D&D 4E So all these wacky arguments are still about 4e, right?

[Obryn]

First off - I seriously hope this doesn't descend into yet another DoaM thread. it has the words "Damage on a Miss" in it, though, so I know I'm playing with fire here.

Let's take a look at all the major ... kerfluffles? ... yeah, let's call them kerfluffles we've had about Next since day one. Let's go down the list. It's possible I've missed something; this isn't necessarily exhaustive.

• Martial healing
• Warlords - the class's existence separate from Fighters/Bards/etc.
• Self-healing, especially with the Fighter's Second Wind
• Overnight healing
• At-Will spells
• Nothing to see here->Damage on a Miss
• NPCs and PCs - do they need to be built the same?
• Spell lists in monster stat blocks
• Fighters and other sword-swinging guys having maneuvers which are use-limited in some way
• ...how fast Halflings move? Yeah, I guess we'll count that.
• Just Added: Availability of PDFs
• OGL or other open licenses

So Next just a proxy battle for the same damn Edition War that's been crapping up forums for about the past 6 years, right? It's not about the game mechanics; it's about the heart and soul of D&D and making sure the edition fits whatever personal vision of the game you hold. Or, that the arguer was "right all along" and that 4e was either (a) awesome with great and innovative stuff that needs to be kept, regardless of their compatibility with the game's overall design goals or (b) a terrible betrayal and all elements from it must be purged, even if those elements work well mechanically.

I mean, the particulars are somewhat different now - there's no way many of these would have ever been arguments during 4e's run, because 4e itself was the forest and its game elements were just individual trees - but I can only think of one giant debate that isn't about a 4e element, even novel ones like the exploration rules.

(The sole exception I can think of is "bounded accuracy," which still has a 4e-ish flavor because 4e used level-scaling bounded accuracy for its mathematical underpinnings. So who knows, there. And it's more argued elsewhere, not so much here.)

Am I missing something here, or just spelling out the bleedingly obvious? What, if anything, can be done about it? Or should it?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would call the 4e aspect incidental. Most of those things were issues when they were piloted in 3e supplements, and will continue to be if writers try to put them in 5e, 6e, or any other number.

 

[M.L. Martin]

So Next just a proxy battle for the same damn Edition War that's been crapping up forums for about the past 6 years, right? It's not about the game mechanics; it's about the heart and soul of D&D and making sure the edition fits whatever personal vision of the game you hold.

This is why I've proposed putting everything up in PDF/PoD and then stopping new product development.

 

[Warunsun]

(The sole exception I can think of is "bounded accuracy," which still has a 4e-ish flavor because 4e used level-scaling bounded accuracy for its mathematical underpinnings. So who knows, there. And it's more argued elsewhere, not so much here.)

Bounded Accuracy isn't from fourth edition. It is the opposite. Generally when folks talk about the benefits of it they are referring to how certain elements used to be under first and second edition rules. Third edition is where the strong mathematical underpinnings began and continued under fourth edition. For example a goblin's armor class didn't change under 1e/2e unless he changed his armor. Usually the same for his hit points. Generally goblins never gained levels back then but if they did it was uncommon and a special encounter. Under 3E he definitely gained health when his level went up and it was more common. Under 4E he has a definate advantage to his armor class as well and it is fairly standard to encounter leveled up monsters.

 

[Obryn]

I would call the 4e aspect incidental. Most of those things were issues when they were piloted in 3e supplements, and will continue to be if writers try to put them in 5e, 6e, or any other number.

Other than the Bo9S stuff, which was mostly (near as I can tell) about it being too "anime", I don't remember major flame-wars about Marshalls, Knights, Dragon Shamans, Reserve Feats, etc.

 

[Ichneumon]

Not all those things vacuum-fluctuated into D&D during 4e's development; the roots of them can often be found in 3e and even earlier. Really, it's more of a playstyle war than an edition war.

 

[Obryn]

Bounded Accuracy isn't from fourth edition. It is the opposite.

Mathematically, if you control for level (that being crucial, here), success and failure in 4e rarely go outside the 5-15 range - and more commonly the 7-13 range.

If you change level scaling in 4e to every 4 or 5 levels, the math looks kind of similar to Next.

I don't think most discussion on Bounded Accuracy is really "about" 4e, though, which is why I left it off the list.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip > . . . I don't remember major flame-wars about Marshalls, Knights, Dragon Shamans, Reserve Feats, etc.

It could be that those things did not engender flame-wars because they arrived so late in the edition-cycle (and because the Marshall was from the Miniatures game) -- so the people who played with Core (PHB & DMG & MM1) plus the earliest of the Complete books (before "Complete Mage") wouldn't have been directly exposed to those things.

No need for a flame-war if it doesn't impact you at all. . . .

 

[Uller]

I'm firmly in the devil's advocate camp....anytime someone says they are against something or other being in the game because of XYZ and will refuse to buy or play it because of that, I feel compelled to take the opposite position.

I've never played a version of any RPG that I didn't heavily house rule and suspect I never will. I play it for a bit RAW, start to experiment with house rules and then start a new campaign with formalized house rules.

Any version of D&D that meets the following criteria I will likely play:

Supports the three pillars of RPG play (Interaction, Exploration and Combat) with an emphasis on combat (or at least ability to emphasize combat)

Is designed to be set in a world that is recognizably fantasy (hypothetical world with warriors, wizards, rogues, clerics, orcs, dragons, etc)

Classes and races from traditional fantasy worlds

combat, magic and task resolution system that is recognizable as D&D (rounds, initiative, spells, attacks vs AC, HP, etc).

I'm not willing to just accept any sort of drivel WotC puts out, but I'm willing to give it at least a look with an open mind. When I play D&D I am already willingly suspending disbelief to a certain extent. So I can generally accept things like self-healing, while others who don't like it seem unwilling for some reason. There are some rules that I've looked at, tried RAW and rejected or modified. I have enjoyed every version of the game so far, some more than others. I enjoy the playtest packets (not real keen on the skill system in either of the last two packets) but I know there will be some things I don't like. All I know is I like to try them at the table for a bit before I outright reject anything.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Other than the Bo9S stuff, which was mostly (near as I can tell) about it being too "anime", I don't remember major flame-wars about Marshalls, Knights, Dragon Shamans, Reserve Feats, etc.

There were some. Then again, they were pretty far removed from the core rules, so there simply weren't as many people talking about them.

For example, how many people actually play with the Miniatures Handbook? It was clear from the title that it was there for people who wanted to play D&D as a minis game, people who probably wouldn't complain about the Marshal (which, IIRC, does not have healing either).

That being said, there were ten people complaining about knight's challenge and goad being mind control (sound familiar?) for every one that had anything to say in the realm of high-level spellcasters being overpowered. Conversely, you'd be right to suggest that no one was really complaining that building monsters as PCs was too hard, since anyone who didn't want to do that could simply not do it.