What about 4th made you turn away from D&D and go to Pathfinder of another game?

I think this is an important question, as if D&D Next follows in the same footsteps as 4th, then there really isn't a point in making a new game. What were the things about 4th that kept you from playing it and is D&D Next following in 4th edition's footsteps?

For me it was my friends hated 4th, so therefore I ended up not playing it. Even so there were a couple of changes that seemed too much. Like fighters being limited with encounter and daily powers. This makes no sense for a fighter. Another issue was the temperary loss of favorite classes (which D&D Next is certainly not doing).

 


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

You should rethink how you ask this question. It's like an open invitation to edition war and 4E-bash.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
No one around me wanted to play it.
Can I answer what about 1st edition made me turn away to other games... and why 2e and 3e never brought me back... 

Cause I cant block this eWar thread. 

Threads ought to be something you can turn off and you shouldnt have to see threads from blocked posters. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I believe what turned many off was the dramatic shift in the way it played... and the fact that 4th was basically unplayable until after the second players handbook. Many felt that they tried too hard to make it feel like a video game and decided that if they wanted to play a video game they had an x-box. Also 4th edition murdered multiclassing. People also didn't like the constant rules update that rendered their purchased books obsolete. Additionally the math of the game basically required you to have magic items of a certain level at each level in every slot, which to many cheapened magic.

Personally I hated 4th when it first came out, except for the rituals, which most people didn't really like. I gave 4th a second chance around the time the third players handbook came out and hybrids were introduced, and it was at that point that I fell in love with the edition. I felt that hybrids were what multiclassing should have been from the beginning. There was enough diversity in the classes and enough seperation between the classes that I felt that my choice in class was meaningful.
You should rethink how you ask this question. It's like an open invitation to edition war and 4E-bash.



Yeah I probably should have asked that in a different way. I don't 4E-bash. It is in a lot of ways I see D&D Next heading in a similar direction as to why people have told me they didn't like fourth. If D&D Next is going to copy those reasons, then it is destined to be a failure. I would prefer D&D Next not to be a failure and that those same friends that didn't like 4th would actually want to play D&D Next.
I don't 4E-bash.

You are actively doing it in this very post.

It is in a lot of ways I see D&D Next heading in a similar direction as to why people have told me they didn't like fourth. If D&D Next is going to copy those reasons, then it is destined to be a failure. I would prefer D&D Next not to be a failure and that those same friends that didn't like 4th would actually want to play D&D Next.

Implying that 4E was a failure doesn't count as bashing to you?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Inconsistency between PCs and NPCs was a big one.  We had some friendly NPCs that we convinced to join us in overthrowing their opressors, only to have them all die instantly to splash damage from a minor enemy ability - we had no idea that they were minions and would die trivially.  Um... wounded NPCs (non-minions) can't heal, because all healing is keyed to healing surges and NPCs don't have those.  That sort of thing.

The loot treadmill didn't help.

And now, to be fun, here's why I've abandoned Pathfinder and gone back to give 4E another shot:

Bookkeeping.  Pathfinder is full of hundreds of trivial, finicky, tiny +1 or +2 bonuses that only apply in a small subset of situations.  Seriously, +1 to Reflex saves to avoid being trampled?  Has anyone ever been trampled?

System mastery feels mandatory, in order to not drag everyone else down.  At least 4E is quite straight-forward with telling you to max out your main stat, and doesn't hide it between a million different feats and class features.

It's probably just the specific adventure path I'm on, but everything in the game seems to involve the disadvantage "roll 2d20 and take the lower result" mechanic.  We were in combat with seven enemies for about ninety minutes, and only dropped one of them before we had to call the session.  I am not looking forward to next week, because I'm sure it will take at least another few hours just to get past this encounter.
The metagame is not the game.
*Ahem*

Please keep in mind, I didn't turn away from 4e. I played it, I didn't like it as much, but it was the sitting edition and I got other players to play it with me. It can't be forgotten that 4e was a reaction to the fact previous editions weren't raking in the dough like they ought to have been, which is why we are now getting 5e, so please keep in mind everything below happened for a reason, and that many people enjoyed it, but these were the turn offs for me and my table. My goal here is not to edition bash but to answer your question honestly (and with any hope diplomatically) from my point of view.

The things I didn't like though were pretty simple.

Number One on my list is Option Paralysis. The powers system felt really neat and cool at lower levels, and I didn't know anyone who disliked it at those levels. However, with players that weren't used to playing spellcaster, and consequently knowing lots of things to deal with this lead to this horridly long combat at higher levels, and when I say higher I mean greater than 10, which isn't that high. This is why I have advocated for a simple fighter option, specifically because of these players. This was infuriating as both a DM and a player. As a DM it made it horrid to try to keep players x and y engaged while player z tries to decide which power to use. As a player I was a hypocrite because I got bored waiting for my turn. Eitherway, the  option explosion hurt combat for my table and made it more bookkeeping than anything exciting.

