in what way is Next improvment over your current favorite edition of the game ?

in what way is Next improvment over your current favorite edition of the game ?

 
Dual-wielding can't be done with two non-light weapons.  Finally. Cry

After they made the spiked shield, who'd WANT to use a non-light off hand weapon? Tongue Out

My favorite edition is 4e

Right now, the thing I like most about DnDN is the return to focusing on Core-4 Classes and Races with the ability to use Backgrounds, Specialties, and Build options to build a concept out of any of these Core classes. The current playtest fighter also looks pretty good. Finally, I like the goals of 5e, whether they have been realized or not, and the methodology in attaining those goals. 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
in what way is Next improvment over your current favorite edition of the game ? 

I have played three versions of D&D:

D&D

AD&D

and this newfangled thing called 4e.


It's hard to see Next as an improvement over any of them at the moment.  

D&D was a very, very different game from what Next is or is trying to be.  It was still part Chainmail, which I loved, and could be used for all sorts of things beyond a handful of people killing a handful of monsters.  Next isn't nearly complete yet, and I doubt D&D was ever really complete in the same sense.  The idea of what a game represented was very different back then, too.  Next tries to have rules for everything up front, and to let you improvise whatever gaps it leaves.  The wargame philophy of rules is very different with fewer rules up-front and more specific to the scenario.  D&D was still a wargame, and Next is not a better wargame than D&D, because it's really not a wargame, at all.

AD&D had a tremendous amount of detail with lots of very wierd fiddly little rules, which got very frustrating at times.  Next doesn't suffer from that, yet.  While I liked getting away from the attack and saving throw matrixes of AD&D, and liked the idea of rolling d20 for everything, Next's "bounded accurracy" is hard to see as an improvement.  Backgrounds and Specialties seem like a nice addition to the game, compared to AD&D, which, at most, gave you a random "secondary skill."  The Next version of spellcasting is also just slightly less nonsensical than AD&D memorization.

4e was a very modern game, and seemed, to me, completely different from D&D, since I'd missed intervening decades of change.  But, it was a very good game.  Next is not better than 4e at anything.  But, it is not trying to be better than 4e, and if it did, it would probably fail in its goals.  Sometimes, products need to go through a retrenchment like this, where features, no matter how "good" they may be, need to be re-designed or abandoned to make the product more marketable.  A wealth of options can make a product too hard to use.  High durrability materials may make it too expensive.  Exacting tollerances or standards may cause too many manufacturing rejects.  Cosmetic changes can make it too unfamiliar.  Migrating to new technologies can make it incompatible with existing installations, and you have to go back and build in backwards compatibility. 

Next is very ambitiously trying to be a D&D for everyone.  It's not trying to be "better" than any one edition of D&D.  If that were possible, there could be a consensus on which prior edition of D&D was the "best" so far.  Instead, it's trying to be good enough to be D&D for all of us, regardless of past individual preferences.









- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


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

in what way is Next improvment over your current favorite edition of the game ?

 



Don't know yet.  I'll let you know in a year or so when the finished product hits the shelf & I can actually compare them.....
The Exploration Rules are sweet, and really the only thing I wish prior editions had.

However, currently they aren't particlarly integrated with the Next system--you could use those same exploration rules with any other edition and get the same benefit. Which is cool for players, but not so good if the designers want to give us a reason to play Next. One thing that would help is if they did a better job of integrating class abilities with exploration. Like ranger scouting can effect random encounter tables, rogues can remain in stealth even when travelling at full speed, etc. IMO, most D&D subsystems work best when they're integrated with the larger system--like if you have mass combat rules, they will be more satisfying if the specific abilities of the PCs matter for those mass combat rules, rather than mass combat just being its own totally separate thing. Integrating exploration with class abilities would not only be more satisfying, but would give me more of a reason to play Next, rather than just stealing Next's exploration rules for use with another system.
in what way is Next improvment over your current favorite edition of the game ? 

I see no improvement in any area that is important to me.

Combats are 'fast,' because they are trivial.  Advantage is an idea, but is being over-used, once you have advantage & disadvantage, all the mechanics relating to them become irrelevant.  Only situational factors that change round-to-round should use the mechanic (and should be able to 'net' one or the other when both are involved, not just throw up their hands and do nothing), class features that grant advantage all combat long, or equipment that inflicts disadvantage to something all the time, are a bad idea.  Bonuses and penalties make more sense for longer-lasting, more intrinsic factors. 

Those are the near misses, apart from that Next is a big step back accross the board.  You could make a case for it not being any worse than 1e.  If you liked any other edition, Next has to be a disapointment in its current form.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

bounded accuracy.

non-essentiality of magic items.

ability checks.

advantage / disadvantage 
To summarize:

The majority opinion on this thread appears to be a resounding "nothing."  This appears from fans of many editions.
A close runner up is "one or two minor things, most of them badly implemented even if they were good ideas.  Maybe I'll steal those ideas and  plug them into my favorite edition, it's a lot easier to do than fixing all the crap that's wrong with Next."
Far behind them, you'll find such gems as: "I don't understand the difference between what the rules say and what they actually do," "at least they didn't kill my sacred, diseased cow," and "it's free, for now."


I've gone through all 90+ posts and there were only 15 that stated there was "nothing" that was an improvement; and I didn't bother to check to see if any of those 15 were from the same person. So, obviously, you are mistaken.
I am liking Favored Enemy a la Orzel.



I wonder if anyone doesn't like this. This alone makes the ranger the best version of the ranger I've ever played.


I agree, although I think it would be a huge improvement to add his Favored Terrain ideas as well.

My preferred editions are AD&D.

That said, the things I think are an improvement in D&DNext are:



  • the d20 system over THAC0 and decreasing AC

  • the focus on Ability Checks; with trained Skills as bonuses to those checks

  • disassociating Skills with specific Abilities (although this seems to have returned in the latest packet; why WotC, why?)

  • customization options for magic items (I did these kinds of things on my own; but, I like rolling on tables for a more random feel at times)

  • the Ranger's Favored Enemy (please add Favored Terrain as well)

  • Rituals

  • generalized pantheon options (I have my own campaign specific general/human pantheon that I can assign these options to)


There also some things that I really like; even though they aren't, necessarily, improvements (sometimes they're a return of something that has been missed):


  • Backgrounds (although they reminds a bit of Kits, as they to a part of what Kits did)

  • Specialties (although I don't like how they combined Maneuvers and Skill Tricks into Feats, in the latest packet - they also remind me of Kits)

  • Advantage/Disadvantage

  • Bounded Accuracy (considered with its true intentions)

  • Ability Score bonuses from Class

  • Finesse weapon rules

  • multi-alignment Paladins

  • streamlined Combat

  • defined Exploration rules

  • Casting Time and Spell Components


That's all I can think of, at present...

So then I take it you've never played or read 4E. You should pick it up and have a good read. I'd suggest starting with the class compendium or rules compendium to start maybe branch out into the original players hand books or the Essentials books. Great read...



