The D&D 4th edition Rennaissaince: A look into the history of the edition, its flaws and its merits

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I was kicking around a Mass Effect adaption years ago. Bloodied became shields/armor down and healing surges became medi-gel application. 4E made a lot more sense to me outside the fantasy space for some reason.

Though, yeah the healing surge pacing mechanic for 4E didnt seem to sit well with folks. Probably becasue they came on the heels of 3E and its spell in a can problem where you could just bust the system assumptions easily if you wanted a pacing hack. 5E rolled back a bit, even though they smartly downgraded magic items. However, 5E has a weird hybrid of long and short rest classes that makes pacing difficult for seemingly everyone. Part of that 5E design philosophy of dont please anyone too much, nor upset them too much either. You get a sort of works but sort of doesnt result.

It almost seems it would have been easier to call them "hit dice", even though they are class+ability based and not level-based. Maybe it would still be more revolutationary than turning THAC0 in to Base Attack Bonus, but it would be a familiar expression; I guess?
That said, I don't mind the time, though when I need to file off the serial numbers, I am just going to call it "heroic surge".

 

[Tigris]

I kinda feel that is a design space 4E overlooked for classes, adding some passive benefits or talents. That said, there are someutility powers that almost fill that role - some at-wills work pretty similar, and some of these things are feats, but being feats and pwoers, they remain optionals, not class-innate abilities.

In my own 4E inspired Star Wars an 4E inspired Arcana Evolved I deliberately included some more or less passive talents. (For the Star Wars one, they were all non-combat ones, though. You got powers from a shared power list between all classes that had riders for your role, and class talents that were about your non-combat abilities.)

There is no overlook. There is instead the choice as you already mention

• Each class has several class specific feats, which grant passive bonuses, which they can choose from which are unique to the class.
• Most classes even had race specific feats. And which were sometimes a reason you would pick a specific race, which give you additional passive bonuses.
• On top of that there are several power source specific feats which you can choose from.
• On top of that there are as you mentioned at will utility powers one can choose which are close to passives. And even some encounter powers can be seen as passive benefits. For example the ranger encounter power which lets you use second wind as a movement action. You can use this anyway only once. So this utility power just passively upgrades the second wind).
• Some classes even had at will attacks which can be seen as a class feature (like Ranger Hunter Style being able to use a ranged weapon for opportunity attacks. Or some powers which gave a bonus to charge attacks over basics etc.)
• On top of that there are class specific paragon paths one can pick. Each of which gives 2 passive effects and 1 triggered effects. These are definitly class features
• This is in addition to the class features classes get at level 1. In D&D 4E classes are more frontloaded, because there is no "dip just 1 level - multi classing issue". So you can already start with having the class defining features, you dont have to unlock them over several levels. (Yes some class features are powers which are active, but its still a class feature).
• Also several class features are repeated over several classes (at least in pathfinder 1, but I guess also some in 3/3.5) often dependant on stats. And similar 4E has several feats which need 1 specific really high attribute, which is to some degree similar to shared class features.
• And then there were also some class specific items. Not exactly class features, but in 4E you normally can get the magical items you want. This allows for example the Assassin to get earlier a crit range of 19 and later even a crit range of 18 which almost no one gets (I can only remember one rogue build or so).
• Then the character themes which you can pick normally give 1-2 passive features.
• Epic destinies (which often have dependencies like power sources) also have passive effects.

The later simplified Essential classes had exactly class features instead of choice (of power). So this design space was explored later.


Also some additional/alternative class features were released later. (Bard additional one, priest alternative, cavalier and executioner alternative and maybe more)

 

[mamba]

There is nothing to refute because you haven't proved anything in the first place, do you even know how the burden of proof works?

I know, we both made positive claims, so show your proof. I provided a link

Of course data was presented lol (more than you provided at any rate), you are just ignoring it because it doesn't suit your argument.

then quote that data… an anecdote was presented, but no data

 

[Chemo]

I know, we both made positive claims, so show your proof. I provided a link

Really, what positive claim did I make? Can you point it out for me?
Oh, I can provide links too.

Pathfinder Never Outsold 4E D&D (ICYMI)

The myth that Paizo's Pathfinder outsold Dungeons & Dragons 4E endures, but it is a myth worth slaying.

alphastream.org

So? When are you going to prove your assertion?

then quote that data… an anecdote was presented, but no data

So where is your data? Insider information from people who actually worked in the company>anything you have provided so far.

 

[mamba]

It is vitally important that 4e be the "worst selling" edition, because...

no, it is not important that it is the worst selling, but that does not mean it wasn’t the worst selling…

There seems to be a group for which it is important that this is not the worst selling edition however, given how much time is spent on proclaiming that it isn’t, without presenting any data whatsoever.

 

[mamba]

Really, what positive claim did I make? Can you point it out for me?

that I lied when I said that (according to Ben Riggs) it is the worst selling edition

 

[mamba]

So? When are you going to prove your assertion?

I did two posts of yours ago, and as I wrote 4e outselling PF1 does not mean it sold better than any other edition of D&D. Do you even understand what my claim was, or what data is?

 

[Chemo]

that I lied when I said that (according to Ben Riggs) it is the worst selling edition

Moving the goalposts now, huh?

Here, let me refresh your memory.

The point that remains is that it was the worst selling edition, sales tanked fast, and attempts to revive it with Essentials failed. Resulting in it also being the shortest lived edition (unless you count 3.5 and 3e as separate but 4e and Essentials as one).

You claimed that it was the worst selling edition, period. That was you assertion. Not that some dude claimed it was, which is what you're pretending now. So yes, you lied then, as you're lying now in an attempt to cover the first lie. I, unlike you, do not need to do it, what you posted is right here in this thread for all to see

I did two posts of yours ago, and as I wrote 4e outselling PF1 does not mean it sold better than any other edition of D&D. Do you even understand what my claim was, or what data is?

Neither does it mean the opposite, as you claimed. Are you going to provide any evidence that it was the worst selling edition already? Rethorical question, of course, I already know that you can't and that you will just continue to lie through your teeth and do some more goalpost shifting.

 

[mamba]

Moving the goalposts now, huh?

not really, I just mentioned the source that I used but did not include in every post here because that gets repetitive. I did mention him as the source in other posts than the one you quoted though

 

[Chemo]

not really, I just quoted the source that I used but did not mention in every post here because that gets repetitive. I did mention him as the source in other posts than the one you quoted though

I'm glad that you're admitting that it is the source you tried to use to backup your assertion and not the actual assertion itself. Good job, we're making some progress. So, now where's that data about 4e being the worst selling?