Boring advancement was another. The level of character customization was weak at best. As someone coming from 3.5e's pethoria of feats, classes and multiclassing options invested in creating powerbuilds and RP build that felt very very different from each other. 4e's weak multiclassing and feat system that, quite frankly, was trivial a lot of the time and never resembled a tree like 3.5e's did, I was a bit let down. Ironically this is a huge reason people left D&D when 3rd edition came out so please understand this is just my opinion, and just as much a turn off to 3rd edition some as it was a let down to me that 4e didn't have it.

Lack of commonality and exception based play was rather big too. There was a general understanding and framework in previous editions. While classes were distinct, there was a fairly complex (sometime maybe to much) core most people had to follow. In 4e the core was super watery and most of it got contradicted anyway.

The next bit, everyone feeling a lot alike, almost seems to clash with the above but bare with me. The way powers ended up made it so that most classes felt alike. You could pick up a new class with new powers, but particularly if you play the same role not to much changed (I provide with this the caveat that as time progressed they added things that made this less and less true but even then the basic at-will, encounter, daily became a staple).

Finally, and this really encompasses a lot of the above, 4e was just too different. To me it didn't feel much like the prior D&D systems at all. That is not to say it was a bad system and I maintain that if wizards had developed and called it anything other than D&D it would not have received the brutal treatment it did. That said  my table and I have been liking next a lot more and eyeing leerily some of the more 4e features creeping in. Some of them are alright (the rogues maneuvers haven't really held things up like powers did), while others are a bit more problematic (crucifying the wizard was met with annoyance by the whole party).


First of all, I am in a 4th Edition game, Tuesday being my next gaming night for it.

My biggest dislike in 4th Edition is the homogeneity of the Powers.  On one hand, I like fluff and mechanics being divorced from each other.  On the other hand, I dislike having so many powers equating to little more than "do X damage and move the target around the grid".  I know there are those who disagree with me on this point on these very boards, who say there is plenty of variation within 4E's power set.  It is still for me the biggest turn off of the system, and if the DM and other players were amicable, I would switch our game to a different edition, even if it meant rerolling and starting a new campaign.

I'm an experienced enough gamer to still have fun despite this issue.
Also, and this has very little to do with the system at all honestly, but the murdering of the Forgotten Realms and the extreme lack of detail in the sorce materials about the game worlds was kind of big for me too. Luckily, that stuff isn't really edition specific so it didn't effect me as much, but everything felt a lot flatter, and less exciting in the published materials and there were fewer area specific (and non-core world specific) suppliments to enhance things.
I don't 4E-bash.

You are actively doing it in this very post.

It is in a lot of ways I see D&D Next heading in a similar direction as to why people have told me they didn't like fourth. If D&D Next is going to copy those reasons, then it is destined to be a failure. I would prefer D&D Next not to be a failure and that those same friends that didn't like 4th would actually want to play D&D Next.

Implying that 4E was a failure doesn't count as bashing to you?



I think the fact that Pathfinder started selling better than fourth and there is a new edition coming out after only 4 years qualifys 4th as having failed. That isn't bashing the game, but stating a fact.

Further I actually like 4th edition. 
I don't 4E-bash.

You are actively doing it in this very post.

It is in a lot of ways I see D&D Next heading in a similar direction as to why people have told me they didn't like fourth. If D&D Next is going to copy those reasons, then it is destined to be a failure. I would prefer D&D Next not to be a failure and that those same friends that didn't like 4th would actually want to play D&D Next.

Implying that 4E was a failure doesn't count as bashing to you?



I think the fact that Pathfinder started selling better than fourth and there is a new edition coming out after only 4 years qualifys 4th as having failed. That isn't bashing the game, but stating a fact.



By that same logic, 3E was a failure, since it was replaced after less than three years.  And one thing you haven't taken into account is if a 4-5 year cycle is the norm.  Both 3.5E and 4E adhere to it.  Perhaps that is what Hasbro wants WotC to be doing.  And if it is the established norm, is it really a failure?
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
And one thing you haven't taken into account is if a 4-5 year cycle is the norm.  Both 3.5E and 4E adhere to it.  Perhaps that is what Hasbro wants WotC to be doing.  And if it is the established norm, is it really a failure?



3-3.5e weren't replaced until 2008, making that an 8 year run. However, even though 3e is my prefered system, I would argue that 3e was to some degree a failure as well. It alienated a large portion of the player base that existed previously as well, was to complex for many people to appreciate, and didn't have nearly as long a run as 1&2nd editions.

That said 4e was the first time a different tabletop RPG dethrones D&D sales. Add to that slap in the face that other game was based on your previous edition and you have to kind of look hard in the mirror.
And one thing you haven't taken into account is if a 4-5 year cycle is the norm.  Both 3.5E and 4E adhere to it.  Perhaps that is what Hasbro wants WotC to be doing.  And if it is the established norm, is it really a failure?



