D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Garthanos]

I wouldn't equate the outrage over 4e to gatekeeping.

I saw more than a few exclamations that 4e was dumbed down. It related I think to the explicit obvious math

I dislike feats as the answer - but designing a feat for that would be fun.

Yeh and that explicitly is not a make the fighters special item but since maneuvers anyone can get at well that is that anyway.

 

[Garthanos]

I saw more than a few exclamations that 4e was dumbed down. It related I think to the explicit obvious math

Or was it how trivial it was to make new monsters?

 

[FrogReaver]

There certainly was ALL sorts of gatekeeping in regard to 4e...

Anyone that used terms like "MMO crowd", "Video-gamey", "ROLLplaying" and others was doing gatekeeping.

The first 2 aren't bad things. The 3rd is - but only because of the roleplay vs rollplay wars.

I think a D&D 4e tactics video game would have been fun.

 

[Garthanos]

The first 2 aren't bad things.

"We do not want to attract video gamers or MMO people by repolinating things that those people got from D&D... that would be bad the game has to remain utterly distinct so we can turn up our noses at people who like elements of those."

"you people who like a D&D with elements of those arent real D&D players"

 

[FrogReaver]

"We do not want to attract video gamers or MMO people by repolinating things that those people got from D&D... that would be bad the game has to remain utterly distinct so we can turn up our noses at people who like elements of those."

"you people who like a D&D with elements of those arent real D&D players"

k, their are snobs of all varieties.

Doesn't mean we should shy away from the types of things they are snobs about just because they think their tastes are so much more refined.

 

[Garthanos]

k, their are snobs of all varieties.

Doesn't mean we should shy away from the things they are snobs about.

Just saying it did come off as gatekeeping even if someone may not see those things as bad that is how they were presented.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just saying it did come off as gatekeeping

And I'm just saying that if calling something videogamey is what we call gatekeeping these days then I think we have lost perspective.

 

[Garthanos]

There is a pretty simple test on the hypothesis of "did the PF2 creators design with intent toward capturing the play paradigm, and therefore the advocates of, 4e D&D?"

Do the major advocates of 4e, the folks that played it and advocated for it stem to stern and who are not simultaneously fans of PF, play PF2?

that seems evidence if that was the goal they failed.

 

[Lanefan]

Quick question: what would your opinion on a character like the 4e Elementalist be?

Assuming you aren't aware of it, it's a very limited spellcaster that can spam one type of elemental magic but doesn't have a lot of complexity.

A rough old school translation would be to give it a rogue's ability to wear armour and attack tables and the wizard saving throws. The spells however would be extremely limited. A fire elementalist might get the following:

• Resistance to fire. Either half damage or ignores the first ten points of fire from any attack. Inherent ability; fire elementalists don't burn well unless they want to.
• Firebolt (at will) from first level. Does fire damage (magical) about equal to that of a specialist archery fighter and scales (so it's keeping up with an archery
• Affect Normal Fires (at will). Because fire elementalist. Can do the same to magical fires at level 7.
• Burning Hands or "mini-fireball" on a short recharge, where the mini-fireball is a 10 or 15 foot diameter circle. You can do one of these every fight or so. (The advantage of burning hands is you can use it in melee).
• Cloak of Fire at 4th or 5th level. This is an at will ability that they can turn on. It provides some protection from incoming arrows - and means that enemies who try to melee them get hurt. As do allies standing next to them. Also makes the elementalist even harder to burn.
• At 7th level they pick up the one of burning hands or the mini-fireball they don't have.

And at 9th level they get a sacred fire or some other reason to retire in the way of the wizard's tower.

Only slightly more complex than a fighter here. And it took a depressingly long time for the 4e version to turn up.

Which is why I wouldn't have seen it - thanks for the summary! - as my 4e rulebook purchasing started and ended with the first round of three (PH-DMG-MM).

Without knowing any more about it, on that summary it seems simple enough. You say it more or less fights like a Rogue? Prime stat - Intelligence? Dexterity? Both?

I can only assume that the class worked out to be reasonably effective.

How much trouble would it have in remaining functional if the adventure was mostly against fire-resistant (or immune) opponents e.g. a foray into a colony of salamanders backed by a couple of red dragons? Or would the player just cycle in another character for that trip? (similar to a 1e Illusionist when the adventure is going to be against mindless undead: leave it at home this trip)

And I'm going to point out that this is true - but there are also a lot of characters that aren't the same mechanically - and that mechanics should reflect and enhance character. And the more complex the game the more they should do this.

I more see it as the other way around: these added mechanics are what both cause and lead to the added complexity.

And this "simple muggles, complex casters" I consider every bit as much a design mistake as early 4e's "Everyone should be equally complex". If I'm playing certain types of tactician they should have options and thus complexity. And the sorcerer pushing a schtick as far as they can (like the fire elementalist above) is also extremely rewarding to play in a very different way. I know a player who before 4e almost always played a fighter - but found "BURNINATE" far more fun than "Hulk Smash" but it hadn't really been an option before 4e.

As long as there's a range of simple classes to play it doesn't much matter what they are; that it's the 'muggle' classes that are simple also carries the benefit that those more-mundane types are probably easier for new players to relate to.

 

[Lanefan]

Essentials is not 4e.

From my perspective it's close enough for rock and roll.

One can say that 3e and 3.5e aren't the same thing but for me they're more than close enough to just lump together as 3e.