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

[Thomas Shey]

I feel like 90% of the powers could be created by creating a weapon damage multiplier and programming maybe 20 stand alone conditions/effects and then just combining them as needed.

That's pretty much my approach with similar games when using Maptool.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm always fascinated by this statement. I don't think it's wrong in any way; I've seen this opinion offered up by a ton of people who are casual D&D enjoyers to believe it isn't true for them.

But try as I might, I can't see it; to me if it has elves and wizards and throwing d20s around, it feels like D&D. I can't grok which sacred cows were removed that are actually essential to the D&D experience.

Do the mechanics of D&D have any relation for you to what D&D is? What about the lore? 4e changed both those things in significant ways.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm always fascinated by this statement. I don't think it's wrong in any way; I've seen this opinion offered up by a ton of people who are casual D&D enjoyers to believe it isn't true for them.

But try as I might, I can't see it; to me if it has elves and wizards and throwing d20s around, it feels like D&D. I can't grok which sacred cows were removed that are actually essential to the D&D experience.

Yeah, as someone who'd spent most of his gaming career in non-D&D adjacent games, my usual reaction to "It doesn't feel like D&D" is "said by someone who hasn't spent much time seeing what non-D&D games actually look like."

 

[Joshua Randall]

if you want your fighter to feel like a general reflection of the warrior archetype, it has to be primarily using or modifying actions that are available to all characters

That is the old, pre-4e assumption (and I guess post-4e as well? IDK) for sure. But I don't see why that has to be the assumption for all versions of D&D.

D&D magic has to be fairly universal; fireball can't be something only your wizard does, it must also be something that NPC wizards cast and that monsters deploy.

Again, an old (perhaps new) assumption.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, as someone who'd spent most of his gaming career in non-D&D adjacent games, my usual reaction to "It doesn't feel like D&D" is "said by someone who hasn't spent much time seeing what non-D&D games actually look like."

Well, don't be making too many of those assumptions. DannyAlcatraz has spent plenty of time in non-D&D games, and so have I. And I largely share his opinion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, as someone who'd spent most of his gaming career in non-D&D adjacent games, my usual reaction to "It doesn't feel like D&D" is "said by someone who hasn't spent much time seeing what non-D&D games actually look like."

I don't think it's fair to refute that opinion by saying the person making it clearly doesn't the breadth of gaming experience to realize how wrong they are. Seems elitist. I've played dozens of non-D&D games over the decades and 4e didn't feel much like D&D to me, especially after I'd played and run it long enough to understand what they were going for.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Setting up interesting combats in a game that actually has the mechanical tools to make that work is always either of interest in and of itself, or its just extra overhead.

I'll submit that out of every edition of D&D I ran since B/X, 4e was the first one that made encounter/monster design fun for me, rather than solely necessary overhead. I think because of the rock solid monster framework. Coupled with some decent at-launch encounter building guidelines, plus rapid iteration across published adventures (not HPE, though) and LFR -- to show how much better and stronger encounter design could get within 4e.

I will also give a shout-out to people pushing the 4e envelop like Fourthcore, the Worldbreaker monsters (was that Angry DM?), multi-stage boss monsters... it was a pretty glorious time for "monster + encounter tech" in my experience / opinion.

 

[Voadam]

You piqued my interest enough to make me dig through 30 pages of this thread in search of that post. I second the opinion that rules for "light combats" would alleviate 4e problems. Do you have any ideas how this would be accomplished or is that just an abstract wish?

4e has tools for this with minions that were largely unused in published scenarios or homegames that I was a part of.

A quick short fight scenario should be one or a few minions which will last nowhere near as long as a fight balanced around five equal level monsters (or equivalent xp encounter with 20-25 minions). Save the solos and standard fight for cinematic focus big fights that you want to spend extended time on, make most of the enemies minions for short encounters.

This would change the pacing of most encounters and match action movie pacing a lot more.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, don't be making too many of those assumptions. DannyAlcatraz has spent plenty of time in non-D&D games, and so have I. And I largely share his opinion.

It was a snarky comment in intention, mostly referring to the fact that to anyone outside the D&D sphere, the game with character classes, levels, level elevating hit points and to-hit modified by armor sure had an awful lot of D&Disms for something that didn't feel like D&D.

 

[Pedantic]

That is the old, pre-4e assumption (and I guess post-4e as well? IDK) for sure. But I don't see why that has to be the assumption for all versions of D&D.

I'm trying to answer the judicial question "why did people respond in this specific, negative way" not making a case for how the world could or should be.