edition is very much a valid topic for discussion, WotC’s statements notwithstanding. Last time I checked nearly 50% of EN World respondents and a whopping 70% of Twitter respondents felt that it was a new edition.

WotC is certainly clear about what they want folks to call it. That is inarguable.

It's almost like marketing and public perception are two different things.

 

[HammerMan]

Stating my opinion of 4th edition is not edition warring. I don't agree that it was a very good game and I find it laughable that anyone would say it was harmed by a few people spreading anecdotes and rumors. It's okay if you think it's a good game. But you've got to recognize that it was a contentious edition of D&D that drove many people right into the arms of Paizo.

Memeificaton is a thing. The best movie gets a honest trailer and a movie sins about it and people hear that something didn’t make sense. People take that and seen the movie or not spread it (even if it started as a joke) then people see others spread it that didn’t even see the joke video, now they say it and people see it 4th 5th and 6th hand and it reinforces itself.

 

[Corinnguard]

WoTC wants folks to call it a revision of 5e. Much like how 3.5e was a revision of 3e.