3-3.5e weren't replaced until 2008, making that an 8 year run. However, even though 3e is my prefered system, I would argue that 3e was to some degree a failure as well. It alienated a large portion of the player base that existed previously as well, was to complex for many people to appreciate, and didn't have nearly as long a run as 1&2nd editions.

That said 4e was the first time a different tabletop RPG dethrones D&D sales. Add to that slap in the face that other game was based on your previous edition and you have to kind of look hard in the mirror.


3E was replaced with 3.5E in 2003 after coming out in 2000.  As for being dethroned in sales, that has happened many times before in the past.  White Wolf did it in the 90s a few times.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
And one thing you haven't taken into account is if a 4-5 year cycle is the norm.  Both 3.5E and 4E adhere to it.  Perhaps that is what Hasbro wants WotC to be doing.  And if it is the established norm, is it really a failure?



3-3.5e weren't replaced until 2008, making that an 8 year run. However, even though 3e is my prefered system, I would argue that 3e was to some degree a failure as well. It alienated a large portion of the player base that existed previously as well, was to complex for many people to appreciate, and didn't have nearly as long a run as 1&2nd editions.

That said 4e was the first time a different tabletop RPG dethrones D&D sales. Add to that slap in the face that other game was based on your previous edition and you have to kind of look hard in the mirror.


3E was replaced with 3.5E in 2003 after coming out in 2000.  As for being dethroned in sales, that has happened many times before in the past.  White Wolf did it in the 90s a few times.




If you want to argue 3.5 was a different edition you have to apply the same thing to essentials for 4e which was hailed as many as 4.5 in everything but name.

Maybe I can stand corrected on the sales thing, but you do have to admit you have this situation happening right now and clearly wizards isn't happy about it.

P.S. edit: You have to remember that there as only 2 ways for a game system to fail.
1) literally no one likes it, very clearly not the case with 4e.
2) You are viewing it from a sales perspective and the reward you are reaping isn't worth the investment you are making.

1 clearly doesn't apply, it seems 2 does.
And one thing you haven't taken into account is if a 4-5 year cycle is the norm.  Both 3.5E and 4E adhere to it.  Perhaps that is what Hasbro wants WotC to be doing.  And if it is the established norm, is it really a failure?



3-3.5e weren't replaced until 2008, making that an 8 year run. However, even though 3e is my prefered system, I would argue that 3e was to some degree a failure as well. It alienated a large portion of the player base that existed previously as well, was to complex for many people to appreciate, and didn't have nearly as long a run as 1&2nd editions.

That said 4e was the first time a different tabletop RPG dethrones D&D sales. Add to that slap in the face that other game was based on your previous edition and you have to kind of look hard in the mirror.


3E was replaced with 3.5E in 2003 after coming out in 2000.  As for being dethroned in sales, that has happened many times before in the past.  White Wolf did it in the 90s a few times.

To be fair, White Wolf was publishing several different games and two separate systems (MET and TSS) to do it.  Pathfinder did it all with 3.5's OGL and a single game.

I didn't switch, as I love 4E.  However, our group did have someone who very vehemently disliked 4E before she ever even played it, and the reason she gave was the power cards from the character builder.  She said they made it seem too much like a board game.  I told her I could do the exact same thing with combat maneuvers and spells in 3E. 
And one thing you haven't taken into account is if a 4-5 year cycle is the norm.  Both 3.5E and 4E adhere to it.  Perhaps that is what Hasbro wants WotC to be doing.  And if it is the established norm, is it really a failure?



3-3.5e weren't replaced until 2008, making that an 8 year run. However, even though 3e is my prefered system, I would argue that 3e was to some degree a failure as well. It alienated a large portion of the player base that existed previously as well, was to complex for many people to appreciate, and didn't have nearly as long a run as 1&2nd editions.

That said 4e was the first time a different tabletop RPG dethrones D&D sales. Add to that slap in the face that other game was based on your previous edition and you have to kind of look hard in the mirror.


3E was replaced with 3.5E in 2003 after coming out in 2000.  As for being dethroned in sales, that has happened many times before in the past.  White Wolf did it in the 90s a few times.




If you want to argue 3.5 was a different edition you have to apply the same thing to essentials for 4e which was hailed as many as 4.5 in everything but name.

Maybe I can stand corrected on the sales thing, but you do have to admit you have this situation happening right now and clearly wizards isn't happy about it. 


No, actually I don't.  Essentials was completely compatible and not meant to subsume 4E.  Look at all of the literature leading up to it from WotC.  Add into the fact that all books after Essentials still were compatible with the pre-Essentials stuff (they list things from pre-Essentials books like the Warlord, which was not featured anywhere in Essentials, and make reference to feats from other books), 3.5E was meant to be a total replacement to 3E.  3.5E made huge changes to existing material and was not compatible with previous materials.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!

