What is the essence of D&D

[Arnwolf666]

I pull out the hiding in plain site that a rogue might get at level 16 as something a rogue will not be doing any time soon it only requires you basically get hidden somehow and not move and you can be invisible launching your ninja bolts at enemies every round but them unable to pin down where you are even though you have no ongoing cover.

This is one of the problems with a grid way of do

If you arent limited to a time of year for your casting... you do not have that. Ever played games that actually had constellations and time of year or day of month limits and such affecting them... apparently not.

Daily is silly

If COC is Cthulu then I do not doubt they have something closer to in flavor.

Legend lore had a very very long casting time in 2E

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Repetition doesn’t make it true, bud.

 

[Zardnaar]

Repetition doesn’t make it true, bud.

It's described as a tactical skirmish game in Art and Arcana.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's described as a tactical skirmish game in Art and Arcana.

Okay?

They’re wrong, too.

 

[Maxperson]

Repetition doesn’t make it true, bud.

Interestingly enough, my buddies and I tried to transition from the 3e minis game to the 4e minis game, but 4e didn't actually do well as a minis game. We tried it twice and quit. A few months later WotC ended the minis game, because I guess nobody else liked 4e minis, either.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Interestingly enough, my buddies and I tried to transition from the 3e minis game to the 4e minis game, but 4e didn't actually do well as a minis game. We tried it twice and quit. A few months later WotC ended the minis game, because I guess nobody else liked 4e minis, either.

Eh, the minis game wasn’t ever that popular, and throughout the end of 3.5 through the span of 4e, they narrowed the focus of the brand.

4e can be a very fun exercise in skirmish tactics, but the idea that it was primarily that, or that it did only that well, is such preposterous nonsense that I will never believe that anyone who claims it is both arguing in good faith, and actually played 4e for more than a couple sessions with a DM that barely understood the game.

It’s akin to someone claiming that Luke Skywalker never whined about anything in his whole life and was always a cool dude. It’s objectively false.

 

[Hussar]

Just because something's in one edition doesn't make it the essence of D&D. THAC0 come to mind you can switch that out doesn't change the playstyle.

Totally agree. In fact, I would say that everyone in this thread agrees with that.

 

[aramis erak]

@Tony Vargas I think you’re 180 degrees off when you say that the range of play in dnd is narrow compared to other games.

You can play almost literally anything in dnd with an amount of work relative to how “fantasy” it is.

You can do the same in any rpg. The question is whether or not the feel the system brings is compatible with the genre and setting.

I mean, there was a guy who used AD&D 1E for Traveller's OTU.

There's a big difference between Can and Should. And "can be made to work" vs "works rather well"...

5E for low-fantasy? sure. For realistic Rome? not to a satisfying level without major work.

For Sci-Fi? for many, the core of character gen is counter to sci-fi: Class and Level.

So one CAN do Sci-Fi in 5E, but one probably should not, and even if one does, it's unlikely to work really well for most potential players.

D20 suffered from many unsuitable adaptations. Fading Suns d20 comes immediately to mind.

 

[Zardnaar]

Eh, the minis game wasn’t ever that popular, and throughout the end of 3.5 through the span of 4e, they narrowed the focus of the brand.

4e can be a very fun exercise in skirmish tactics, but the idea that it was primarily that, or that it did only that well, is such preposterous nonsense that I will never believe that anyone who claims it is both arguing in good faith, and actually played 4e for more than a couple sessions with a DM that barely understood the game.

It’s akin to someone claiming that Luke Skywalker never whined about anything in his whole life and was always a cool dude. It’s objectively false.

And you're denying people's feeling, seems to be a fairly common tactic. I made it to level 8 and gave up.

It reminded me of the minis game. It was designed by the same people. Wasn't exact of course in even gets a mention in Art and Arcana.

It was designed from the ground up as a tactical skirmish game in WotC own words. That's what makes it unique, if you like that sort of thing great, most didn't.

I didn't mind D&DM but it was in addition to 3.5 not a replacement for it.

 

[Hussar]

You are making an opinion claim about primacy of magic vs non-magical classes. Counter opinions matter. And I'm far from alone in mine.

Not really. Err, not that counter opinions don't matter, but, rather, he's not really making an opinion claim.

It's a pretty well supportable claim.

1. Every edition of D&Dhas added more magic to the game. At least up to 5e which has actually scaled it back somewhat at least in terms of sheer number of spells. OTOH, 33 of 36 classes in the PHB can use magic as opposed to the 3 classes in Basic/Expert which could.

2. Magic has to be magical - this is repeated often enough that it is pretty commonly held.

3. Magic must be able to do more than non-magical things. So, a 1st level wizard casting Jump to jump 60 feet is perfectly fine but a 23rd level rogue trying to do the same thing is not.

4. It is always acceptable to justify things with magic. Anything which cannot be justified in the real world MUST be justified with magic.

5. Every edition of the game is either impossible or very, very difficult to play without casters except for the one edition that many claim isn't D&D, 4e.

6. You are expected to find more and more powerful magic items every adventure. It's an extremely rare module that doesn't have any magic items to be found.

Did I miss anything?