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

[Remathilis]

The same claim cannot be made about 3.xE however. 4E is the first time a game claiming to be DnD dropped a large number of the 'sacred cows' and at the same time introduced a vast array of both completely new genre and system concepts. But its the new genre concepts that are the more important of the two.

A partial List: BECMI D&D

* No Barbarian, Ranger, Bard Classes
* Druid, Paladin heavily modified (PrC like for clerics and fighters)
* Dwarf, Elf, Halfling their own specific classes.
* Every class (save wizard) one HD lower (thief d4, cleric d6, fighter d8)
* Weapon Grand Mastery Rules
* Three Alignments (Law, Neutral, Chaos)
* No Great Wheel Cosmology
* Heal (Cureall) a wizard spell
* "1st level wizard spell" a 7th level cleric spell
* level and spell progression cap at 36, not 20
* No Multi- or Dual- Classing
* No Gnomes, Half-orcs, or Half-elves
* Clerics get their first level of spellcasting at level 2
* Standardized Ability score modifiers for all scores
* AC begins at 9, not 10.

Thats a lot of Sacred Cows. Is it still D&D?

 

[hong]

Actually it has both a "role" based creation system which can be totally random all the way up to specific design (very similar to Warhammer's careers) as well as a totally customizable creation method. It's great for beginners who need to be steered as well as experienced players who don't want to be stuck with limited design capability with their character.

Are said roles balanced around combat? Are the superpowers designed to take advantage of the spatial reasoning afforded by a battlemat? Do you get more bling than in D&D?

Uhm, no craft or profession skills.

But a whole lot of rigmarole about running your own kingdom.

 

[hong]

Not good enough for what?

Not good enough to displace WoW and D&D, of course.

 

[3catcircus]

A partial List: BECMI D&D

* No Barbarian, Ranger, Bard Classes
* Druid, Paladin heavily modified (PrC like for clerics and fighters)
* Dwarf, Elf, Halfling their own specific classes.
* Every class (save wizard) one HD lower (thief d4, cleric d6, fighter d8)
* Weapon Grand Mastery Rules
* Three Alignments (Law, Neutral, Chaos)
* No Great Wheel Cosmology
* Heal (Cureall) a wizard spell
* "1st level wizard spell" a 7th level cleric spell
* level and spell progression cap at 36, not 20
* No Multi- or Dual- Classing
* No Gnomes, Half-orcs, or Half-elves
* Clerics get their first level of spellcasting at level 2
* Standardized Ability score modifiers for all scores
* AC begins at 9, not 10.

Thats a lot of Sacred Cows. Is it still D&D?

I don't look at it that way at all. BECMI is D&D. 1e is AD&D. Different games, different names. Similarly to how HARP is derived from, but not, Rolemaster. 3.x just happened to be named "D&D," but I think everyone who played earlier editions recognized it's parentage as AD&D.

Even if something like THAC0 doesn't exist in 3.x, you can clearly see the evolution from the "to-hit" tables in 1e to THAC0 in 2e to the BAB tables in 3.x.

Not so with some of the rules in 4e - where did the concept of at-will, encounter, daily, and utility powers come from? Where did the concept of powers itself come from? No prior edition of the game refers to what fighters or rogues do as "powers."

More importantly, other than daily spells or paladin abilities, all of the cool moves that PCs can do in previous editions of the game seem only to be "situationally" limited. That is, in 1e/2e, a fighter-type (and only a fighter-type) PC could try to hit someone so hard that they kill them with one blow and then cleave into the next available bad guy - they got one attack per fighter level against creatures with less than one hit die. In 3.x, the requirement was just to have power attack, which made the emphasis on the fighter's strength and not on his level (as well as opening up the possibility to anyone who was willing to spend a feat on it.) Now - in 4e, it feels like its been reduced to its lowest common denominator. Cleave is an "at-will" power? So what, it was in previous editions too.

 

[xechnao]

Are the superpowers designed to take advantage of the spatial reasoning afforded by a battlemat?

This is the focus of wargames, not rpgames. Generals consider their pawns this way. People that kill monsters and take their stuff by themselves do not think like this.

 

[hong]

This is the focus of wargames, not rpgames. Generals consider their pawns this way. People that kill monsters and take their stuff by themselves do not think like this.

Yes they do.

 

[xechnao]

Yes they do.

No, they don't. They have to be way more badasses than that. Just playing with certain minis around is not enough to help them.

 

[hong]

No, they don't. They have to be way more badasses than that. Just playing with certain minis around is not enough to help them.

Yes they do. And minis are good for keeping all the violence organised.

 

[xechnao]

Yes they do. And minis are good for keeping all the violence organised.

Minis are not good for keeping all the violence organized because real, violent monsters with lost of stuff do not care about them.

 

[hong]

Minis are not good for keeping all the violence organized because real, violent monsters with lost of stuff do not care about them.

Minis are good for keeping the violence organised because real DMs care about who does what to whom.