Nah, we've played it.  I started playing D&D in 1986, and between that time and sometime in 2000, I played D&D, AD&D, and 2nd ed AD&D.  In 2000, and up until 2010-2011, I played 3rd, 3.5, and Pathfinder editions.  Then we moved to 4th, which orininally appealed to my players and I for it's streamlined basic core mechanics such as the revised skills, feats, experience table, ease of encounter creation, etc.  But the class structure and "combat balance" or MMO style focus on class roles over the traditional story book character based roles quite frankly made it the most horrible D&D experience we've ever had.  We favor rogues as rogues, not DPS.  Fighters as the main martial combat class, not just defensive tanks.  Clerics as healers and bane of undead, not a single class version of a multi-classed fighter mage.  And Wizards that actually feel and play like wizards of great books and movies, not just CC (crowd control).  Fourth, for us, was the death of all that.  And one of the reasons we left 3rd was due to it's reliance on the battle grid.  And 4th was even more dependent on it.

We went back to Pathfinder for awhile, but the clunky and excessive rules just reminded us why we tried 4th edition out of desparation in the first place.  When we went back to 2e AD&D, it felt like home.  And it actually made us sick to think of how many games we could have played had we never left.  AD&D 2nd edition is far from perfect, but it flowed much better.  We have since moved to Dungeon Crawl Classics, which for us, solved some of 2nd's shortcomings.




Ah well in that case you must have been playing some kind of higly house ruled game or someone didn't bother to read the rules. I don't know where the misunderstanding was but it was there.

My group and I favor 2e AD&D.  We had hopes for 5th since it was supposed to streamline gameplay so that combat moved much quicker (such as in the pre-WotC versions of D&D).  But the all consuming focus on "combat balance" and MMO / boardgame concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles that WotC have gravitated towards in the recent years doesn't interest me.



There is no "MMO / board game" concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles. First off boardgames don't have roles. IN almost every board game out there all players play by exactly the same rules and subsystems. MMO's have different roles than 4E. They have DD (damage per second), healer, tank, and debuffer. Totally different than 4E roles of Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender. At first glance they might seem similar but there are differences for instance a DD in an MMO is there purely for damage and is there to kill the enemy as fast as possible without getting too much hate. In 4E the Striker role is more of a mobile in and out hit hard and fast and then move away kind of role. Defender isn't there to take all the hits like a Tanker, they are there to distract and prevent allies from being hit whether this is through marking, auras, or whatever. Controller is way different than debuffer in MMO's. They control where enemies move and rearrange the battlefield where a debuffer generally just puts a negative status effect on enemies. Leader is way different than healers in MMO's. They buff allies, make them attack, let them move around, and all kinds of stuff.

All of the traditional story roles that were in previous editions are in both 4E and 5E. Fighters are strong and can do athletic actions better than other classes and can use any weapons and armor (well not heavy armor in 4E, but that fits the fantasy tropes because knights were handled by using a feat or playing a Paladin). Rogues were still sneaky and able to pick pockets, lie with a straight face, and disarm traps. Wizards still casted game changing spells (through rituals and encounter and daily spells). Clerics still healed and called down the wrath of their deities, and wielded weapons. Its all there. If you wanted a spell casting Ranger you simply took either ritual caster feat or multi-classed or hybrided with Druid or Cleric or even Wizard. Paladins had it built in you could choose martial type powers and/or divine type powers. So all the classic tropes were there.

I don't care for an edition where the theif or rogue is looked upon as a DPS instead of a theif or rogue.  Or the cleric is more a fighter/mage rather than a traditional cleric.  Or where the wizard has been reduced to a novelty act, capable only of parlor tricks that clear weak fodder in combat or make non-combat tasks more convenient, rather than actually feeling like a wizard from great books and movies as the earlier editions did.



I don't know what edition you played but in almost all of them the thief is the one that comes out of the shadows and deals massive damage to an enemy all the way back to at least 2E. The Cleric has always been a kind of Fighter/Divine caster and you could always build them in 4E or 5E where they would play exactly like older editions except in addition to healing you can make an attack. As to the Wizard I'm not sure what movies or books you are referring to, but most of them only did a few big spells and other than that they stayed out of the main characters way. In 4E and 5E both they had very powerful spells, in 4E they are rituals and in 5E they are concentration spells. Now maybe you enjoyed the previous edition Wizard, Cleric, and Druid that were overpowered and ended adventures with a single spell, but that's literally the only thing that changed. I mean if you want that just admit to it. Just say you want god casters. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's.

Is 2nd edition perfect?  Not by a long shot.  But if I have to choose an edition of D&D, it's definitely the one for me.

Thankfully, there's Dungeon Crawl Classics, which actually managed to make fighters VERY fun to play while preserving traditional story type roles and feel for all classes.



Never left the game.

They tamed magic without nerfing it into oblivion.  Magic comes at a cost.  It's risky, chancing loss, missfire, and/or corruption with every casting of a spell.  And basically requires a player to make a roll to see if you can even cast the spell, in addition to the traditional save required by most spells if you do manage to cast it.



That sounds pretty nerfed to me. You can see how small a chance you have if you multiply your percent chance of failure for each check (casting check, save, etc...etc...) that you need to make for it to succeed and you'll see that you have a much lower chance than you think. I'd rather have some effect most of the time than a huge effect rarely. I'd also like to not risk death with casting any spell, but if that's your thing both the Wild Sorcerer and the Wild Mage in 4E do exactly what you are talking about.

Wizards PC's in my game using the DCC system tend not to even cast a spell unless it's needed, and in that sense, gives them a Gandalf like feel.



Some players like doing things other than shooting a crossbow.

Magic keeps it's earlier edition potency and feel but is tamed from a balance perspective by different methods than simply nerfing both the wizard spells and class.



What like making players not want to use it because they might die? I wouldn't call that progress. Believe it or not you get about the same number of spells in 4E per day as you do in previous editions. If you expect 4 encounters per day on average you'll end up with around 20+ spells comparable to other editions. The Wizard still had the most powerful spells in the game, some of them were simply moved to daily slots and ritual slots instead of having to choose between feather fall and burning hands you could have them both from different pools so that you never felt like you were wasting a slot on a small chance.

And fighters deal good damage and are capable of so much more thanks to advanced critical tables and dice, and the Mighty Deed of Arms feature.  Is DCC perfect?  No.  The "funnel" is fun from time to time, not for every game.  Personally, I'd like to see more options, sort of like an "Advanced" DCC.  But the system flows.  We've been flying through adventures with it.  It's dangerous and challenging.  And right now, it's what feels best for my groups and I.  Next developers could definitely take some ideas from it and other fluid systems that have a traditional D&D feel but with more modern and balanced mechanics.



advance critical tables and dice were house rules in 2E and optional rules at best. They were also skewed to eventually kill a character 99% of the time due to lobbing your own head off with a double 20 or whatever it was. I and many others don't find that fun...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.
Character creation could only take 5 minutes or more if people kept an open mind.

If a level 1 character represents a guy that barely made out of the fighting academy or an apprentice wizard, it's perfectly acceptable to have only 10 hit points at level 1 and very few options in combat. This shouldn't take more than 5 minutes. This also has a big advantage: you don't have to front load classes and it makes multiclassing a lot easier to implement.

You don't have to start at level 1, you never have and never will. If you start at level 5, you would have far more options to chose, combats would be more interesting and you would have more hit points.

