What is the essence of D&D

[Garthanos]

The reason I'm bringing this up is doctorbadwolf was arguing 4e doesn't have a focus on combat compared to 1e. How may combat abilities does a 3rd level Wizard have? I had 0 -- a single daily I effectively replaced with utility.

4e has huge amounts of non-combat abilities which do not compete with gaining combat ability... I saw non-combat things being ignored even though they would interesting in 1e all the time. Not because some player only wanted to fight but because other stuff was competing with things people saw as necessary.

 

[Nagol]

4e did not support accountants and bookkeepers compendium wrt non-combat... ie The DM is asked I am going to use that profession in my characters background and earn as much money as I can in the next 6 months. The DM basically just wings it. Now a party of rogue character personalities working a crowd might very well end up a skill challenge.

And? We are an adventuring group with a focus on getting the treasure, leaving the danger. Getting into fights was dangerous and we work (overly) hard to avoid/minimize/overwhelm opposition. We use as many external replaceable resources as we can, investigate thoroughly, take as few risks as we can get away with, and fight as little as possible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I know you get separate combat powers. That's the point. I had a single combat power I almost never used. I had a bunch of utility powers. In 4e, I'd have more combat powers and fewer utility powers because there is a focus on combat in 4e unlike 1e. The expectation of combat -- and the balancing of characters for it -- is a feature of the system.

I never reference 1e, far as I can recall. If I did, I doubt it was to compare combat focus.
I had much more non-combat abilities on my 4e wizard than combat ones. Not to mention the rather robust skill system, and improvised uses of combat powers.

The reason I'm bringing this up is doctorbadwolf was arguing 4e doesn't have a focus on combat compared to 1e. How may combat abilities does a 3rd level Wizard have? I had 0 -- a single daily I effectively replaced with utility.

I didn’t compare editions, you did. I also said 4e isn’t laser focused on combat, and that it devotes rather a lot of the system to out of combat.

 

[Garthanos]

And? We are an adventuring group with a focus on getting the treasure, leaving the danger.

Chases and escapes are great skill challenges and 4e rewards experience points based on how challenging they are.

 

[Garthanos]

Additionally there is no blip we escape instantly spell ... people with skills will actually get to use them.

 

[Nagol]

I think it's more when people like something old & busted, because “its from a time or setting that you view through a positive associative lense, such as their childhood or a relationship that they recall fondly.”

And there's nuth'n wrong with that.
Sure, because you were a mage, and you faced the choice of learning one sort of spell or another, and you went for an extreme focus. If you'd been a fighter, you'd've been all combat and no utility. A Thief, more utility than combat - but not really enough of either to get by.
Now, if you'd been in a combat-heavy campaign with the same character, under the same system, making the same choices, you'd've hosed yourself. If you were in a non-combat-heavy game, you'd've been outperforming a less focused mage.
Well, you might, via rituals have even more utilities in addition to having more combat spells, because wizards still made out, that way - but the best of them probably wouldn't be as impactful, and other characters who really wanted to same utility could've gotten scrolls.
Because 4e made a first, inauspicious, attempt at balancing the as-yet-unarticulated 'pillars' individually, so the campaign could focus on any or two or all of them, either overall, or differently over time. Instead of balancing classes across all pillars, so that any campaign that deviated from the assumed spread would see some dominating and other languishing.
It didn't do it /well/ but it tried.

Something else that 5e didn't entirely abandon: You can't generally trade in your skills for combat options, and non-combat rituals don't cost slots. So there's a bit of silo'ing, there, too.

Not true. The fighters sacrificed a few of the weapon proficiency slots for extra non-proficiencies. They've picked up a smattering of magic items that help them extend into the investigative/stealthy sections, and one is becoming a Bard. Their henchmen also help broaden their options.

If I were in a combat-heavy campaign, I'd probably not care/not notice 4e's focus on combat! But, I'm not and I do.

And the utiliities are nowhere near as impactful at mid-levels and higher because the game engine was built that way.

And the fact it doesn't do it well is a turn-off.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And? We are an adventuring group with a focus on getting the treasure, leaving the danger. Getting into fights was dangerous and we work (overly) hard to avoid/minimize/overwhelm opposition. We use as many external replaceable resources as we can, investigate thoroughly, take as few risks as we can get away with, and fight as little as possible.

We played that way on one of our 4e campaigns. It’s fun.

And everyone, even the mundanes, has plenty to contribute to those challenges.

Capers are really fun in 4e.

I also played bloodthirsty games in older editions.

Turns out every edition supports both.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And the utiliities are nowhere near as impactful at mid-levels and higher because the game engine was built that way.

Um...huh? This is exactly opposite what I experienced with utility powers in 4e at all levels of play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not true. The fighters sacrificed a few of the weapon proficiency slots for extra non-proficiencies.

Excuse me? NWP = 2e... right?
Oh, dungeoneer's survival guide? Really kinda terrible, IMHO. D&D didn't even start to get skills right until 3.0.
I'd say 'not worth it,' except proficiencies were pretty nearly worthless, anyway - they were backup for when the DM got hinky and placed a powerful magical weapon that wasn't a longsword.

And the utiliities are no where near as impactful at mid-levels and higher because the game engine was built that way.

Nod, all spells were taken down a number of pegs, in general - and rituals and items were 'nerfed,' out-of-combat, relative to how overwhelming spells used to be, because there was a /greater/ focus on non-combat, via skill challenges, even being weighted the same as encounters. Non-combat got more structure, more participation from all players, more emphasis, than any other edition. Leaving utility spells as problem-solved grenades would have reduced that focus.

And the fact it doesn't do it well is a turn-off.

It's better than not doin' it at all. Even if there's not much hope it'll continue to improve.

 

[Nagol]

Um...huh? This is exactly opposite what I experienced with utility powers in 4e at all levels of play.

Really? As impactful as dimension door and teleport? As impactful as 1e's wall of stone? As impactful as Clairvoyance and Magic Mirror?

Utilities were toned down specifically to allow more action adventure style stuff to go on.