No, actually I don't.  Essentials was completely compatible and not meant to subsume 4E.  Look at all of the literature leading up to it from WotC.  Add into the fact that all books after Essentials still were compatible with the pre-Essentials stuff (they list things from pre-Essentials books like the Warlord, which was not featured anywhere in Essentials, and make reference to feats from other books), 3.5E was meant to be a total replacement to 3E.  3.5E made huge changes to existing material and was not compatible with previous materials.



3.5e was compatible with 3rd edition as well. I have played back modules and you may tweak here or there but it can be done. While a change it is really supplement to 3rd edition. It is the reason you can feel at home in 3/3.5/starwars saga/pathfinder, though each has things that are different.

Furthermore, I don't know how things went for you but several of my players playing non-essential classes felt very strongly that they were not compatible with the rest of the group. (Also keep in mind several of the older classes were right out removed in the online character builder and replaced with essentials classes when the offline builder was phased out).

And one thing you haven't taken into account is if a 4-5 year cycle is the norm.  Both 3.5E and 4E adhere to it.  Perhaps that is what Hasbro wants WotC to be doing.  And if it is the established norm, is it really a failure?



3-3.5e weren't replaced until 2008, making that an 8 year run. However, even though 3e is my prefered system, I would argue that 3e was to some degree a failure as well. It alienated a large portion of the player base that existed previously as well, was to complex for many people to appreciate, and didn't have nearly as long a run as 1&2nd editions.

That said 4e was the first time a different tabletop RPG dethrones D&D sales. Add to that slap in the face that other game was based on your previous edition and you have to kind of look hard in the mirror.


3E was replaced with 3.5E in 2003 after coming out in 2000.  As for being dethroned in sales, that has happened many times before in the past.  White Wolf did it in the 90s a few times.




If you want to argue 3.5 was a different edition you have to apply the same thing to essentials for 4e which was hailed as many as 4.5 in everything but name.

Maybe I can stand corrected on the sales thing, but you do have to admit you have this situation happening right now and clearly wizards isn't happy about it. 


No, actually I don't.  Essentials was completely compatible and not meant to subsume 4E.  Look at all of the literature leading up to it from WotC.  Add into the fact that all books after Essentials still were compatible with the pre-Essentials stuff (they list things from pre-Essentials books like the Warlord, which was not featured anywhere in Essentials, and make reference to feats from other books), 3.5E was meant to be a total replacement to 3E.  3.5E made huge changes to existing material and was not compatible with previous materials.

While still compatible, Essentials did have significant overhauls of 4th Edition classes.  It practically transformed Rangers from a Striker class to a Controller class, as a simple example.
I certainly consider it Edition 4.5.  They even went so far as to change the page layout away from the 4th Edition style.
For me, it was a combination of things.  First, no one wanted to play 4e after a couple of years.  It just became a pain in the *** to find a game.  Second, 4e just wasn't as challenging to me.  It was "easy" for lack of a better word.  Yes, its character creation system was pretty complex and the character depth was pretty good.  Unfortunately, the gameplay didn't live up to DnD.

No, actually I don't.  Essentials was completely compatible and not meant to subsume 4E.  Look at all of the literature leading up to it from WotC.  Add into the fact that all books after Essentials still were compatible with the pre-Essentials stuff (they list things from pre-Essentials books like the Warlord, which was not featured anywhere in Essentials, and make reference to feats from other books), 3.5E was meant to be a total replacement to 3E.  3.5E made huge changes to existing material and was not compatible with previous materials.



3.5e was compatable with 3rd edition as well. I have played back modules and you may tweak here or there but it can be done, and is really suppliment to 3rd edition. It is the reason you can feel at home in 3/3.5/starwars saga/pathfinder, though each has things that are different.

Furthermore, I don't know how things went for you but several of my players playing non-essential classes felt very strongly that they were imcomplatable with the rest of the group.




Difference: No tweaking was needed to play Essentials material alongside pre-Essentials material (if you use the errata).  Your group probably should have looked at the Slayer and the Warlord, because that is one of the most devestating party combos in the game.

On to the thread topic, I moved away from 4E to Savage Worlds, not Pathfinder.  My friends and I had played 3.5E for five years, we were ready for something different, rather than a reskinned, IP devoid variation of the same.  Savage Worlds allowed us to play several more variations of the game than either 3E or 4E allowed, so we moved on to that.  However, we still kept out 4E games going, we just played them on a different night.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!

Difference: No tweaking was needed to play Essentials material alongside pre-Essentials material (if you use the errata).  Your group probably should have looked at the Slayer and the Warlord, because that is one of the most devestating party combos in the game.

On to the thread topic, I moved away from 4E to Savage Worlds, not Pathfinder.  My friends and I had played 3.5E for five years, we were ready for something different, rather than a reskinned, IP devoid variation of the same.  Savage Worlds allowed us to play several more variations of the game than either 3E or 4E allowed, so we moved on to that.  However, we still kept out 4E games going, we just played them on a different night.



