The Knight Problem (How the "Essentials" foreshadowed the failures of Next)

448 posts / 0 new
Last post
I've played every iteration of Next so far, mostly as the DM because such is my lot.  We've had every class but one represented.  We've tried dungeon crawls and sandboxes.  We even had a murder mystery.  We've played the presented adventures.  We've (clearly) also developed our own.

After a lot of time spent, our general consensus is two-fold.  First, Next is poorly designed (and not improving).  Second, Wizards is either ignoring people like us or completely misunderstands our critiques.

I remember when the first playtest survey went live, we all submitted our...  Well, they were less than positive reviews concerning everything from specific game mechanics to the vastly divergent quality of different class experiences.  Then Wiz pulished an editorial about the favorable responses the playtest packet had received, both specifically and generally.  We scratched our heads but figured that maybe we were in the minority.  Then we broadened our horizons and discovered that most people that we talked to had the same sort of criticisms we did.

Time has taught us that Next development ignores any critique that seems to paint fourth edition favorably.  The design philosophy espoused by Mearls already indicates the counter-intuitive assumption that no edition tried to improve on the previous; they all were merely different with no progress either made or attempted.  It probably shouldn't have surprised us that the designers seemed to assume, contrary to all the evidence, that fourth edition hadn't in fact tried to fix problems with earlier implementations.  Therefore, they felt justified in ignoring as unecessary any suggestion that fourth edition might actually have fixed certain things.  

In retrospect, this had happened before.  Fourth edition actually died with the Knight.  In the Essentials books, the game designers did their best to recreate the sloppy unbalanced mess of late 3.5, while paying lip service to fourth edition design.  They produced a class that is not only boring to play, but almost entirely useless.  (Ironically, in this way they beautifully mimicked the problem of the Fighter in the edition they were emulating, but they didn't recognize it as a problem.)  They then proceeded to ignore every rulebook published before Essentials, and only released thin, sporadic material that didn't necessarily play well with Essentials, but played worse with the rest of the 4th edition.  

While editorials waxed eloquent about trying to create classes free from the supposed contraints of 4e's power structure, the game designers produced "subclasses" that had neither inherent freedom nor the ability to be combined with anything else.  ("No, you can't multiclass or use most of the feats, but you do get to choose between one of two options at level 7.")  They created very short, very narrow, frequently broken rails, and they hailed them as an exciting triumph.

 
So, you loved fourth, and you're mad DDN isn't 4.5.

And you're windring why your oh-so-nicely-phrased-I-am-SURE suggestions aren't being acted upon.

Right.
I thought this thread was going to be about how the Knight class of late 3.5 lead directly to the failures of 4E. What, exactly, were the problems with the 4E Essentials Knight?
The metagame is not the game.
I thought this thread was going to be about how the Knight class of late 3.5 lead directly to the failures of 4E. What, exactly, were the problems with the 4E Essentials Knight?



Well, they have only 2 real options in terms of weaponry, either having to go sword and board or use a quarterstaff, they have a handful of at-will stances they get to choose 2 from at 1st level, and then 2 more over the course of progression. Past that, they had the ability to defend allies from any enemies that were adjacent to the knight, and a smattering of other pre-selected options.

I think the main thing he's getting at here is that the knight, like many other at-will only essentials classes, is fairly quickly outscaled by classes with normal progression. They tend to taper of at level 10 or so, which is only a third of the game where they have true effectiveness. This is ultimately a result of not having any powerful daily resources. At level 9, normal classes have 3 daily powers. The knight has his 4 at-will stances, but he can't use more than one, so he's a bit more versatile, but hasn't truly gained anything major.

The Knight is still playable, certainly. And there are other classes with daily resources that are considered far worse (also essentials, mind you). I'm not 100% certain what he's trying to get at though. It's half him concerned that people aren't looking at the good in 4E at all, and the other half is mostly complaints about how underpowered many essentials classes were. And they were, past level 10. Before that most were rather competitive. Their biggest problems were often lack of option support or lack of versatility.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. At-will only is well and good, but never underestimate the power of versatility. Having 10 ways to harm a guy can be better than having 1 way to kill him.
It didn't do anything well.

Certainly not in comparison to the other classes which could fit that "slot" in the party.

It was everything that was wrong with Essentials all in one little package, but the OP actually nailed it by saying "They created very short, very narrow, frequently broken rails".



