Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

[pemerton]

But I feel that his exactly didn't happen. There is no Phantom Fungus in 4E. I didn't find any monster yet that's just there to fill something needed.

<snip>

The classes all use the same core mechanics with the standardized power progression. The only thing that differentiates them is their strong flavor, pressed into their class features and the powers themselves. If anything, 4E relies more on credible thematic flavor then 3E. It is not following the same trend. And if there weren't so many voices against flavouring a lot of rules aspects in the community, we might have gotten even more.

But compare this: 4E has feats like Astral Fire (extra damage to fire and radiant damage powers). This feels a lot more thematic to me then Energy Substition (Cold) (can make a fireball deal cold damage, but still let it burn paper and other stuff easily combustible).

Agreed. 4e strikes me as having integrated thematic flavour into the mechanics far more than any version of the game since Moldvay/Cook or AD&D 1st ed, in which there were only attack rolls (martial flavour) and spells (arcane and divine flavour).

3E tried to introduce thematic flavour via Spells, Spell-likes, Supernatural and Extraordinary but (IMO) this was a complete failure on the thematic front (and I think is also generally regarded as pretty clunky on the mechanical front).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know what Diaglo says...and in a silly arguement like this, he's right.

Well... Maybe he really is right. Except with the "pale imitations" part.

 

[rounser]

I didn't find any monster yet that's just there to fill something needed.

Chuul, destrachan, choker, off the top of my head. I really don't like them. They're 3E MM creations...anything with a sonic attack or fear attack smacks of "slot A and B need filling, concoct flavour as afterthought". Not sure if digester is in there (hope it's gone). Thank goodness no more yrthak (or so I remember).

Agreed. 4e strikes me as having integrated thematic flavour into the mechanics far more than any version of the game since Moldvay/Cook or AD&D 1st ed, in which there were only attack rolls (martial flavour) and spells (arcane and divine flavour).

I disagree. The flavour seems to be just there as an afterthought in the case of many of the powers, and seems unconvincing. The complaints of many people in terms of having trouble "envisioning" what's actually happening when they're in play, I think, confirms this.

Likewise, a lot of the flavour is hodge-podge. Why dragonborn and tieflings crammed into the same world? Because independently they're popular. But together, there is no synergy - they seem like random selections. If dragonborn came alongside lizardfolk and fire newts, and tieflings alongside genasi and aasimar (ala FRCS), then you'd have a theme that makes sense. There isn't, and it doesn't, IMO. This would be okay if it were a single world, but the implied setting affects too much to do that to it with justification, IMO.

 

[Mallus]

Likewise, a lot of the flavour is hodge-podge.

Like 1e.

Why dragonborn and tieflings crammed into the same world?

Why not? Seems very Moorcock to me.

Because independently they're popular. But together, there is no synergy - they seem like random selections.

My friend and I are collaborating on a 4e homebrew --the notes are posted here if you're curious-- and we're making Dragonborn and Tieflings fit together just fine. Ultimately it's up to individual DM's how they tools presented.

 

[hong]

If you can handle efreet, elves and sahuagin living in the same world, you can handle dragonborn and tieflings living in the same world.

 

[rounser]

If you can handle efreet, elves and sahuagin living in the same world, you can handle dragonborn and tieflings living in the same world.

You'd have a point. Except, sahuagin and efreet aren't core PC races.

 

[hong]

You'd have a point. Except, sahuagin and efreet aren't core PC races.

The world neither knows nor cares what is a "core PC race" and what isn't.

 

[rounser]

The world neither knows nor cares what is a "core PC race" and what isn't.

I don't care about what "the world" thinks - and it's not just the world they've borked up, it's countless D&D worlds because they've borked up the implied setting, for goodness sake.

"The world" doesn't have to run a game, or get a weird and arbitrary set of core races and a class that has no right to exist in core D&D imposed on it's campaign, and lose inspiration and desire to play the game because of that if it doesn't ban things outright. And they're still staring at you from artwork and flavour text, annoyingly, even if you ban them.

 

[hong]

I don't care about what "the world" thinks - and it's not just the world they've borked up, it's countless D&D worlds because they've borked up the implied setting, for goodness sake.

Your selfless assumption of a duty of care to those countless D&D worlds is noted. Nevertheless, anyone who is relaxed enough not to ban all kinds of stuff is still going to be relaxed enough not to worry about dragonborn and tieflings.

"The world" doesn't have to run a game, or get a weird and arbitrary set of core races imposed on it's campaign, and lose inspiration and desire to play the game because of that if it doesn't ban things outright. And they're still staring at you from artwork and flavour text, annoyingly, even if you ban them.

Spoken like someone who's never banned wizards.

 

[rounser]

Your selfless assumption of a duty of care to those countless D&D worlds is noted. Nevertheless, anyone who is relaxed enough not to ban all kinds of stuff is still going to be relaxed enough not to worry about dragonborn and tieflings.

Yes, well, some of us have a suspension of disbelief that not only defies gravity, but is like a rocket to the moon, and would immediately start drafting notes for empires of talking toasters had WOTC put them in as a core PC race. (And yeah, I know they're in Toon.)

Spoken like someone who's never banned wizards.

A D&D without wizards is quirky for D&D, so you live with the ban given the fact that you know you're going for a quirky campaign.

When the default implied setting is quirky, and you have to ban just to get a "normal D&D experience", you know that the implied setting has gone off the rails. A "normal D&D experience" has not expanded to include men in dragon suits giving military orders to an "army" of four heroes, IMO, regardless of what WOTC thinks.

That said, it will, eventually, but that's because they've damaged D&D's theme and intellectual property by doing this - it's no longer a very good "sim fantasy" game out of the box. Arguably it never has been (what's a cleric?), but it's shades of grey, and we've gone several shades more away from it, and crossed a line in the sand perhaps.