Ya, at this point I am pretty sure you are just going to argue with whatever I say. I can tell you tweaking was nessicary to play with essentials afterwards, and the shift in character design outright made existing classes different and some obsolete. This was my experience, yours might have been different but someone else already more or less agreed that essentials was a fair shift so I am fairly certian I am not alone.

If 3.5 had really been a completely new edition we would be playtesting D&D 6. We aren't. Furthermore, this really is neither the point of the thread or constructive in any way shape or form, so this will be my last reply to you silverblaze. If you need the last word you are welcome to it.

It was simple for me: when the combats were just taking too long.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
And one thing you haven't taken into account is if a 4-5 year cycle is the norm.  Both 3.5E and 4E adhere to it.  Perhaps that is what Hasbro wants WotC to be doing.  And if it is the established norm, is it really a failure?



3-3.5e weren't replaced until 2008, making that an 8 year run. However, even though 3e is my prefered system, I would argue that 3e was to some degree a failure as well. It alienated a large portion of the player base that existed previously as well, was to complex for many people to appreciate, and didn't have nearly as long a run as 1&2nd editions.

That said 4e was the first time a different tabletop RPG dethrones D&D sales. Add to that slap in the face that other game was based on your previous edition and you have to kind of look hard in the mirror.


3E was replaced with 3.5E in 2003 after coming out in 2000.  As for being dethroned in sales, that has happened many times before in the past.  White Wolf did it in the 90s a few times.




If you want to argue 3.5 was a different edition you have to apply the same thing to essentials for 4e which was hailed as many as 4.5 in everything but name.

Maybe I can stand corrected on the sales thing, but you do have to admit you have this situation happening right now and clearly wizards isn't happy about it.

P.S. edit: You have to remember that there as only 2 ways for a game system to fail.
1) literally no one likes it, very clearly not the case with 4e.
2) You are viewing it from a sales perspective and the reward you are reaping isn't worth the investment you are making.

1 clearly doesn't apply, it seems 2 does.



I have to chime in here and say that WotC according to their own surveys views 3.0 and 3.5 as the same thing and 4E and Essentials as separate things. So by their own admission its categorized like that. So 5 years is the norm...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
And one thing you haven't taken into account is if a 4-5 year cycle is the norm.  Both 3.5E and 4E adhere to it.  Perhaps that is what Hasbro wants WotC to be doing.  And if it is the established norm, is it really a failure?



3-3.5e weren't replaced until 2008, making that an 8 year run. However, even though 3e is my prefered system, I would argue that 3e was to some degree a failure as well. It alienated a large portion of the player base that existed previously as well, was to complex for many people to appreciate, and didn't have nearly as long a run as 1&2nd editions.

That said 4e was the first time a different tabletop RPG dethrones D&D sales. Add to that slap in the face that other game was based on your previous edition and you have to kind of look hard in the mirror.


3E was replaced with 3.5E in 2003 after coming out in 2000.  As for being dethroned in sales, that has happened many times before in the past.  White Wolf did it in the 90s a few times.




If you want to argue 3.5 was a different edition you have to apply the same thing to essentials for 4e which was hailed as many as 4.5 in everything but name.

Maybe I can stand corrected on the sales thing, but you do have to admit you have this situation happening right now and clearly wizards isn't happy about it.

P.S. edit: You have to remember that there as only 2 ways for a game system to fail.
1) literally no one likes it, very clearly not the case with 4e.
2) You are viewing it from a sales perspective and the reward you are reaping isn't worth the investment you are making.

1 clearly doesn't apply, it seems 2 does.



You look new, so I'll assume you don't know. 4E failed because they didn't reach unreasonable sales goals set by Hasbro. 5E is their last attempt before D&D gets shelved. Here is source 1, and Here is source 2 written by a 4E developer that explains the whole thing.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

Can we just give up on bashing the question please? It's actually a pretty good topic and if people are butthurt by the fact that a large group of people didn't like 4e enough to keep playing it then I'm sorry to hear that but the reasons why are important. We need this venue for discussion. Please don't derail it.


I didn't adopt 4e because there was no SRD and we didn't like the idea of paying a subscription. It was too expensive and it didn't allow us to share our material as easily as with books. The suggestion that we split the price of a single account for the group was also rejected because it was impractical.


I think another big part of it was that we were happy with what we were playing and didn't really feel the need to change systems. I think the update cycle of D&D is probably way too quick; I'd prefer an 8-10 year development cycle rather than 3-4 but I guess they need to release more shiny things. The 3.5 revision actually breathed a lot of life into the system for us as well. I liked that move.


So yeah by the time 3e was starting to get stale, 5e's playtest was announced. We grabbed some 4e material and decided not to play it after a couple of sessions for one reason more than anything: tactical combat. We've never used it before, we didn't want to start. Trying to limp through combat with rules that just plain sucked without a mat wasn't worth the effort so it's a mix of playtesting and 3e for us.

For me, it was a combination of things.  First, no one wanted to play 4e after a couple of years.  It just became a pain in the *** to find a game.  Second, 4e just wasn't as challenging to me.  It was "easy" for lack of a better word.  Yes, its character creation system was pretty complex and the character depth was pretty good.  Unfortunately, the gameplay didn't live up to DnD.