The issue here isn't that D&D Next isn't 4.5.

The issue is that Next isn't learning ANY of the lessons which 4th Edition taught, nor any of the lessons which 3.5 taught (and 4th learned).



I DO NOT WANT 4.5.

But I do want things which 4th gave me included as options in Next, most of which are not at present. 
In the Essentials books, the game designers did their best to recreate the sloppy unbalanced mess of late 3.5, while paying lip service to fourth edition design.

This seems at odds with this:
...the game designers produced "subclasses" that had neither inherent freedom nor the ability to be combined with anything else.

3.5 was all about classes, freedom, and combinations to the point that many people to this day criticize it for having too much "bloat".  If anything, Essentials made 4E less like 3.5 than it was.
In the Essentials books, the game designers did their best to recreate the sloppy unbalanced mess of late 3.5, while paying lip service to fourth edition design.

This seems at odds with this:
...the game designers produced "subclasses" that had neither inherent freedom nor the ability to be combined with anything else.

3.5 was all about classes, freedom, and combinations to the point that many people to this day criticize it for having too much "bloat".  If anything, Essentials made 4E less like 3.5 than it was.



You are right.

But that only demonstrates the failure of their intent.

Because their intent was clearly expressed. 
In the Essentials books, the game designers did their best to recreate the sloppy unbalanced mess of late 3.5, while paying lip service to fourth edition design.

This seems at odds with this:
...the game designers produced "subclasses" that had neither inherent freedom nor the ability to be combined with anything else.

3.5 was all about classes, freedom, and combinations to the point that many people to this day criticize it for having too much "bloat".  If anything, Essentials made 4E less like 3.5 than it was.



You are right.

But that only demonstrates the failure of their intent.

Because their intent was clearly expressed. 

I have often wondered about the extreme variance between the spoken intentions of WotC and the written results of said intentions.
In the Essentials books, the game designers did their best to recreate the sloppy unbalanced mess of late 3.5, while paying lip service to fourth edition design.

This seems at odds with this:
...the game designers produced "subclasses" that had neither inherent freedom nor the ability to be combined with anything else.

3.5 was all about classes, freedom, and combinations to the point that many people to this day criticize it for having too much "bloat".  If anything, Essentials made 4E less like 3.5 than it was.



You are right.

But that only demonstrates the failure of their intent.

Because their intent was clearly expressed. 

I have often wondered about the extreme variance between the spoken intentions of WotC and the written results of said intentions.



You aren't the only one.

After all, look at Next.

We are a year in and we are getting a second look at the only modular element in the entire system.

For the system which is supposed to be fully optional and modular to suit a wide range of playstyles and allow all the players of all the Editions play their own kind of D&D using Next.

Total failure to deliver results which match their intentions. 
Time has taught us that Next development ignores any critique that seems to paint fourth edition favorably.



Wh...How...Where...

I'm not even sure where this came from.  Let me try this a different way.  Under what possible pretext do you have detailed information as to what the developers do and do not 'ignore' simply because it mentions fourth edition?

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

D&DN has one advantage over essentials though. Its not 4th ed. Essentials annoyed the 4th ed fanbase and it was still 4th ed for the OSR/3.x players.
 They made essentials because in Mike Mearls own words they chased off their own players with the way 4th ed was designed.

www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/i...

Relevent quote

"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all of our fans and replace them.' That was never the intent," Mearls said"

 So your player base leaves en masse to Pathfinder and the 4th ed players do not buy essentials. Rocket science really. 

Time has taught us that Next development ignores any critique that seems to paint fourth edition favorably.



Wh...How...Where...

I'm not even sure where this came from.  Let me try this a different way.  Under what possible pretext do you have detailed information as to what the developers do and do not 'ignore' simply because it mentions fourth edition?




When Monte Cook came up with the idea of Passive Perception in 2011.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

D&DN has one advantage over essentials though. Its not 4th ed. Essentials annoyed the 4th ed fanbase and it was still 4th ed for the OSR/3.x players.
 They made essentials because in Mike Mearls own words they chased off their own players with the way 4th ed was designed.

www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/i...

Relevent quote

"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all of our fans and replace them.' That was never the intent," Mearls said"

 So your player base leaves en masse to Pathfinder and the 4th ed players do not buy essentials. Rocket science really. 




