D&D 5E Empowered Evocation plus Magic Missile?

[Noctem]

I say: yes, in some places we need it. 4e, as much good ideas there were, and many retained in 5e, did not work out in the long run... If the rules text is written in code words, and every power, no matter how similar they may be, has its own text, all you remember and speak about in a game session is fiddly bits. Now I know how a fireball works, and if a creature casts it, I know exactly what to expect. In 4e even swallow whole was different for each creature. Another thing is reflavouring. In 4e people used it to let a goblin look like a kobold and players could never guess from the look, how dangerous something is. In 5e we also have reskinning, but if I use the scout, I add flavour by adding racial traits (which could be done in 4e too, btw). If a creature is a solo (legendary) creature, I can guess by the look of it. I really believe, the designers of 4e had similar goals in their mind as 5e people, but when more and more people designed for 4e, we got solo goblins and such creatures, and in the end, everything in the world was just a texture over a mechanical balanced world. Choices and advancement of players were nihilated by the world growing with them.
I do still believe 4e was a good edition for a while and I do believe, if "essentials" came first we would still have it around. But this was too little, too late, and noone left (except me) who could be pleased with that.

Each power in 4e had its own flavor text, even things everyone had by default like Melee basic Attack and Ranged Basic Attack. The flavor text simply wasn't mixed in with the rules text to avoid people using flavor text as rules. Which is a very common problem for other editions, even 5e. IE: Crossbow Expert states that it needs a loaded crossbow for the bonus action attack, this was said to be flavor text and not an actual requirement. People used this flavor / fluff text as rules text until that was made clear and I bet some still do. Clear separation of flavor / fluff text and rules text is not a bad thing at all.

Players talking only about the "fiddly bits" is on them, not the edition.

Swallow Whole was only different for each creature depending on what the creature was. A dragon doing swallow whole should be different than a gelatinous cube. As in, the Gelatinous Cube would do acid damage over time to a target it swallowed vs the dragon might not. I don't see this as a negative.

Being able to guess how dangerous something is from how it looks is completely up to DM fiat. The DM describes the creature and gives cues as to if the creature is dangerous or not. That has nothing to do with how 4e was designed or how 5e is designed. If the DM doesn't give you enough information to make intelligent decisions in the game, it's not the game's fault that you get killed.

I've never experienced what you describe as a loss of choices and being nihilated in 4e...

Essentials content was some of the worst content released for 4e because it contained extremely basic classes (except for the mage for example) that basically revolved around basic attack spam and temporary buffs. And even then, they just poached from existing classes for their level ups. These were classes designed to try and get the people playing the older editions to jump over to 4e imo. that's all it was.

What harmed 4e more than anything else is the perpetuating notion (even today) that it was the MMO edition, the gamer edition, the power gamer edition. People trash talked 4e without ever giving it a real go because of bad press which honestly wasn't deserved. I'll take 4e powers over basic attack spam any day. 5e is popular now because it appealed to all the old players as an edition they could move to easily, that wasn't strange and different. You got your basic attack spam back gents, congratulations...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I do agree that 4e and essentials were made for different people. 4e was too different for many and the release schedule made it fail. Also designers listen too much to powergamers who analyzed the game by combining effects that made no sense in the world.
Those things were changed again and again, just because some classes did a few more points of damage or because there was in a weird way of reading a power that caused the character to do indefinate damage.
Also 4e was hurt by the designers pulling 3e and making it sound that 3e was bad wrong fun, which it was not.

So fan and hater reaction combined with the designer's handling of 4e doomed it. Nothing wrong with the edition in general.

My thesis was just: the change to 4e essentials would have been swallowed more easily by the 3e people and if it came first, maybe they had given it a fair shot because most absurd claims like all class being the same an so on could not have made.

5e has ao many elements of 4e, carefully hidden in a game that reads and feals like editions past. 4e essentials also felt much more similar to 3e. But it was too late for 3e people and looked at from the position of a 4e gamer as a step back, which it was.

Only thing that was still annoying with essentials: powergamerarchmchairdesigner who didn't understand the power of the essential classes.

 

[Pssthpok]

Mmmm... spam.

 

[Noctem]

Ah yes, I remember when WOTC came to us for a comprehensive list. We spent weeks on it and then they completely ignored the key parts Thanks WOTC... Though who knows, maybe what we submitted had some impact on 5e. Think positive!