What is the essence of D&D

[Tony Vargas]

What would happen if I put my flag down on a particular objection: "Some players didn't like 4E because of reason R"?

Well, you'd be drifting topic again, as the issue isn't liking or disliking, but merely correlating something unique to 4e with the perception of that edition as NOT-D&D.

But, given that, you should expect one of 3 possible responses:
1) R did not exist in 4e (possibly because R doesn't exist at all).
2) R was also present in another, undisputedly-Really D&D, edition (or PF1, for that matter)
3) Oh, I hadn't thought of that, that's another possibility (though maybe a remote or trivial one) to consider along side the Primacy of Magic.

I see the rest of your post, but again, this is the real problem: you are not giving credit to the testimony of people who say things contrary to your narrative.

Just stick to the actual content of the editions and we won't have that issue.

The "Primacy of Magic" is something we can pretty clearly see throughout the rest of D&D.

Now, since I tend to be OK with arguing both sides of an issue, I can also go ahead and help you out on this:
You could also make the case that Magic (supernatural power in general, really) is as or more balanced with the mundane and items as or more blah in some other undisputedly-really-D&D edition (or clone).
Or, alternately, you could argue that the Primacy of Magic held even in 4e (not entirely baseless, it becomes a matter of degree).

Or you could just agree...

The main problem with 4E IMHO is the class design, it alienated a lot of people.

Those'd be the class designs that balanced martial & magic-using classes, in significant part by giving them rough resource parity, thus undermining the Primacy of Magic.

 

[Zardnaar]

In general denying people's experiences and preferences is a huge problem in message board conversations of all types. It never feels good, and I am sorry that people had to deal with it. Personally I also experienced it from the other side when I talked about why I like games like Fourth Edition (not so much anymore), Apocalypse World, Moldvay B/X, and more recently Pathfinder 2. That experience does not diminish your own in any way. We should all make more of an effort to really hear each other out.

Yup. I like 2E, 5E and B/X. Doesn't bother me to much if other people don't.

Even if it's as simple as not liking an edition based on cover art.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, you'd be drifting topic again, as the issue isn't liking or disliking, but merely correlating something unique to 4e with the perception of that edition as NOT-D&D.

But, given that, you should expect one of 3 possible responses:
1) R did not exist in 4e (possibly because R doesn't exist at all).
2) R was also present in another, undisputedly-Really D&D, edition (or PF1, for that matter)
3) Oh, I hadn't thought of that, that's another possibility (though maybe a remote or trivial one) to consider along side the Primacy of Magic.

Just stick to the actual content of the editions and we won't have that issue.

The "Primacy of Magic" is something we can pretty clearly see throughout the rest of D&D.

Now, since I tend to be OK with arguing both sides of an issue, I can also go ahead and help you out on this:
You could also make the case that Magic (supernatural power in general, really) is as or more balanced with the mundane and items as or more blah in some other undisputedly-really-D&D edition (or clone).
Or, alternately, you could argue that the Primacy of Magic held even in 4e (not entirely baseless, it becomes a matter of degree).

You over exaggerated the primacy if magic though.

1. Most gamers don't play high level.
2. Most gamers aren't power gamers
3. Old D&D had plenty of drawbacks and restrictions on magic.
4. Older D&D also had things like magic resistance and anti magic.
5. Things like d4 and d10 hit dice mattered a lot more along with the ability to use armor.

So it mostly applies to 3E really. Most people I saw played 3E like advanced 2E not how people on forums assumed.

It worked fine from that pov, it didn't work for people who knew how to break it.

4E kind if fixed it, created new problems and threw the baby out with the bathwater and made it impossible to play D&D like how most people played it over the previous 3 decades.

 

[Hussar]

3e, with its much easier item-creation rules and much lower pricing on many basic items, put magic far more front-and-centre than any other edition even at very low character levels.

Also, while Gygax might have opined that experienced players would gravitate toward MUs my own experience doesn't agree; and shows long-term players eventually playing nearly all the classes.

The only basis for what he says might lie in that new players were often suggested toward a martial class (or Thief) while they learned the ropes; and the same is still true today.

Again, I disagree with this. AD&D character, because of the random treasure generation, or, if you played 1e modules, were absolutely dripping with magic items. A given lair (and a lair could easily be 2 trolls or a single wyvern) had about a 15% chance of 3-4 magic items. How many lairs were the PC's looting per level? 10? 20? More? Even if they were looting only 10 lairs per level, by 5th level, that's 20 magic items across the party. Sure, some of them were potions and scrolls, but, more than half were permanent items, if you were following the random treasure generation.