If it's really that big of an issue to not play 20 levels, then just have 25 levels. Oh wait, if you have 25 levels, then some people will say it's not ok to only have 20 levels when they could play 25 levels. Problem can't be solved with these kinds of people living in the world. If only...



And lose out on 25% of the game? I highly doubt they are going more than 20 levels...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, it definitely plays faster than 4e. I also love advantage/disadvantage and the way resistances and vulnerabilities work, a neat way to cut down on the abuse inherent in previous editions with bonuses/penalties/resistances/vulnerabilities all stacking to ludicrous extremes.



This ^ plus a more classic, grittier, more story-friendly feel. 

It's more balanced as both game + story than it's been in a long time.



Problem is you traded one ludicrous stacking problem for another. With (dis)advantage you can stack one source of advantage to cancel out 10 sources of disadvantage. So you can have your blinded, frightened, attacking an invisible target, intoxicated, restrained, and sneak attacking Rogue make a regular attack roll because an ally is engaged with the target. So its more of a swap than an improvement...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.

So then I take it you've never played or read 4E. You should pick it up and have a good read. I'd suggest starting with the class compendium or rules compendium to start maybe branch out into the original players hand books or the Essentials books. Great read...



Nah, we've played it.  I started playing D&D in 1986, and between that time and sometime in 2000, I played D&D, AD&D, and 2nd ed AD&D.  In 2000, and up until 2010-2011, I played 3rd, 3.5, and Pathfinder editions.  Then we moved to 4th, which orininally appealed to my players and I for it's streamlined basic core mechanics such as the revised skills, feats, experience table, ease of encounter creation, etc.  But the class structure and "combat balance" or MMO style focus on class roles over the traditional story book character based roles quite frankly made it the most horrible D&D experience we've ever had.  We favor rogues as rogues, not DPS.  Fighters as the main martial combat class, not just defensive tanks.  Clerics as healers and bane of undead, not a single class version of a multi-classed fighter mage.  And Wizards that actually feel and play like wizards of great books and movies, not just CC (crowd control).  Fourth, for us, was the death of all that.  And one of the reasons we left 3rd was due to it's reliance on the battle grid.  And 4th was even more dependent on it.

We went back to Pathfinder for awhile, but the clunky and excessive rules just reminded us why we tried 4th edition out of desparation in the first place.  When we went back to 2e AD&D, it felt like home.  And it actually made us sick to think of how many games we could have played had we never left.  AD&D 2nd edition is far from perfect, but it flowed much better.  We have since moved to Dungeon Crawl Classics, which for us, solved some of 2nd's shortcomings.




Ah well in that case you must have been playing some kind of higly house ruled game or someone didn't bother to read the rules. I don't know where the misunderstanding was but it was there.




Ha, nowhere did they say anything about house-ruling, not reading the rules, or misunderstanding, quite the opposite...



They described things as not existing in 4E and 5E when they clearly do exist and work that way. So there is a misunderstanding somewhere, whether it was a poorly implemented house rule or not understanding how the rules work, its there. I mean sure if you don't like the same resource structure or the miniatures requirement or you like god casters or whatever just say so, no need to insult an edition or spread falsehoods about it...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.
Problem is you traded one ludicrous stacking problem for another. With (dis)advantage you can stack one source of advantage to cancel out 10 sources of disadvantage. So you can have your blinded, frightened, attacking an invisible target, intoxicated, restrained, and sneak attacking Rogue make a regular attack roll because an ally is engaged with the target. So its more of a swap than an improvement...

SA requires the rogue /not/ have disadvantage to begin with.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Problem is you traded one ludicrous stacking problem for another. With (dis)advantage you can stack one source of advantage to cancel out 10 sources of disadvantage. So you can have your blinded, frightened, attacking an invisible target, intoxicated, restrained, and sneak attacking Rogue make a regular attack roll because an ally is engaged with the target. So its more of a swap than an improvement...

SA requires the rogue /not/ have disadvantage to begin with.



Ok, same argument just drop sneak attack...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.
You know, you can defend 4e until the end of time & type up reams upon reams of this stuff (see below).

But for those of us who didn't like 4e?  That won't change our impression of it.
In our experience it stank of an MMO. 
Personally I thought it also stank even more of both a poorly implemented minitures war-game and a poorly implemented board game.    



So then I take it you've never played or read 4E. You should pick it up and have a good read. I'd suggest starting with the class compendium or rules compendium to start maybe branch out into the original players hand books or the Essentials books. Great read...



Nah, we've played it.  I started playing D&D in 1986, and between that time and sometime in 2000, I played D&D, AD&D, and 2nd ed AD&D.  In 2000, and up until 2010-2011, I played 3rd, 3.5, and Pathfinder editions.  Then we moved to 4th, which orininally appealed to my players and I for it's streamlined basic core mechanics such as the revised skills, feats, experience table, ease of encounter creation, etc.  But the class structure and "combat balance" or MMO style focus on class roles over the traditional story book character based roles quite frankly made it the most horrible D&D experience we've ever had.  We favor rogues as rogues, not DPS.  Fighters as the main martial combat class, not just defensive tanks.  Clerics as healers and bane of undead, not a single class version of a multi-classed fighter mage.  And Wizards that actually feel and play like wizards of great books and movies, not just CC (crowd control).  Fourth, for us, was the death of all that.  And one of the reasons we left 3rd was due to it's reliance on the battle grid.  And 4th was even more dependent on it.

We went back to Pathfinder for awhile, but the clunky and excessive rules just reminded us why we tried 4th edition out of desparation in the first place.  When we went back to 2e AD&D, it felt like home.  And it actually made us sick to think of how many games we could have played had we never left.  AD&D 2nd edition is far from perfect, but it flowed much better.  We have since moved to Dungeon Crawl Classics, which for us, solved some of 2nd's shortcomings.




Ah well in that case you must have been playing some kind of higly house ruled game or someone didn't bother to read the rules. I don't know where the misunderstanding was but it was there.

My group and I favor 2e AD&D.  We had hopes for 5th since it was supposed to streamline gameplay so that combat moved much quicker (such as in the pre-WotC versions of D&D).  But the all consuming focus on "combat balance" and MMO / boardgame concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles that WotC have gravitated towards in the recent years doesn't interest me.



There is no "MMO / board game" concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles. First off boardgames don't have roles. IN almost every board game out there all players play by exactly the same rules and subsystems. MMO's have different roles than 4E. They have DD (damage per second), healer, tank, and debuffer. Totally different than 4E roles of Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender. At first glance they might seem similar but there are differences for instance a DD in an MMO is there purely for damage and is there to kill the enemy as fast as possible without getting too much hate. In 4E the Striker role is more of a mobile in and out hit hard and fast and then move away kind of role. Defender isn't there to take all the hits like a Tanker, they are there to distract and prevent allies from being hit whether this is through marking, auras, or whatever. Controller is way different than debuffer in MMO's. They control where enemies move and rearrange the battlefield where a debuffer generally just puts a negative status effect on enemies. Leader is way different than healers in MMO's. They buff allies, make them attack, let them move around, and all kinds of stuff.