Yeah, I know what you mean. I miss bringing stacks of characters to my game just in case I caught that lucky hit or that save or die effect. If you have time to get to know your character, then there's no point in playing, am I right?Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Well for me 4th edition didn't turn me away or having me reaching for other games, I played it and I liked it for what it did, but I found a couple of things that resulted in my group initially playing it less and ultimatly not playing it at all.  Not to say that we wouldn't or won't in the future, but in as a whole we currently do not play it and if I where to list the reasons why it would go something like this.

1.  We didn't like using miniatures.  My group is leaning heavily towards more cinematic campaigns.  4th edition makes it difficult to play without miniatures.  


2. Our GM's like to create a broader range of fantasy genre games that go beyond the staples of midevil fantasy.  4th edition (and D&D as a whole) tends to favor a certain type of fantasy that we have become burned out on to be honest.  Im sure it will come full circle one day but right now we are doing a lot of gunpowder age stuff... fantasy/sci-fish type stuff, horror stuff... even a western in the works for a big event next month (www.war-doa.com/thewest for anyone interested).  4th edition like all versions of D&D don't cover things very well beyond its staple fantasy worlds (though I think Ebberon and Dark Sun kind of prove that wrong to a degree, though again, we have played in these worlds before and GM's tend to go even further out than these right now).       

3. Its a general consensus that we did not like the AEDU system and healing surges.  The overly abstract systems didn't really catch on as both our players and GM's are looking for a more down to earth experiance. 

My Blog (The Gamers Think Tank)

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"


No, actually I don't.  Essentials was completely compatible and not meant to subsume 4E.  Look at all of the literature leading up to it from WotC.  Add into the fact that all books after Essentials still were compatible with the pre-Essentials stuff (they list things from pre-Essentials books like the Warlord, which was not featured anywhere in Essentials, and make reference to feats from other books), 3.5E was meant to be a total replacement to 3E.  3.5E made huge changes to existing material and was not compatible with previous materials.



3.5e was compatible with 3rd edition as well. I have played back modules and you may tweak here or there but it can be done. While a change it is really supplement to 3rd edition. It is the reason you can feel at home in 3/3.5/starwars saga/pathfinder, though each has things that are different.




No it wasn't.

3.5 was so incompatible that I had to trash my setting and storyline halfway through, as did all the DMs I was playing with at the time.

While in 4th I've currently got O4thEd and Essentials classes playing side by side through the same adventures in the same engine with the same monsters with no problems whatsoever.

So in my experience this is absolutely false.

So false that I wonder if you aren't just lying, though for the sake of fairness I'll suspend my disbelief and assume that you are just mistaken. 
Hmm I will have to disagree there.  3rd edition 3.5, Pathfinder... with minor adaptations it was all very compatible.  I used Scarred Lands using 3rd edition, than 3.5 and ultimatly later down the line using Pathfinder.  Same setting, different versions of the same system, no problems at all.  Naturally it all needed some adjustments here and there, but for example monsters I was able to use out of the Creature Collection books without any changes and they worked just fine.  It required some know how and understanding of the rule system, how things affected each other.  You certainly couldnt take the CR at face value.  But worked just fine, in fact I just wrapped up a Pathfinder campaign called Shadow Wars using Scarred Lands setting that ran for 6 months... no issues.

My Blog (The Gamers Think Tank)

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

 The big ones.

1. Dragon and Dungeon going online.
2. Destruction of FR
3. To many changes to fast. Did not feel like D&D.
4. To many missing classes and races on release. Felt incomplete with just the core books.
5. Players didn't like it that much.
6. We were happy with 3.5. Another 2 years and we probably would have been ready to move on.
7. Minatures/grids more or less mandatory.
8. Combat took to long.
9. Some races and classes felt stupid (Eladrin, Warlock in PHB, wheres my Bard/Druid?)
10. Boring to read. PHB was a techical manual.

 4th ed was mechanically superior to 3.5. Just everything else was borked. Right now we a paying Pathfinder but playing PF to level 10 and then switching to 4th ed for levels 11-20 has been discussed with the group. Right now its competing with 2nd ed though and IDK what way its gonna go. I think I will run a 2nd ed game for the players and let them choose.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The groups that I played 3.5 with split after 4E came out. 6 of the players, including myself, are playing 4E only these days. I have played 3rd edition since it came out in 2 campaigns to level 15 and one campaign to level 20 and we had enough. High level combat took very long, but was static. Spellcasters were very powerful compared to the fighters and rogues, I had enough of what I felt was a considerable power creep with every new book and did not want to experience the 15 minute day anymore. My wife, who only thinks about RPG when she is actually sitting at the table and does not spend time on it elsewhere felt that at a certain point system mastery was required of her and that was a turn off for her. DMing for me at high levels turned into work, too. I am sure you have all heard and read about those critizisms of 3e and they were all true for us. You may not have experienced this in your games, and you should feel lucky (or smarter and more experienced if that makes you feel better) because of it.
Also, the printed magazines were expensive over here in Germany with a total of 15 euros per month. Plus, I also bought books on a regular basis. I pay 5.50 euros per month now for DDI and the last book I bought was the Rules Compendium. And I just realized that I have to renew my subscription.

