Were people's expectations of "Modularity" set a little too high?

[Argyle King]

Difference is, I can play a 4E Fighter (Slayer) alongside a 4E Warlord and run into no problems. Heck, I can play a Fighter (Slayer), Fighter (Weaponmaster), and Fighter (Knight) all at the same table without any issues. I could not play a 3.0 Paladin and a 3.5 Paladin at the same table without issue. 4E Essentials was not an overhaul of the system or even much of a tweak of the system, it was literally more options for the same system.

...and yet there needed to be errata to pre-Essentials feats for them to not be broken with some of the Essentials classes.

Looking at one book doesn't tell the whole story; neither does only looking at something like class. Monster math is something which changed a lot over the course of 4E. While I could use the earlier versions of monsters, the results usually weren't very good unless I did some work to update them. The same can be said of using 3.0 monsters with 3.5; they would work with the game, but I needed to do work to update them if I wanted them to work in a manner consistent with what I wanted out of the game.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

Is arguing over which edition got a "major" overhaul and which didn't really constructive?

That's a rhetorical question, of course. This thread isn't about which prior edition was best. Remember that, please and thanks.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Hey remember that time 3.5 changed how ability score modifiers for all races changed so that you could pick from two choices rather than have fixed ones?

Or when humans and half-elves got new racial abilities?

Or when how implements work changed?

Or when Magic Missile was completely re-written?

Or when they changed how magic items were categorized and dumped the milestone mechanic?

Or when they dumped the tier requirement for feats?

Or when they revised dozens of wizard spells to add miss-effects?

Or when they made you buy new books to get all the errata?

Oh wait, no they didn't.

You know what, I was going to respond to this, but the edition war BS cropping up in EVERY FRAKKING THREAD IS GETTING REALLY FRAKKING OLD. I realize I fed into it just as much as anyone but FFS this needs to stop coming up in every thread. This is why our hobby will die, because we are too busy rearranging deck chairs and not bailing water out.

Back on topic, I really do think WotC shot themselves in the foot with the modularity talk. They did little if anything to stem the flow of the misinterpretations of what they meant. Again, they need to make an effort to try to provide some clarity in what they meant by modular, because all we have to go off of is their grandiose speech from the beginning.

 

[GreyICE]

There is really a sense at this point that they were "talking big" with the modularity thing - at least with me and the people I've discussed it with.

The D&D arm of WotC has ALWAYS had this problem where they talk so big that their material couldn't live up to their talk (witness some of the chat that happened pre-4E, I mean I love 4E and some of that stuff was just way over the top). And Modularity looks to be that here.

There's no way to make the core game capable of being played without a map and throw a module on that adds in 4E tactical combat - which is what they promised.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure they are.

Give a cook a pantry full of ingredients, and what dish they finally prepare is in their hands. Give players a bunch of things to choose between, and the final arrangement of those pieces is? In their hands!

Sure, and he serves what he made to his guests. OTOH, if you have a buffet, everyone picks what they want. Early 5e vaporware sounded more like the buffet, the stuff we're hearing now about modularity sounds more what you're talking about - the well-stocked pantry for the chef.

There is no such thing as a "house rule for the DM". It isn't like DMs work in a vacuum, and can do whatever they want, not caring what the other players* want.

Modules are starting to sound like pre-made house rules that the DM would pick from, in addition or instead of making up his own, presumably. House-ruling is the DM's purview.

But, there are also things that look closer to what was originally hinted at. The CS fighter, for instance, can be both a simple classic D&D fighter - just always use your CS dice for damage - or a more complex Combat & Tatctics/3.x style fighter that can specialize and adjust his tactics round to round.