All of the traditional story roles that were in previous editions are in both 4E and 5E. Fighters are strong and can do athletic actions better than other classes and can use any weapons and armor (well not heavy armor in 4E, but that fits the fantasy tropes because knights were handled by using a feat or playing a Paladin). Rogues were still sneaky and able to pick pockets, lie with a straight face, and disarm traps. Wizards still casted game changing spells (through rituals and encounter and daily spells). Clerics still healed and called down the wrath of their deities, and wielded weapons. Its all there. If you wanted a spell casting Ranger you simply took either ritual caster feat or multi-classed or hybrided with Druid or Cleric or even Wizard. Paladins had it built in you could choose martial type powers and/or divine type powers. So all the classic tropes were there.

I don't care for an edition where the theif or rogue is looked upon as a DPS instead of a theif or rogue.  Or the cleric is more a fighter/mage rather than a traditional cleric.  Or where the wizard has been reduced to a novelty act, capable only of parlor tricks that clear weak fodder in combat or make non-combat tasks more convenient, rather than actually feeling like a wizard from great books and movies as the earlier editions did.



I don't know what edition you played but in almost all of them the thief is the one that comes out of the shadows and deals massive damage to an enemy all the way back to at least 2E. The Cleric has always been a kind of Fighter/Divine caster and you could always build them in 4E or 5E where they would play exactly like older editions except in addition to healing you can make an attack. As to the Wizard I'm not sure what movies or books you are referring to, but most of them only did a few big spells and other than that they stayed out of the main characters way. In 4E and 5E both they had very powerful spells, in 4E they are rituals and in 5E they are concentration spells. Now maybe you enjoyed the previous edition Wizard, Cleric, and Druid that were overpowered and ended adventures with a single spell, but that's literally the only thing that changed. I mean if you want that just admit to it. Just say you want god casters. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's.

Is 2nd edition perfect?  Not by a long shot.  But if I have to choose an edition of D&D, it's definitely the one for me.

Thankfully, there's Dungeon Crawl Classics, which actually managed to make fighters VERY fun to play while preserving traditional story type roles and feel for all classes.



Never left the game.

They tamed magic without nerfing it into oblivion.  Magic comes at a cost.  It's risky, chancing loss, missfire, and/or corruption with every casting of a spell.  And basically requires a player to make a roll to see if you can even cast the spell, in addition to the traditional save required by most spells if you do manage to cast it.



That sounds pretty nerfed to me. You can see how small a chance you have if you multiply your percent chance of failure for each check (casting check, save, etc...etc...) that you need to make for it to succeed and you'll see that you have a much lower chance than you think. I'd rather have some effect most of the time than a huge effect rarely. I'd also like to not risk death with casting any spell, but if that's your thing both the Wild Sorcerer and the Wild Mage in 4E do exactly what you are talking about.

Wizards PC's in my game using the DCC system tend not to even cast a spell unless it's needed, and in that sense, gives them a Gandalf like feel.



Some players like doing things other than shooting a crossbow.

Magic keeps it's earlier edition potency and feel but is tamed from a balance perspective by different methods than simply nerfing both the wizard spells and class.



What like making players not want to use it because they might die? I wouldn't call that progress. Believe it or not you get about the same number of spells in 4E per day as you do in previous editions. If you expect 4 encounters per day on average you'll end up with around 20+ spells comparable to other editions. The Wizard still had the most powerful spells in the game, some of them were simply moved to daily slots and ritual slots instead of having to choose between feather fall and burning hands you could have them both from different pools so that you never felt like you were wasting a slot on a small chance.

And fighters deal good damage and are capable of so much more thanks to advanced critical tables and dice, and the Mighty Deed of Arms feature.  Is DCC perfect?  No.  The "funnel" is fun from time to time, not for every game.  Personally, I'd like to see more options, sort of like an "Advanced" DCC.  But the system flows.  We've been flying through adventures with it.  It's dangerous and challenging.  And right now, it's what feels best for my groups and I.  Next developers could definitely take some ideas from it and other fluid systems that have a traditional D&D feel but with more modern and balanced mechanics.



advance critical tables and dice were house rules in 2E and optional rules at best. They were also skewed to eventually kill a character 99% of the time due to lobbing your own head off with a double 20 or whatever it was. I and many others don't find that fun...Smile



There is no "MMO / board game" concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles. First off boardgames don't have roles. IN almost every board game out there all players play by exactly the same rules and subsystems. MMO's have different roles than 4E. They have DD (damage per second), healer, tank, and debuffer. Totally different than 4E roles of Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender. At first glance they might seem similar but there are differences for instance a DD in an MMO is there purely for damage and is there to kill the enemy as fast as possible without getting too much hate. In 4E the Striker role is more of a mobile in and out hit hard and fast and then move away kind of role. Defender isn't there to take all the hits like a Tanker, they are there to distract and prevent allies from being hit whether this is through marking, auras, or whatever. Controller is way different than debuffer in MMO's. They control where enemies move and rearrange the battlefield where a debuffer generally just puts a negative status effect on enemies. Leader is way different than healers in MMO's. They buff allies, make them attack, let them move around, and all kinds of stuff.




This is all very amusing, yet, 4th Ed still plays very much like a board-game, an operational one at that, lots of fun, but sometimes one doesn't want to shift bits of plastic around on a board/grid constantly, ala Chutes & Ladders.



Short of the board games that are literally inspired by D&D, no it does not play anything like a board game. Board games have all the same sub systems for every player. In Monopoly the shoe doesn't get so roll 2d6-1 to see how many space they move, the dog doesn't get to pay half rent, the wheel barrow doesn't get to charge double rent, etc...etc.... You are also not playing against each other. Even the DM who has absolute power is playing to advance the story rather than kill the players. It is also more complex than any standard board game with many things chaning during the course of a combat. Then there are more things than combat in the game which are not resolved on a board.

So, your post was equally amusing, but 4E doesn't play anything like a board game. The closes you can get is to say that 4E combat plays like a simplified war game, at which point I would take that as a compliment to 4E...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.
You know, you can defend 4e until the end of time & type up reams upon reams of this stuff (see below).

But for those of us who didn't like 4e?  That won't change our impression of it.
In our experience it stank of an MMO. 
Personally I thought it also stank even more of both a poorly implemented minitures war-game and a poorly implemented board game.    



So then I take it you've never played or read 4E. You should pick it up and have a good read. I'd suggest starting with the class compendium or rules compendium to start maybe branch out into the original players hand books or the Essentials books. Great read...



Nah, we've played it.  I started playing D&D in 1986, and between that time and sometime in 2000, I played D&D, AD&D, and 2nd ed AD&D.  In 2000, and up until 2010-2011, I played 3rd, 3.5, and Pathfinder editions.  Then we moved to 4th, which orininally appealed to my players and I for it's streamlined basic core mechanics such as the revised skills, feats, experience table, ease of encounter creation, etc.  But the class structure and "combat balance" or MMO style focus on class roles over the traditional story book character based roles quite frankly made it the most horrible D&D experience we've ever had.  We favor rogues as rogues, not DPS.  Fighters as the main martial combat class, not just defensive tanks.  Clerics as healers and bane of undead, not a single class version of a multi-classed fighter mage.  And Wizards that actually feel and play like wizards of great books and movies, not just CC (crowd control).  Fourth, for us, was the death of all that.  And one of the reasons we left 3rd was due to it's reliance on the battle grid.  And 4th was even more dependent on it.

