Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6335247" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Well I can't argue with someone who doesn't see what I see.&nbsp; Obviously whatever it is about D&amp;D you like it's not the same thing as what I identify as D&amp;D.Since you are self-identifying as someone who really didn't play D&amp;D most of that time my original point did not include you.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are though many 4e people who despise pre-4e who were still playing it.&nbsp; Personally, and this is probably because I consider the game the mechanics and not the fluff, I see tons of things all versions of D&amp;D but 4e have in common.&nbsp; The Vancian wizard was pretty darn close all the way through.&nbsp;&nbsp; AEDU was a huge departure.&nbsp;&nbsp; The simple fighter as an option was possible all the way through though in 3e it was possible to expand beyond that concept you didn't have to do so.&nbsp; There were many passive feats you could take and pretty much play the simple fighter.&nbsp;&nbsp; With 4e you only had a fighter that used a resource mechanic.&nbsp; A resource mechanic that I could have seen as viable for some classes but not for martial classes.&nbsp; Maybe Paladins and Rangers could have used it.&nbsp; That would have been an incremental change.&nbsp;&nbsp; They turned the entire healing system upside down.&nbsp; Surges, martial healing, magic that couldn't heal beyond your surges, and so forth.&nbsp; Those are major changes.&nbsp;&nbsp; The healing system for the most part had not changed prior to 4e.&nbsp; The quantity of healing perhaps but not the fundamental system.So those things are what I consider a games identity.&nbsp; The actual mechanical structures.&nbsp; I realize some of you have some other viewpoint on what makes D&amp;D D&amp;D.&nbsp; For me the rules are always what make a game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6335247, member: 6698278"] Well I can't argue with someone who doesn't see what I see. Obviously whatever it is about D&D you like it's not the same thing as what I identify as D&D. Since you are self-identifying as someone who really didn't play D&D most of that time my original point did not include you. There are though many 4e people who despise pre-4e who were still playing it. Personally, and this is probably because I consider the game the mechanics and not the fluff, I see tons of things all versions of D&D but 4e have in common. The Vancian wizard was pretty darn close all the way through. AEDU was a huge departure. The simple fighter as an option was possible all the way through though in 3e it was possible to expand beyond that concept you didn't have to do so. There were many passive feats you could take and pretty much play the simple fighter. With 4e you only had a fighter that used a resource mechanic. A resource mechanic that I could have seen as viable for some classes but not for martial classes. Maybe Paladins and Rangers could have used it. That would have been an incremental change. They turned the entire healing system upside down. Surges, martial healing, magic that couldn't heal beyond your surges, and so forth. Those are major changes. The healing system for the most part had not changed prior to 4e. The quantity of healing perhaps but not the fundamental system. So those things are what I consider a games identity. The actual mechanical structures. I realize some of you have some other viewpoint on what makes D&D D&D. For me the rules are always what make a game. [/QUOTE]

Verification