New rule of 3 . Feb 21.

[WotC_Trevor]

You have to take into account these articles are written by people who never played 4E for people who never played 4E.

Just accept that everything 4E did is a horrible affront to the house that Gygax built and never speak of it again.

This is just patently untrue. Rodney played tons of 4E games, and ran them. I was in a Wednesday night game with him. He's made content for 4E as well, and I know he's had a lot o fun playing with 4E games.

 

[WotC_Trevor]

So what the Warden, Paladin, Swordmage, and Battlemind didn't exist in 4E now or what? They all had their unique defender mechanics that made them distinct and still good. Or is this the part of 5E transition where we can't say 4E had nice things at all?

The point Rodney was making was that being a defender isn't endemic to the fighter class, and thus does not serve as a defining mechanic of the class. Rodney knows very well what other classes have defender mechanics, as he designed several of them

 

[WotC_Trevor]

This article really irked me. I'm trying hard to be open about 5E, but blasting EVERYTHING I liked about 4E isn't helping to sell me on playing the new edition.

You have to take into account these articles are written by people who never played 4E for people who never played 4E.

Just accept that everything 4E did is a horrible affront to the house that Gygax built and never speak of it again.

I'm one of the few people who enjoys a good game of 4E but doesn't seem to habitually light tables on fire when confronted with a game of 3.5. I went through the WotC bashing 3.5 thing and it wasn't pleasant and seeing them do a repeat of that to 4E is even less so.

I guess I'm just not seeing this guys. From what I can see Rodney didn't blast anything in the article, he was even being complimentary about many of the things in 4E, including monsters.

Addressing the question of 4E mechanics alone doesn't make the article bashing, and I'm sorry if it came off that way to some people. I don't see anything in there that Rodney wrote that insults 4th edition mechanics, and it feels like there's some effort going in to reading things into the article that just aren't there.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Personally, the Warden is one of the best of the new classes to come along in a while and like the class but I know that I will likely have to wait for it to see it returned to the game.

It wouldn't bother me if the fighter killed the warden and took some of his stuff for 5E. Well, since I like the warden too, maybe not quite that bad. Maybe the fighter could "borrow" his stuff and not give it back?

 

[Grazzt]

I guess I'm just not seeing this guys. From what I can see Rodney didn't blast anything in the article, he was even being complimentary about many of the things in 4E, including monsters.

Addressing the question of 4E mechanics alone doesn't make the article bashing, and I'm sorry if it came off that way to some people. I don't see anything in there that Rodney wrote that insults 4th edition mechanics, and it feels like there's some effort going in to reading things into the article that just aren't there.

Welcome to the internet good sir

 

[Deadboy]

Yeah, I'm a huge 4e fan and I'm not seeing where all the bashing by WotC is. WotC has been going WAY easier on 4e than it did on 3.5. Also, I think that even though 4e's my favorite version of D&D ever, it's not a perfect system and there are some valid criticisms of it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yeah, I'm a huge 4e fan and I'm not seeing where all the bashing by WotC is. WotC has been going WAY easier on 4e than it did on 3.5.

No kidding.

There's plenty of 4e criticisms in these articles, but they're usually pretty valid gameplay issues (unlike a lot of the anti-3.X rancor). Moreover, they also consider other editions and criticize them as well. Frankly, they've also bent over backwards to throw bones to various fans and complement some mechanics; I think they've been very generous with 4e. I believe all that's referred to as "balance".

A new game ought to consider criticisms of the old ones, but those ought to be delivered in a measured and rational way, which they seem to be taking some positive steps towards.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As for the perceived criticisms of 4e: the Slacktivist is my go-to. It's explained in the context of politics and morality, but I think it applies in this specific case: there's a lot of people out there who just look to take offense, and it has a lot more to do with them, and their view of themselves, then with the thing they're taking offense about.

As for the meat of the article:

First, I really like that they explained Vancian spellcasting and why it is important to D&D in a way that haters might be able to at least accept. Yes, it's important to have. No, it's not going to be required to play the game. Yay.

