What is the essence of D&D

[Hussar]

then it's wrong to think they're doing the same thing in both editions. Some variable must be different. The constructive thing to do is to figure out what that might be. If I were you, I would start by exploring this "illusion of choice" phenomenon; it seems a likely suspect.

Honestly? The most likely culprit is simply presentation. 4e powers look samey because they were formatted in a very specific way. So, yeah, it's easy to get the perception that they are all the same. 5e powers are written in natural language paragraphs, so, in order to actually know what the powers are, you actually have to read the paragraphs. And, since we're wired to read that way anyway, it flows naturally.

IOW, the perception is based on presentation, not actual fact.

 

[Hussar]

(a) Are 4E defenders really the best source on the beliefs of 4E critics? and (b) What's the point of bringing all this up now?

I'd point out that it's 4e critics that brought all this up. Those of us who enjoy 4e have repeatedly tried to separate the discussion from rehashing edition warring garbage from the actual point being made that Primacy of Magic is the common element in all versions of D&D.

A point which no one has been able to bring any contrary evidence against, so, they've gone wading into edition warring territory and talking about how 4e failed and whatnot because everything else seems to point to the Primacy of Magic being an accurate accounting of the essence of D&D.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Honestly? The most likely culprit is simply presentation. 4e powers look samey because they were formatted in a very specific way. So, yeah, it's easy to get the perception that they are all the same. 5e powers are written in natural language paragraphs, so, in order to actually know what the powers are, you actually have to read the paragraphs. And, since we're wired to read that way anyway, it flows naturally.

IOW, the perception is based on presentation, not actual fact.

Yeah, I agree, presentation almost certainly bears responsibility. Probably not all of it -- it seems unlikely that we should be able to point to one single thing and say, "That! That's why 4E is 'not D&D'!" -- but a big part of it.

However, the presentation of 4E is a fact about 4E. I wouldn't make a meaningful distinction between presentation and fact.

 

[Garthanos]

Throwing darts had several other uses.

1. Reasonable damage at low levels THAC0 difference was fine.

2. Interupted spells. 3 attacks only need to deal 1 damage, speed factor 2.

3. Countering stone skin spells.

I am actually picturing reflavoring this casting of darts for that wizard as runes which he uses dex to precisely carve into his staff and which is how his dex affects their accuracy and when he points his runed staff they fly off to harm the enemy after the fight he touches the staff to where they hit to recover them.... and they show up on the staff once more.

 

[Garthanos]

However, the presentation of 4E is a fact about 4E. I wouldn't make a meaningful distinction between presentation and fact.

Arguably its even a functional thing. I can very quickly get clues from power presentation about how it works how often it can be used and what parts are functional and what are just flavor and so on... So it isn't even just cosmetic (to use a different connotational word)

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'd point out that it's 4e critics that brought all this up. Those of us who enjoy 4e have repeatedly tried to separate the discussion from rehashing edition warring garbage from the actual point being made that Primacy of Magic is the common element in all versions of D&D.

A point which no one has been able to bring any contrary evidence against, so, they've gone wading into edition warring territory and talking about how 4e failed and whatnot because everything else seems to point to the Primacy of Magic being an accurate accounting of the essence of D&D.

That is... one interpretation of the course of the discussion so far.

Here is another: There is plenty of contrary evidence against Primacy of Magic being the essence of D&D, in the form of all the other complaints about 4E which don't have anything to do with it. In order to impeach this evidence, the 4E defenders have reverted to edition war mode and tried to cast all such complaints as "factually incorrect" (which, unfortunately, wouldn't actually impeach them as evidence here even if it were true).

 

[Nagol]

Just a quibble.

It is one chance per character level to learn a spell in 1e and 2e. You can retry next level. Meaning that for most wizards, (clerics this wasn't an issue) you could typically learn all the spells you came across. It just took a bit of time.

Although, that being said, I did play an MU once up to 12th level that failed his chance to learn invisibility like 9 times.

One chance per character level in 2e. 1e is 1 chance to revolution of the list and you only get a new revolution of the list when either you check all spells and still don't have minimum count or gain a point of Int.

 

[Hussar]

That is... one interpretation of the course of the discussion so far.

Here is another: There is plenty of contrary evidence against Primacy of Magic being the essence of D&D, in the form of all the other complaints about 4E which don't have anything to do with it. In order to impeach this evidence, the 4E defenders have reverted to edition war mode and tried to cast all such complaints as "factually incorrect" (which, unfortunately, wouldn't actually impeach them as evidence here even if it were true).

The thing is it doesn’t actually matter. The other complaints about 4e appear in other editions. So since the same elements exist between editions that are and are not considered part of DND, then they are not essential.

 

[Hussar]

One chance per character level in 2e. 1e is 1 chance to revolution of the list and you only get a new revolution of the list when either you check all spells and still don't have minimum count or gain a point of Int.

Sorry. “Revolution of the list”?

Not sure what you mean.

 

[Lanefan]

One chance per character level in 2e. 1e is 1 chance to revolution of the list and you only get a new revolution of the list when either you check all spells and still don't have minimum count or gain a point of Int.

Pretty sure 1e is also one shot per level at learning a given spell, provided you still have headroom below the limit. And yes, gaining an Int point also gives you another shot.

You also, I think, get a random new spell each time you train; which if you're lucky might just happen to be the useful one you've blown several times otherwise.