We went back to Pathfinder for awhile, but the clunky and excessive rules just reminded us why we tried 4th edition out of desparation in the first place.  When we went back to 2e AD&D, it felt like home.  And it actually made us sick to think of how many games we could have played had we never left.  AD&D 2nd edition is far from perfect, but it flowed much better.  We have since moved to Dungeon Crawl Classics, which for us, solved some of 2nd's shortcomings.




Ah well in that case you must have been playing some kind of higly house ruled game or someone didn't bother to read the rules. I don't know where the misunderstanding was but it was there.

My group and I favor 2e AD&D.  We had hopes for 5th since it was supposed to streamline gameplay so that combat moved much quicker (such as in the pre-WotC versions of D&D).  But the all consuming focus on "combat balance" and MMO / boardgame concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles that WotC have gravitated towards in the recent years doesn't interest me.



There is no "MMO / board game" concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles. First off boardgames don't have roles. IN almost every board game out there all players play by exactly the same rules and subsystems. MMO's have different roles than 4E. They have DD (damage per second), healer, tank, and debuffer. Totally different than 4E roles of Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender. At first glance they might seem similar but there are differences for instance a DD in an MMO is there purely for damage and is there to kill the enemy as fast as possible without getting too much hate. In 4E the Striker role is more of a mobile in and out hit hard and fast and then move away kind of role. Defender isn't there to take all the hits like a Tanker, they are there to distract and prevent allies from being hit whether this is through marking, auras, or whatever. Controller is way different than debuffer in MMO's. They control where enemies move and rearrange the battlefield where a debuffer generally just puts a negative status effect on enemies. Leader is way different than healers in MMO's. They buff allies, make them attack, let them move around, and all kinds of stuff.

All of the traditional story roles that were in previous editions are in both 4E and 5E. Fighters are strong and can do athletic actions better than other classes and can use any weapons and armor (well not heavy armor in 4E, but that fits the fantasy tropes because knights were handled by using a feat or playing a Paladin). Rogues were still sneaky and able to pick pockets, lie with a straight face, and disarm traps. Wizards still casted game changing spells (through rituals and encounter and daily spells). Clerics still healed and called down the wrath of their deities, and wielded weapons. Its all there. If you wanted a spell casting Ranger you simply took either ritual caster feat or multi-classed or hybrided with Druid or Cleric or even Wizard. Paladins had it built in you could choose martial type powers and/or divine type powers. So all the classic tropes were there.

I don't care for an edition where the theif or rogue is looked upon as a DPS instead of a theif or rogue.  Or the cleric is more a fighter/mage rather than a traditional cleric.  Or where the wizard has been reduced to a novelty act, capable only of parlor tricks that clear weak fodder in combat or make non-combat tasks more convenient, rather than actually feeling like a wizard from great books and movies as the earlier editions did.



I don't know what edition you played but in almost all of them the thief is the one that comes out of the shadows and deals massive damage to an enemy all the way back to at least 2E. The Cleric has always been a kind of Fighter/Divine caster and you could always build them in 4E or 5E where they would play exactly like older editions except in addition to healing you can make an attack. As to the Wizard I'm not sure what movies or books you are referring to, but most of them only did a few big spells and other than that they stayed out of the main characters way. In 4E and 5E both they had very powerful spells, in 4E they are rituals and in 5E they are concentration spells. Now maybe you enjoyed the previous edition Wizard, Cleric, and Druid that were overpowered and ended adventures with a single spell, but that's literally the only thing that changed. I mean if you want that just admit to it. Just say you want god casters. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's.

Is 2nd edition perfect?  Not by a long shot.  But if I have to choose an edition of D&D, it's definitely the one for me.

Thankfully, there's Dungeon Crawl Classics, which actually managed to make fighters VERY fun to play while preserving traditional story type roles and feel for all classes.



Never left the game.

They tamed magic without nerfing it into oblivion.  Magic comes at a cost.  It's risky, chancing loss, missfire, and/or corruption with every casting of a spell.  And basically requires a player to make a roll to see if you can even cast the spell, in addition to the traditional save required by most spells if you do manage to cast it.



That sounds pretty nerfed to me. You can see how small a chance you have if you multiply your percent chance of failure for each check (casting check, save, etc...etc...) that you need to make for it to succeed and you'll see that you have a much lower chance than you think. I'd rather have some effect most of the time than a huge effect rarely. I'd also like to not risk death with casting any spell, but if that's your thing both the Wild Sorcerer and the Wild Mage in 4E do exactly what you are talking about.

Wizards PC's in my game using the DCC system tend not to even cast a spell unless it's needed, and in that sense, gives them a Gandalf like feel.



Some players like doing things other than shooting a crossbow.

Magic keeps it's earlier edition potency and feel but is tamed from a balance perspective by different methods than simply nerfing both the wizard spells and class.



What like making players not want to use it because they might die? I wouldn't call that progress. Believe it or not you get about the same number of spells in 4E per day as you do in previous editions. If you expect 4 encounters per day on average you'll end up with around 20+ spells comparable to other editions. The Wizard still had the most powerful spells in the game, some of them were simply moved to daily slots and ritual slots instead of having to choose between feather fall and burning hands you could have them both from different pools so that you never felt like you were wasting a slot on a small chance.

And fighters deal good damage and are capable of so much more thanks to advanced critical tables and dice, and the Mighty Deed of Arms feature.  Is DCC perfect?  No.  The "funnel" is fun from time to time, not for every game.  Personally, I'd like to see more options, sort of like an "Advanced" DCC.  But the system flows.  We've been flying through adventures with it.  It's dangerous and challenging.  And right now, it's what feels best for my groups and I.  Next developers could definitely take some ideas from it and other fluid systems that have a traditional D&D feel but with more modern and balanced mechanics.



advance critical tables and dice were house rules in 2E and optional rules at best. They were also skewed to eventually kill a character 99% of the time due to lobbing your own head off with a double 20 or whatever it was. I and many others don't find that fun...Smile






You've either never played an MMO or you never played 4E enough to know what you were talking about then if you try to say 4E is like an MMO. Also your post is riddled with edition warring language. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I spouted off about your favorite edition and how it was like bad improv theater and stank of MMOs. That's why you should qualify your statements. "I didn't like the miniature combat." and "I didn't like the resource management." are fine, but using charged language that others find insulting is not...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.
 Just saying Lokiare that you can try and defend it but the reality is we do not like some parts of 4th ed based purely on subjective opinion. To me it felt a lot like the D&D minis skirmish game I played with an RPG stapled onto it. They even had little tick the boxes encounter powers. It felt like the D&DM game, the Book of Nine Swords and the old Shining Force games got drunk and made a game.

 It was actually a good game, but not to my taste and an appaling verison of D&D for me. Doesn't really bother me what you claim about previous editions of D&D, it is your opinion and I'm not going to report you for it (unless things get very personal with the insults).

 When I'm spending 4/5 hours using a grid on 3-4 fights that is where the board game comparison comes in. More time on combat= less time on roleplaying and its an RPG.