The other 6 players are playing 3.5/Pathfinder now after going through MERP and Warhammer 2nd edition first. They like to roll hp and attributes, like the feeling of achieving system mastery and the way they can choose many different classes and prestige classes to get mechanically what they want for their character in 3rd. They also like Paizo's APs very much, which is well done traditional fantasy. 3rd/PF just works for them and that is ok. I wish they would have tried out 4E, before judging the system, though.

My personal feeling is that a split around 2007/8 was inevitable. Even without 4E, the 6 of us that play 4E today would have stopped playing 3e anyways because of the things I mentioned. So in a way, WotC kept us as customers and Paizo failed to win us over. 4E is a completely different game, though. I understand completely how many regular DnD people can be turned off by this edition. In a way, I think that 4E was more innovative than the conservative DnD crowd likes the game to be. But that is just my opinion, play whatever you like.

Regarding the time between different editions: 3.5 came out 3 years after 3.0 and you cannot play characters of both editions together in one group. You can, however, play regular 4E with Essential characters. So I would say that the life time of a modern edition really is about 4-5 years.

I hope that WotC keeps offering the 4E CB, the Compendium and the Adventure Tools. I do not need new content, I just need the functionalities and I am willing to pay as much as I am paying now (5.50 euros/month). That is not too much for a hobby that you spend 4 hours every week on. I pay much more for my gym.
At this point, with the content as presented in any of the playtest packets, I highly doubt I will play DDN.
No it wasn't.

3.5 was so incompatible that I had to trash my setting and storyline halfway through, as did all the DMs I was playing with at the time.

While in 4th I've currently got O4thEd and Essentials classes playing side by side through the same adventures in the same engine with the same monsters with no problems whatsoever.

So in my experience this is absolutely false.

So false that I wonder if you aren't just lying, though for the sake of fairness I'll suspend my disbelief and assume that you are just mistaken. 



Yeah, not really sure where you're coming from there. when 3.5 hit my campaign world carried on uninterrupted. We didn't even bother to change our characters over; we just phased in the new rules as we rolled new characters for things.

 The big ones.

1. Dragon and Dungeon going online.
2. Destruction of FR
3. To many changes to fast. Did not feel like D&D.
4. To many missing classes and races on release. Felt incomplete with just the core books.
5. Players didn't like it that much.
6. We were happy with 3.5. Another 2 years and we probably would have been ready to move on.
7. Minatures/grids more or less mandatory.
8. Combat took to long.
9. Some races and classes felt stupid (Eladrin, Warlock in PHB, wheres my Bard/Druid?)
10. Boring to read. PHB was a techical manual.



I think #6 is a pretty big reason for a lot of folks. I remember when I went digging about 4e I suddenly uncovered this whole backlash that I was never involved in and reading that people were generally pretty happy with 3e at the time 4e came out. Of course people were eager to see some of 3e's problems addressed, but I think mostly we were expecting to see more of the same, just with revisions and a spring clean.

What were the things about 4th that kept you from playing it and is D&D Next following in 4th edition's footsteps?

I'll start by saying: Please don't try to refute or argue with my statements below. It was asked what kept us from playing it, not what you (a general "you") think we "should have done" to mitigate it.

1. Addition of "roles" (like Defender, Striker, etc.). We felt it was, either consciously or unconsciously, dictating character development. We don't create characters based on their role in combat, but by their background and in-game choices they make. Also, it made 4e feel very combat-oriented, with some skills added as a slight nod to roleplaying. With everything labelled as at-will, daily, etc., there didn't seem to be any non-combat support. 5e seems to give plenty of support for non-combat, so it seems that the answer to "is 5e following in 4e's footsteps?" would be No.

2. Lack of initial depth. We dived right in as soon as the first three books were published. We didn't realise that there was so much more coming later -- we felt cheated, that we hadn't gotten the whole game as we thought we were going to. In previous editions, especially 1st and 2nd, the PHB was all the player needed. No PHB 2 or 3 to add all the classes and races that we really wanted. Once we saw all the rest of the material being advertised, we threw up our hands, acknowledging that we'd never have the funds to be able to buy the whole game, and we were stuck with 1/3 that, while playable, was certainly not satisfactory. How WotC handles this for 5e is still up in the air since we haven't seen a schedule of titles and publication dates.

3. Errata. Our combined opinion is that 4e was severely under-playtested if it needed that flurry of errata. 5e is demonstrably playtesting, so there's some optimism there.

