Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Gamehole Con Live Tweeting Perkins Panel
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6429375" data-attributes="member: 5834"><p>No. Here you go again. I read your argument. It is weak, untrue, and I can already tell from the tone that you intend to hold your position absent evidence. Sorry, 4E was a poorly designed game that alienated a massive number of players. One of the main reasons was the magic system, which many of us told the designers was not going to cut it. The game should have been designed to make both sides happy, not one at the cost of the other. That 4E magic system was not going to make caster players happy. It wasn't a compromise, it was a complete destruction of casters to the point of near impotence. Never should have been stripped down that far or made that weak. Argue you it all you wish, but I'd bet money the poorly designed magic system was a major (top 2 or 3 reason if not number one) that 4E failed. Which is why 5E moved back in the other direction knowing that careful design of the magic system was about the only way they were going to regain a good portion of the player base that migrated. Magic in the D&D world is vitally important across every edition. Players of casters want magic to feel special, not a like a martial ability renamed and designed like it is a martial power. That was never going to work.</p><p></p><p> I know what I felt at the time. I know what WotC did. I know they were told not to go forward with the magic system as they had designed it. They failed because they did not listen to their caster player base that they vastly underestimated. We'll have to disagree on the reasons why because I will always feel that their handling of the magic system was their downfall. I know for a fact that it was what caused our group to switch. Half our group is caster-centric. That half rebelled strongly against 4E refusing to play the game. The martial-centric half liked what they saw in <em>Pathfinder</em>. We jumped ship soon after. I would not be surprised if a majority of groups were similar given the completely neutering of magic in 4E. </p><p></p><p>I can see a pointless argument born of any exchange between us. I will simply end this saying I hope this edition will satisfy players from the various camps that want a D&D system we can all live with. If D&D handles both martials and casters adequately, they will not open the door for another split. I think they will see more and more people return to the title that want something less complicated than <em>Pathfinder</em>, but with a more robust and interesting magic system than 4E.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 6429375, member: 5834"] No. Here you go again. I read your argument. It is weak, untrue, and I can already tell from the tone that you intend to hold your position absent evidence. Sorry, 4E was a poorly designed game that alienated a massive number of players. One of the main reasons was the magic system, which many of us told the designers was not going to cut it. The game should have been designed to make both sides happy, not one at the cost of the other. That 4E magic system was not going to make caster players happy. It wasn't a compromise, it was a complete destruction of casters to the point of near impotence. Never should have been stripped down that far or made that weak. Argue you it all you wish, but I'd bet money the poorly designed magic system was a major (top 2 or 3 reason if not number one) that 4E failed. Which is why 5E moved back in the other direction knowing that careful design of the magic system was about the only way they were going to regain a good portion of the player base that migrated. Magic in the D&D world is vitally important across every edition. Players of casters want magic to feel special, not a like a martial ability renamed and designed like it is a martial power. That was never going to work. I know what I felt at the time. I know what WotC did. I know they were told not to go forward with the magic system as they had designed it. They failed because they did not listen to their caster player base that they vastly underestimated. We'll have to disagree on the reasons why because I will always feel that their handling of the magic system was their downfall. I know for a fact that it was what caused our group to switch. Half our group is caster-centric. That half rebelled strongly against 4E refusing to play the game. The martial-centric half liked what they saw in [I]Pathfinder[/I]. We jumped ship soon after. I would not be surprised if a majority of groups were similar given the completely neutering of magic in 4E. I can see a pointless argument born of any exchange between us. I will simply end this saying I hope this edition will satisfy players from the various camps that want a D&D system we can all live with. If D&D handles both martials and casters adequately, they will not open the door for another split. I think they will see more and more people return to the title that want something less complicated than [I]Pathfinder[/I], but with a more robust and interesting magic system than 4E. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Gamehole Con Live Tweeting Perkins Panel
Top