 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 Just saying Lokiare that you can try and defend it but the reality is we do not like some parts of 4th ed based purely on subjective opinion. To me it felt a lot like the D&D minis skirmish game I played with an RPG stapled onto it. They even had little tick the boxes encounter powers. It felt like the D&DM game, the Book of Nine Swords and the old Shining Force games got drunk and made a game.

 It was actually a good game, but not to my taste and an appaling verison of D&D for me. Doesn't really bother me what you claim about previous editions of D&D, it is your opinion and I'm not going to report you for it (unless things get very personal with the insults).

 When I'm spending 4/5 hours using a grid on 3-4 fights that is where the board game comparison comes in. More time on combat= less time on roleplaying and its an RPG.

 



That's a little better. I'm not saying you can't express your opinion. I'm saying drop the edition warring langauge. Things like qualifying D&D as 'stinking' of a category of games that have a wide variety of mechanics in a derogitory way should be avoided.

So instead of saying "its like an MMO and a board game" say "I didn't like the resource system" and "Combats took way too long." It expresses the same sentiment without insulting anyone.

As far as role playing goes. I role play every combat out in 4E with no problem. Maybe you mean the plot progression or story telling? 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.
 Just saying Lokiare that you can try and defend it but the reality is we do not like some parts of 4th ed based purely on subjective opinion. To me it felt a lot like the D&D minis skirmish game I played with an RPG stapled onto it. They even had little tick the boxes encounter powers. It felt like the D&DM game, the Book of Nine Swords and the old Shining Force games got drunk and made a game.

 It was actually a good game, but not to my taste and an appaling verison of D&D for me. Doesn't really bother me what you claim about previous editions of D&D, it is your opinion and I'm not going to report you for it (unless things get very personal with the insults).

 When I'm spending 4/5 hours using a grid on 3-4 fights that is where the board game comparison comes in. More time on combat= less time on roleplaying and its an RPG.

 



That's a little better. I'm not saying you can't express your opinion. I'm saying drop the edition warring langauge. Things like qualifying D&D as 'stinking' of a category of games that have a wide variety of mechanics in a derogitory way should be avoided.

So instead of saying "its like an MMO and a board game" say "I didn't like the resource system" and "Combats took way too long." It expresses the same sentiment without insulting anyone.

As far as role playing goes. I role play every combat out in 4E with no problem. Maybe you mean the plot progression or story telling?



I'll stop saying those things when others stop saying 4th was 'an evolution' or 'solved problems' or that the D&D line 'kept improving'...because those things are equally insulting to us. But eventually that will just lead us to not being able to say anything. Bottom line, some liked it more than earlier, others liked earlier more than it, and neither is right or wrong in any way, except for themselves.



Most of those are false dichotomies. 4E was an evolution, maybe a dead end evolution for some, but an evolution none the less. It also solved problems, some people didn't like how it solved problems, but it did. For some the D&D line did keep improving, for others it didn't. The part you should find insulting is if someone states it not as their opinion and for themselves, but when they state it as a fact that applies to everyone.

Also if I say something that offends someone please paraphrase what I said without losing any meaning in a less offensive way. I'll edit my post and apologize if it is actually bad...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.
There is no "MMO / board game" concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles. First off boardgames don't have roles. IN almost every board game out there all players play by exactly the same rules and subsystems. MMO's have different roles than 4E. They have DD (damage per second), healer, tank, and debuffer. Totally different than 4E roles of Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender. At first glance they might seem similar but there are differences for instance a DD in an MMO is there purely for damage and is there to kill the enemy as fast as possible without getting too much hate. In 4E the Striker role is more of a mobile in and out hit hard and fast and then move away kind of role. Defender isn't there to take all the hits like a Tanker, they are there to distract and prevent allies from being hit whether this is through marking, auras, or whatever. Controller is way different than debuffer in MMO's. They control where enemies move and rearrange the battlefield where a debuffer generally just puts a negative status effect on enemies. Leader is way different than healers in MMO's. They buff allies, make them attack, let them move around, and all kinds of stuff.




This is all very amusing, yet, 4th Ed still plays very much like a board-game, an operational one at that, lots of fun, but sometimes one doesn't want to shift bits of plastic around on a board/grid constantly, ala Chutes & Ladders.



Please explain how it plays like any kind of board game.

I guarantee, with literally no doubt whatsoever, that this "board game" quality is 100% on you and your group, not the game.



So, your post was equally amusing, but 4E doesn't play anything like a board game. The closes you can get is to say that 4E combat plays like a simplified war game, at which point I would take that as a compliment to 4E...



Even then, I really dislike wargames. I mean...a lot. Every one I've tried to play was worse than boring.

And 4e is one of the most fun games I've played. It's completely different. All the things they've talked about adding to Next to satisfy 4e fans in terms of tactical play are precisely those things which 4e doesn't' take from wargames, and make me want to never go anywhere near a supplement with those rules in it.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I'm joining the thread late, but here's some of things I like about DnDN:

* Bounded Accuracy. IMO this is by far the greatest innovation in this edition, or any other in a very long time.

* Backgrounds.

* The emphasis on ability scores, with skills as an optional bonus.

* Advantage/Disadvantage.

* The overall simplicity and streamlining of the rules.

* The magic items.

* Ability score bonuses from class.

* The way Resistance and Vulnerability work, which is so much beter than DR.

* Deadly Strike instead of iterative/multiple attacks.

* Monsters with more 4e-like stats. Even high level monsters are simple and straight-forward, not loaded down with paragraph after paragraph of immunities and spell-like abilities.
 
Magic:
* At-will cantrips that are as effective as basic weapon attacks.

* Ritual spells.

* The concentration mechanic, which is a brilliant way to prevent characters from stacking a bunch of buffs or persistent effects.

* Spells can be "augmented" by using higher level spell slots.

* High level casters have a sane number of spells per day, and low level casters have more than 1 spell per day. Casters aren't pitifully weak at low levels and god-like at high levels.

* Being able to prepare spells and cast them in any combination, up to your daily limit.

* There is no "caster level." A spell does X no matter what level the person is that casts it. This solves alot of problems that plagued earlier editions.

* Save DCs that don't include spell level, so spells don't become obsolete.
[I'll stop saying those things when others stop saying 4th was 'an evolution' or 'solved problems' or that the D&D line 'kept improving'...because those things are equally insulting to us.

D&D had balance problems from the beginning.  Most editions tried to address those problems with varying degrees of success.  Even h4ters would agree that 4e went farther in correcting balance problems than any other edition.  It hardly seems unfair or insulting to recognize that, and to try to get 5e to also tackle D&D's intractible problems in the most effective, most inclusive ways possible so as to achieve its stated goals.


Constrastingy, 4e is an RPG, not a boardgame or an MMO, and saying that is, or even is like one, is both factually incorrect, and edition warring.


5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Purely TotM players typically do not being "confined" to a map and minis, whether those confines are imagined or not. They want the freedom of description-only play, with perhaps the occasional quick sketch map on a piece of paper or something. The see 4E as being like a boardgame for the following reasons:

1) These's a board (battlemat, dungeon-tiles, etc.)
2) There's pieces to move around.
3) There's cards (power cards, etc.)
4) You roll dice, move around a plastic mini, use a card...all sounds very much like a board game.