4. Power cards or some other cheat sheet. We play a heavily houseruled 2nd Ed. All our relevant facts can be on one sheet of paper except for spells, and the spellcasters have different ways of managing their spells. With so many ways to describe what a power could do, it was nearly required to have a card or cheat sheet to keep up with all the variations, not to mention keywords and how damage was calculated, even for the simplest character build. 5e, so far, can put all the information on our character sheet, single sheet.

5. New and altered races. Adding the Tiefling and Dragonborn, while interesting, was a bit of a surprise, and changing "Elf" to "Eladrin" was unwelcome. The Eladrin just didn't fit our worldview on elven-type races. 5e has gone back to "Elf," so that's good.

6. Changes to Forgotten Realms. This was particularly unwelcome. One of our campaigns, and one of the longest-running, is FR (it's 1372 at the moment), and such a massive change would have completely thrown our campaign out the window. We couldn't run in the 4e version, and we couldn't play 4e in our current campaign world, so there was no hope there. Whether 5e "fixes" FR to fit our campaign or not remains to be seen, but available evidence indicates we probably could play 5e in our current campaign world at least.

7. Character Builder online only. Not all my group uses the internet to create characters, and having to do so was a HUGE put-off. 4e was complex enough that we did not feel comfortable not using the computer, so I ended up making all the characters for them per their specifications. But this put a large burden on me every time we levelled. At this point I don't remember if the CB was DDI only, but if it was, that, too added into the equation. The jury is still out on how WotC will manage DDI, the Character Builder, and other online content. But the Excel character sheet I'm making is still much easier than the one I tried to make for 4e. Optimism here.

8. Multiclassing. Neither the feat-based multiclassing nor the hybrids would allow us to make characters with the range of abilities we needed. Yes, we tried rebuilding our current PCs with 4e rules, and we just couldn't do it. We'll have to see how 5e handles multiclassing, but it will be an absolutely required element for us.

9. Length of combat. No explanation here needed -- it's been posted about enough. 5e appears to have solved this.

And I'll repeat -- please do not attempt to refute or argue. This is an answer to a question, as requested.

Addendum: Our group is quick to come to a conclusion. However, we gave 4e seven months of weekly play, so that's hardly an offhand assessment. At the end of the first 5e playtest session, one of the most stubborn said, "Hey, I'd play this!" That's the best vote for 5e I can think of. So my group is enthusiastically and fully involved in the playtest.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

I was a huge supporter of 4E and played it exhaustively for the first year and a half or so, then the things that were initially just a little annoying began becoming more and more aggravating. I was DMing three different 4E games every week for quite some time. That eventually trickled off due to players losing interest and other editions rising back up. I still DM 1 4E game weekly, but now I also DM a 2E game and a New World of Darkness (Hunter) game. Some of the things that eventually turned me off to 4E:

1- Length of combat
2- Skill Challenges
3- Reliance on maps/minis
4- Sameness of too many class powers
5- Feats as patches to bad rules
6- Reliance on magic items      
You look new, so I'll assume you don't know. 4E failed because they didn't reach unreasonable sales goals set by Hasbro. 5E is their last attempt before D&D gets shelved. Here is source 1, and Here is source 2 written by a 4E developer that explains the whole thing.



I am not new but I have heard such things before and it is the platform on which I made the above statements  That said even though it isn't my favorite I personally really still don't consider 4e a failure because I played it and had fun and that is what I wanted from a game. Which consequently is the same way I felt about 3rd edition and why I was annoyed to see such fast turnover.

I don't really consider either failures from my point of view, but from the sales point of view I can see why an organisation owning them might. Simply put though I hope you are wrong about the 5 year turn over being a constant and rather that it is a reactionary trend because if it is not they are just squeezing the last bit of the cash cow dry, which would be unfortunate.
You look new, so I'll assume you don't know. 4E failed because they didn't reach unreasonable sales goals set by Hasbro. 5E is their last attempt before D&D gets shelved. Here is source 1, and Here is source 2 written by a 4E developer that explains the whole thing.



I am not new but I have heard such things before and it is the platform on which I made the above statements  That said even though it isn't my favorite I personally really still don't consider 4e a failure because I played it and had fun and that is what I wanted from a game. Which consequently is the same way I felt about 3rd edition and why I was annoyed to see such fast turnover.

I don't really consider either failures from my point of view, but from the sales point of view I can see why an organisation owning them might. Simply put though I hope you are wrong about the 5 year turn over being a constant and rather that it is a reactionary trend because if it is not they are just squeezing the last bit of the cash cow dry, which would be unfortunate.



Unless they can get a steady stream of income that is equal to the initial buy in for the core books, I'm sorry to say 5 years is probably going to become normal...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

hmm I never answered the second part of the OP's question.


The basic answer is "no" but the jury is out. The barriers for us were the lack of an OGL and DDI, so their strategy for distributing the product will have a lot to do with whether my group will adopt 5e as our main framework.


System wise, the move away from battle mats is a huge plus and the speed of combat is excellent so we're pretty positive.