Second, in my view, fighters are not necessarily defenders at all. They are masters of armed combat first and foremost. One of my running theories is that equipment for fighters is like spells for wizards: this is what helps define your character (not that you can't use extra things you find along the way). Wizards get fireball? Fighters get flametongues and icebrands. Wizards get Disintegrate? Fighters get vorpal blades. With all the weapons and armor they get, fighters dominate the combat realm. The should be able to upgrade weapons and armor without relying on finding treasure, just as wizards gain spells these days without relying on finding treasure. Want to give the fighter plenty of options without relying on powers? They are the crafting class. They make what they want (often out of the hides of their foes -- dragonscales in your armor, beholder eyes in your helm, frost wolf pelts as your cloak, a fire elemental bound to your blade). Treasure then becomes an extra (just as it could be for a wizard looking for spells).

I also am fond of stances, of how they interact with basic attacks to add effects to your normal attacks rather than entirely replacing your basic attack with some complex ability suite.

Third, I am on board with how they're thinking about monster stat blocks. I am fond of the 4e method. But I think they need to be thinking about the role of monsters more than in terms of stat blocks. Combat stats only take you so far. They are not enough. You need much, much more for a good monster.

 

[marleykat]

I honestly don't get why the Rule of Three answers are uniformly more interesting and informative than the Legends & Lore column. It's weird.

I'm starting to agree with the poster above that maybe the fighter needs to be more than one class. Maybe it's trying to cover too much ground.

I agree the fighter in DnD is trying to cover too much ground and gives a choice of being good at nothing, like 3/3.5e or limiting everything like 4e.

I would love to see a concept like Fantasy Craft, splitting the fighter into several classes each with their own focus. Coupled with a flattened power curve for Generalist wizards with other types of magic users being focused in specific areas of magic but with steeper power curves

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I guess I'm just not seeing this guys. From what I can see Rodney didn't blast anything in the article, he was even being complimentary about many of the things in 4E, including monsters.

Addressing the question of 4E mechanics alone doesn't make the article bashing, and I'm sorry if it came off that way to some people. I don't see anything in there that Rodney wrote that insults 4th edition mechanics, and it feels like there's some effort going in to reading things into the article that just aren't there.

I want to thank you for taking time to come in here and discuss these things with us. I have played DnD since I was in the 6th grade, starting with AD&D and progessing all the way through to 4E. I'm probably being a tad over-emotional, but that's mainly because of the fact 4E is my favorite edition yet. That is a lot of emotional baggage, so to speak.

That said, there are a few things that Mr. Thompson said that struck a nerve. First, there is the whole Vancian spell issue. To some people, myself included, the return of pure Vancian spell casters are a red flag. I'm terrified that the spell casters are going to return to the 3E (and to some degree, AD&D) power levels. I'm sure you are aware of the power "tiers" so to speak, and in 3rd Ed the regular fighting classes didn't even rate until tier 3-4 depending on how you ranked them. I don't want to see a Wizard that is a better rogue than a rogue, for example (or a cleric that can outfight a fighter).

Next, Mr. Thompson discusses the fighter issue, and this is the issue that I feel most strongly about. I personally feel that the 4E fighter is absolutely brilliant in design, especially if you couple him with the Slayer from the Essentials line. He feels dynamic, impactful, stylish, and dare I say is the best thing about 4E. I'm not alone when I'm alarmed by statements like the fighter MUST be the "low complexity" class. I do not agree with this statement at all, and frankly find it upsetting. Why should the wizard get to have all the cool toys while I spam my sword?

Finally, the third part of the article talks about monster design. I have no problems playing 3.X as a player, but as a DM, monster design IS the reason why I will no longer dm it. I understand some costumization is needed, but I stronly urge against going back to a 3E design where I spend more of my prep time creating NPC statblocks than I do planning my campaign.

These are the reasons why I stated the article irked me. Perhaps I should have stated alarmed me, but when I finished reading the article I was shocked by what I had read.

You can look up my wizards account and see that I'm still a DDI subscriber and have been pretty much the entire run of 4E. I have signed up to playtest the game and hope to give good feedback when we are afforded the rules. I'm simply worried that you (Wizards) are throwing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to 4E.

Thank you, again, for reading our comments and responding. I really do appreciate it.