And that's a very, VERY lowball estimate. Sure, you wound up with extra +1 swords lying around, fair enough, but, that's still the point - you had so many magic items that you had spare items floating around. 3e certainly didn't start the notion that PC's would be dripping in magic items. Heck, the wealth by level presumptions of 3e were probably considerably lower than AD&D.

 

[Hussar]

It's an old technique they have been using since 2008.

RPG equivalent of fake news.

The main problem with 4E IMHO is the class design, it alienated a lot of people.

The problem with that narrative is that 5ed follows much of the same class design and people love it. See, that's the problem that I have. Virtually EVERY criticism you can make about 4e equally applies to 5e, but, it's perfectly acceptable in 5e.

 

[Zardnaar]

Again, I disagree with this. AD&D character, because of the random treasure generation, or, if you played 1e modules, were absolutely dripping with magic items. A given lair (and a lair could easily be 2 trolls or a single wyvern) had about a 15% chance of 3-4 magic items. How many lairs were the PC's looting per level? 10? 20? More? Even if they were looting only 10 lairs per level, by 5th level, that's 20 magic items across the party. Sure, some of them were potions and scrolls, but, more than half were permanent items, if you were following the random treasure generation.

And that's a very, VERY lowball estimate. Sure, you wound up with extra +1 swords lying around, fair enough, but, that's still the point - you had so many magic items that you had spare items floating around. 3e certainly didn't start the notion that PC's would be dripping in magic items. Heck, the wealth by level presumptions of 3e were probably considerably lower than AD&D.

Players didn't choose then though. Having 8 +1 swords no big deal.

8 +1 swords become a +2 weapon in 3E or more likely +1 with an ability. That ability could be married to feats and class abilities.

Keen plus improved critical comes to mind. On a scimitar.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You over exaggerated the primacy if magic though.
1. Most gamers don't play high level.

High level isn't necessary for the Primacy of Magic to manifest. Look at something as simple as healing. With magic, it's a slate of Cure..Wounds spells per day, w/o, it's 1 hp/day, or some more baroque, but still quite slow, formula.

2. Most gamers aren't power gamers

Weighs the opposite direction, actually: /with/ pervasive power gaming a non-caster can pull some pretty crazy DPR or other extreme tricks and narrow the gap.

3. Old D&D had plenty of drawbacks and restrictions on magic.

I never said otherwise, in fact, I pointed it out.

4. Older D&D also had things like magic resistance and anti magic.

Ditto.
Both those points reinforce the Primacy of Magic, because magic is so all-important, harsh restrictions are needed to 'balance' it, and negating it is the DM's nuclear option to get the players back in line.

5. Things like d4 and d10 hit dice mattered a lot more along with the ability to use armor.

Also just trying to 'balance' the extreme importance of magic.
Of course, the ability to use armor /really/ mattered when you got awesome magical armor.

 

[Campbell]

Generally magic items are an equalizer. They tend to benefit fighters and thieves a lot more than Wizards.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem with that narrative is that 5ed follows much of the same class design and people love it.

I can't say I see the class-design similarities.

@Hussar said:

Virtually EVERY criticism you can make about 4e equally applies to 5e, but, it's perfectly acceptable in 5e.

Criticisms of concepts, perhaps...
I mean, I see clear conceptual similarities among classes, especially between post-E & 5e:
The Valor Bard corresponds to the HotFW Skald, the Totem Barbarian to the PH2 Primal take on that class, the Champion to the Slayer, even, with the right Feat choice, the BM to the Knight, and, an Essentials-era Dragon mag introduced the EK.

But, when you look at what those concepts can do, the restoration of the Primacy of Magic is clear.
The PDK, for instance, fits the same conceptual space as the Warlord, it even has shouty healing. But, that healing is pretty late and trivial compared to what's readily available to a half-dozen classes with magic. And it has nothing like the breadth, number, and effectiveness of the Warlords 'exploits' - certainly not to the extreme point of having rough resource parity with a Cleric or even Paladin.

 

[Zardnaar]

The problem with that narrative is that 5ed follows much of the same class design and people love it. See, that's the problem that I have. Virtually EVERY criticism you can make about 4e equally applies to 5e, but, it's perfectly acceptable in 5e.

5E uses a lot of 4E mechanics to duplicate pre 3E playstyles probably more like 2E.

Mechanically there's not that much wrong with 4E it's class design specifically powers and it's playstyle.

4E was good at being an advanced minis skirmish game. Wasn't so good at everything else.


I could use 4E to clone AD&D, of course you would rewrite the classes and dump it's powers.