Getting them to see that 4E is as much an RPG as 2E is going to be very difficult. There is a divide. Purely TotM players and purely map-n-mini players rarely (and I mean rarely) see eye to eye over an RPG. As soon as the map and minis come out, a certain portion of the players will grimace. When it's explained that those maps and minis will be the default way to play a particular game, many of those same folks will walk away. They simply don't like the process involved in a map-n-mini-heavy game, and prefer TotM freeform-style.

This is one of the major reasons I had so much trouble getting some of my longest-playing players interested in 4E. They didn't like the reliance on maps and minis. They didn't like the same-y-ness of the power structure. They didn't like the "move mini, roll dice, use card" feel. They felt...using the above stated reasons...that 4E felt too much like a boardgame for their tastes. Their personal preferences went another direction and, for the most part, mine do as well. I can get over them long enough to play and enjoy 4E from time to time, but it gets tedious for me quite quickly. They seem interested enough in DDN at the moment, but overall we have several other games we're playing while Next grows and changes. If the end result is free from the default assumption of maps and minis, they'll probably want to play it. If it isn't...well...we still have those several other games that we've been playing.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
[I'll stop saying those things when others stop saying 4th was 'an evolution' or 'solved problems' or that the D&D line 'kept improving'...because those things are equally insulting to us.

D&D had balance problems from the beginning.  Most editions tried to address those problems with varying degrees of success.  Even h4ters would agree that 4e went farther in correcting balance problems than any other edition.  It hardly seems unfair or insulting to recognize that, and to try to get 5e to also tackle D&D's intractible problems in the most effective, most inclusive ways possible so as to achieve its stated goals.


Constrastingy, 4e is an RPG, not a boardgame or an MMO, and saying that is, or even is like one, is both factually incorrect, and edition warring.





And some feel that 4E swung the needle too far to the "balance" end. Also, some of the problems that 4E supposedly fixed weren't problems to some folks.

But you'll have that in pretty much any edition change for any RPG ever, depending upon how much (and what) is actually changed.

I don't care for 4E as an RPG, but I have no problem playing the Ravenloft board game (which uses many elements from 4E). So maybe I'm "wrong," but the way the game is structured lends itself more towards a boardgame in feel for me. *shrugs*

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

There is no "MMO / board game" concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles. First off boardgames don't have roles. IN almost every board game out there all players play by exactly the same rules and subsystems. MMO's have different roles than 4E. They have DD (damage per second), healer, tank, and debuffer. Totally different than 4E roles of Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender. At first glance they might seem similar but there are differences for instance a DD in an MMO is there purely for damage and is there to kill the enemy as fast as possible without getting too much hate. In 4E the Striker role is more of a mobile in and out hit hard and fast and then move away kind of role. Defender isn't there to take all the hits like a Tanker, they are there to distract and prevent allies from being hit whether this is through marking, auras, or whatever. Controller is way different than debuffer in MMO's. They control where enemies move and rearrange the battlefield where a debuffer generally just puts a negative status effect on enemies. Leader is way different than healers in MMO's. They buff allies, make them attack, let them move around, and all kinds of stuff.




This is all very amusing, yet, 4th Ed still plays very much like a board-game, an operational one at that, lots of fun, but sometimes one doesn't want to shift bits of plastic around on a board/grid constantly, ala Chutes & Ladders.



Well 4th edition exactly gave what the players where asking for at that time.
There was a large movement that said roleplay should not be hard coded in rules, it is somthing the DM and players do together and should not be forced by rules role play should be more free.

So 4th edition focused on solid bunch of combat rules, and very little roleplay rules, leaving the roleplay more free just like people asked for.
And then many of the same people turned around saying it felt to much like a bordgame becouse it diden't have roleplay rules.

 
Purely TotM players typically do not being "confined" to a map and minis, whether those confines are imagined or not. They want the freedom of description-only play, with perhaps the occasional quick sketch map on a piece of paper or something. The see 4E as being like a boardgame for the following reasons:

1) These's a board (battlemat, dungeon-tiles, etc.)
2) There's pieces to move around.
3) There's cards (power cards, etc.)
4) You roll dice, move around a plastic mini, use a card...all sounds very much like a board game.

Getting them to see that 4E is as much an RPG as 2E is going to be very difficult. There is a divide. Purely TotM players and purely map-n-mini players rarely (and I mean rarely) see eye to eye over an RPG. As soon as the map and minis come out, a certain portion of the players will grimace. When it's explained that those maps and minis will be the default way to play a particular game, many of those same folks will walk away. They simply don't like the process involved in a map-n-mini-heavy game, and prefer TotM freeform-style.

This is one of the major reasons I had so much trouble getting some of my longest-playing players interested in 4E. They didn't like the reliance on maps and minis. They didn't like the same-y-ness of the power structure. They didn't like the "move mini, roll dice, use card" feel. They felt...using the above stated reasons...that 4E felt too much like a boardgame for their tastes. Their personal preferences went another direction and, for the most part, mine do as well. I can get over them long enough to play and enjoy 4E from time to time, but it gets tedious for me quite quickly. They seem interested enough in DDN at the moment, but overall we have several other games we're playing while Next grows and changes. If the end result is free from the default assumption of maps and minis, they'll probably want to play it. If it isn't...well...we still have those several other games that we've been playing.

When I first started running 4E (literally the week after it came out), I had a party of 7 players. We didn't use cards (because the CB wasn't up yet), I didn't use a grid or a map, but we did use minis for visual representation. I eyeballed distances and areas.

Game went by fine. It was my first time DMing too, by the way. 
[I'll stop saying those things when others stop saying 4th was 'an evolution' or 'solved problems' or that the D&D line 'kept improving'...because those things are equally insulting to us.

D&D had balance problems from the beginning.  Most editions tried to address those problems with varying degrees of success.  Even h4ters would agree that 4e went farther in correcting balance problems than any other edition.  It hardly seems unfair or insulting to recognize that, and to try to get 5e to also tackle D&D's intractible problems in the most effective, most inclusive ways possible so as to achieve its stated goals.


Constrastingy, 4e is an RPG, not a boardgame or an MMO, and saying that is, or even is like one, is both factually incorrect, and edition warring.

And some feel that 4E swung the needle too far to the "balance" end.

Absolutely - that it lost too much of some ineffable something in working towards balance, or even that said balance was ultimately undesireable in itself.

Also, some of the problems that 4E supposedly fixed weren't problems to some folks.

:shrug: which isn't a problem, really.  It's like one of those recalls where you take your car in for servicing and they fix something that wasn't broken because there's a 1:1,000,000 chance it'll kill you if you do something really weird and unexpected.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

There is no "MMO / board game" concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles. First off boardgames don't have roles. IN almost every board game out there all players play by exactly the same rules and subsystems. MMO's have different roles than 4E. They have DD (damage per second), healer, tank, and debuffer. Totally different than 4E roles of Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender. At first glance they might seem similar but there are differences for instance a DD in an MMO is there purely for damage and is there to kill the enemy as fast as possible without getting too much hate. In 4E the Striker role is more of a mobile in and out hit hard and fast and then move away kind of role. Defender isn't there to take all the hits like a Tanker, they are there to distract and prevent allies from being hit whether this is through marking, auras, or whatever. Controller is way different than debuffer in MMO's. They control where enemies move and rearrange the battlefield where a debuffer generally just puts a negative status effect on enemies. Leader is way different than healers in MMO's. They buff allies, make them attack, let them move around, and all kinds of stuff.




