Is 4E still D&D to you?

[Psion]

As I said in the lead up, I view 4e in the same light as I do Arcana Evolved and Exalted: a potentially fun fantasy game but one that does not have the identifying characteristics I associate with D&D.

It's not a black and white thing; 4e has some trappings of D&D. But then, so does Arcana Evolved. Things like a markedly different race selection and reimagined or excised cosmology and background remove it a step from what I consider to define D&D.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Hell yeah. Its the way D&D should have been since day 1.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I have to vote "no." It looks like D&D, and it sounds like D&D, but 4th edition just doesn't smell like D&D.

 

[Henry]

Gosh, now I'm really confused. Last time we played 3.5e, the Wizard cast about a dozen spells, and the Fighters shone in combat. What did we do wrong? And aren't Elves and Dwarves fantasy races? 'Cos I'm pretty sure they were in the game.

Well, if the fighters shone, you'd surprise me if you said you used Book of Nine Swords in your game. In our group, fighters are sucking a bit compared to the Martial Adepts, unless they're paired with a race/template with a high strength and AC. (High as in "20s" not high as in "teens", which is what the Adepts have).

As for Wizards casting spells, Vancian Magic is something that's always a huge component of D&D to me - as is "save or die" situations. So although 4e is retro in some elements (I've listed them before), every D&D since 1st edition has been less on a spectrum of "D&D" to "not D&D". 4e is "more" D&D than 3e in some ways, and "less" D&D in some pretty big ones (the save or die, and the Vancian stuff). 3e was "less" D&D in the class homogeneity, and the hard mechanics and system mastery involved. So both 3e and 4e get 1100's on the D&D SAT, but they scored differently in the Math and Verbal.

 

[Gantros]

Having played every edition of D&D, 4e is the first one that had me thinking "that's just silly" far more often than "wow, that's cool" or "finally, they found a better way to handle that". I clearly remember the opposite thing happening the day the 3e rulebooks arrived at my door. I guess I should give some credit to the designers for daring to go off in a bold new direction, though so far it just isn't working for me. Maybe that will change over time, but first impressions mean a lot.

 

[Mercule]

Sure felt like it when I was DMing KotS.

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

Don't get me wrong - it looks like a fun game, but to me it's not D&D, [so I won't be playing].

And? Isn't fun the whole point? By this logic, if the holy grail of medieval-fantasy RPG's was produced by Acme Products and called E & E, you wouldn't play it, what sense does that even make?

 

[delericho]

Well, if the fighters shone, you'd surprise me if you said you used Book of Nine Swords in your game.

Nope. We tried using Bo9S once and once only, and never again. Our resident power-gamer latched onto the Warblade class and demonstrated quite clearly just how broken it is. While I love the concept behind the Bo9S, the implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

4e has achieved something impressive: it's an entirely new game, and yet it's still D&D. I'm loving it.

You know, I agree entirely. Thanks for summing up so pithily, and so early in the thread, what I was going to say.

 

[Psion]

And? Isn't fun the whole point?

For me: Not really, no.

I have fun with Traveller, Spycraft, and Spirit of the Century but wouldn't call them D&D. The Mummy's cool, but it's not Indiana Jones. Just like I could enjoy the Mummy, every once in a while I'll get the jones ( ) to watch one in the IJ movies, the Mummy isn't going to do.