This is all very amusing, yet, 4th Ed still plays very much like a board-game, an operational one at that, lots of fun, but sometimes one doesn't want to shift bits of plastic around on a board/grid constantly, ala Chutes & Ladders.



Please explain how it plays like any kind of board game.

I guarantee, with literally no doubt whatsoever, that this "board game" quality is 100% on you and your group, not the game.




I'm not taking a stance on whether or not it plays like a board game.  But I do recall one poster on the Mass Effect 3 boards spent months insisting that D&D was a board game while trying to defend ME3's shift to a Shooter.  Like it or not,  4th edition's heavy use of minatures did make it look like a board game to the unitiated.
 Like it or not,  4th edition's heavy use of minatures did make it look like a board game to the unitiated.

Meh.  3e made heavy use of miniatures, so did the original game.  

Maybe it was all the poster maps for organized play?  They look a bit like 'boards.'

Even so, that's only an excuse for the entirely un-initiated.  

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Purely TotM players typically do not being "confined" to a map and minis, whether those confines are imagined or not. They want the freedom of description-only play, with perhaps the occasional quick sketch map on a piece of paper or something. The see 4E as being like a boardgame for the following reasons:

1) These's a board (battlemat, dungeon-tiles, etc.)
2) There's pieces to move around.
3) There's cards (power cards, etc.)
4) You roll dice, move around a plastic mini, use a card...all sounds very much like a board game.

Getting them to see that 4E is as much an RPG as 2E is going to be very difficult. There is a divide. Purely TotM players and purely map-n-mini players rarely (and I mean rarely) see eye to eye over an RPG. As soon as the map and minis come out, a certain portion of the players will grimace. When it's explained that those maps and minis will be the default way to play a particular game, many of those same folks will walk away. They simply don't like the process involved in a map-n-mini-heavy game, and prefer TotM freeform-style.

This is one of the major reasons I had so much trouble getting some of my longest-playing players interested in 4E. They didn't like the reliance on maps and minis. They didn't like the same-y-ness of the power structure. They didn't like the "move mini, roll dice, use card" feel. They felt...using the above stated reasons...that 4E felt too much like a boardgame for their tastes. Their personal preferences went another direction and, for the most part, mine do as well. I can get over them long enough to play and enjoy 4E from time to time, but it gets tedious for me quite quickly. They seem interested enough in DDN at the moment, but overall we have several other games we're playing while Next grows and changes. If the end result is free from the default assumption of maps and minis, they'll probably want to play it. If it isn't...well...we still have those several other games that we've been playing.

When I first started running 4E (literally the week after it came out), I had a party of 7 players. We didn't use cards (because the CB wasn't up yet), I didn't use a grid or a map, but we did use minis for visual representation. I eyeballed distances and areas.

Game went by fine. It was my first time DMing too, by the way. 



My group still pretty much plays like this.

the idea that 4e requires those things is false.

 Powers are formatted so that they fit on a card, but only two people I've played with IRL do anything other than have a sheet or three of paper with powers and items printed on them. and we play every from from pure ToTM to full on grid and minis, with no trouble in translation whatsoever.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
There is no "MMO / board game" concept of class role over the traditional story based class roles. First off boardgames don't have roles. IN almost every board game out there all players play by exactly the same rules and subsystems. MMO's have different roles than 4E. They have DD (damage per second), healer, tank, and debuffer. Totally different than 4E roles of Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender. At first glance they might seem similar but there are differences for instance a DD in an MMO is there purely for damage and is there to kill the enemy as fast as possible without getting too much hate. In 4E the Striker role is more of a mobile in and out hit hard and fast and then move away kind of role. Defender isn't there to take all the hits like a Tanker, they are there to distract and prevent allies from being hit whether this is through marking, auras, or whatever. Controller is way different than debuffer in MMO's. They control where enemies move and rearrange the battlefield where a debuffer generally just puts a negative status effect on enemies. Leader is way different than healers in MMO's. They buff allies, make them attack, let them move around, and all kinds of stuff.




This is all very amusing, yet, 4th Ed still plays very much like a board-game, an operational one at that, lots of fun, but sometimes one doesn't want to shift bits of plastic around on a board/grid constantly, ala Chutes & Ladders.



Please explain how it plays like any kind of board game.

I guarantee, with literally no doubt whatsoever, that this "board game" quality is 100% on you and your group, not the game.




I'm not taking a stance on whether or not it plays like a board game.  But I do recall one poster on the Mass Effect 3 boards spent months insisting that D&D was a board game while trying to defend ME3's shift to a Shooter.  Like it or not,  4th edition's heavy use of minatures did make it look like a board game to the unitiated.



Eh, I'm not going to make allowances for the uninitiated when they're deriding something I like about which they're entirely uninitiated.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Back to the OP I found it very easy and quick to make a PC since I also had to catch up on the latest packet. 20 mins maybe with a little bit of system mastery I think I could do it in 10 minutes or so. It is not a drastic improvment over what I'm playing atm (d20 AD&D) but its not to bad.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I agree it is easier to create characters, races appear to be on the right track, and until recently all the mechanics for class development, maneuvers/spells, backgrounds/skills, specialities/feats, where organized in a modular format for future modification. For example maneuvers/spells could be combined into powers in 4E type game. I hope they bring maneuvers back.
The see 4E as being like a boardgame for the following reasons:

1) These's a board (battlemat, dungeon-tiles, etc.)
2) There's pieces to move around.
3) There's cards (power cards, etc.)
4) You roll dice, move around a plastic mini, use a card...all sounds very much like a board game. 


1-2) So 3.5e is also a boardgame? Their combat rules were laid out in terms of fighting on a battlemat every bit as much as 4E (and they even made the effort to cross-promote their actual D&D Minis line in the process).
3) I've never used power cards for 4E... they take up way to much unneeded space. I just made my own character sheets with the powers listed in a much more usable format with roughly 1-2 lines per power. For example, I have a standard action block (along with a triggered, move, minor and free) on my sheet with "Winged Horde (A): Range 10, Burst 1 (enemies), +10 vs. Will; 1d6+3 psychic and cannot make OA's (ENT)."

By the same token there are entire RPG's out there that make regular use of cards (ex. Dragonstorm, which has a quite devoted following in my area) as part of their core system.

Cards are just a way to organize data (I know many a DM going all the way back to my Red Box days who used 3x5 cards to organize information for their games). Saying any game that uses cards can't be an RPG is just showing off one's ignorance.

Heck, by your definition the original AD&D Dragonlance modules weren't roleplaying games because they put all of the pre-gen PC data onto cards about the size of the 4E power cards and the core rules of AD&D at the time said to use miniatures and maps for positioning. They even gave the PC's movements in inches per turn on the battlemats.

In short, saying 4E is boardgamey for using tactical positioning and cards just makes you look ignorant of the RPG industry as a whole and even D&D's own history.