Your insistance on Edition Warring and myopic approach to anything related to 4th Edition has totally blinded you to the real point here.

The Knight wasn't bad because it was an Essentials class,
Many Essentials classes were very good,
The Knight was bad because it couldn't do the job it was designed to do except under very limited and situationally dangerous circumstances.  It was also bad because it scaled poorly and fell badly behind other classes only a third of the way through the game.  It was also bad because many of the "options" which it gained were traps.  It was also bad because the lack of in-combat decision making made it very dull to play.

Many Next classes have the same issues.

THAT is the point. 
I liked the knight. The concept was very good. It maybe just didn´t fit into the 4e game.
So the 4E Knight suffered from something like a lack of daily powers, and a lack of sufficiently-defined party role? Because I understand that those were issue with 3E, which 4E addressed by guaranteeing equal access to daily powers and designating specific roles to each class.

If the problem is a lack of sufficient options, then that sounds like a matter of taste. If the class directed you down a specific path, and that path proved insufficient to face the required opponents, then that could be a problem; however, since all I hear from other players is that on-level encounters are too easy (if a bit lengthy), then the problem could also be that other classes have too many synergistic options. After all, too much synergy was one of the major problems of 3E, (i.e. the monk and bard were fine, but everything else was broken).
The metagame is not the game.
I liked the knight. The concept was very good. It maybe just didn´t fit into the 4e game.



The concept was aside from subtle distinctions doable before the class was made. In general that was true with the full original set of essentials classes, they might be seen as redundant "concept wise"
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

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

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

 

D&DN has one advantage over essentials though. Its not 4th ed. Essentials annoyed the 4th ed fanbase and it was still 4th ed for the OSR/3.x players.
 They made essentials because in Mike Mearls own words they chased off their own players with the way 4th ed was designed.

www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/i...

Relevent quote

"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all of our fans and replace them.' That was never the intent," Mearls said"

 So your player base leaves en masse to Pathfinder and the 4th ed players do not buy essentials. Rocket science really. 




Your insistance on Edition Warring and myopic approach to anything related to 4th Edition has totally blinded you to the real point here.

The Knight wasn't bad because it was an Essentials class,
Many Essentials classes were very good,
The Knight was bad because it couldn't do the job it was designed to do except under very limited and situationally dangerous circumstances.  It was also bad because it scaled poorly and fell badly behind other classes only a third of the way through the game.  It was also bad because many of the "options" which it gained were traps.  It was also bad because the lack of in-combat decision making made it very dull to play.

Many Next classes have the same issues.

THAT is the point. 



 Well he comes in here bleating about how the Knight was this and that which boils down to "D&DN sucks because it is not 4th ed or 4.5". We get it essentials was not popular witht the 4th ed players on the forums and the designers know this as well. 

 D&DN is not operating accordng to 4th ed design philosophy.





I felt like Essentials was going in the right direction by simplifying things. Going to the defender aura instead of marks and doing away with striker marks (quarry/curse/etc) was a good thing.

The math probably is a bit off with the absence of dailies, because as far as I can tell they don't get anything to really counterbalance that.

Power strikes do an okay job of replacing encounter powers. Power strike is weaker, but you basically never miss with it, since you only use it on a hit, so it's really not as bad as you'd think.

But overall I dont' think the knight is nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
D&DN has one advantage over essentials though. Its not 4th ed. Essentials annoyed the 4th ed fanbase and it was still 4th ed for the OSR/3.x players.
 They made essentials because in Mike Mearls own words they chased off their own players with the way 4th ed was designed.

www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/i...

Relevent quote

"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all of our fans and replace them.' That was never the intent," Mearls said"

 So your player base leaves en masse to Pathfinder and the 4th ed players do not buy essentials. Rocket science really. 




Your insistance on Edition Warring and myopic approach to anything related to 4th Edition has totally blinded you to the real point here.

The Knight wasn't bad because it was an Essentials class,
Many Essentials classes were very good,
The Knight was bad because it couldn't do the job it was designed to do except under very limited and situationally dangerous circumstances.  It was also bad because it scaled poorly and fell badly behind other classes only a third of the way through the game.  It was also bad because many of the "options" which it gained were traps.  It was also bad because the lack of in-combat decision making made it very dull to play.

Many Next classes have the same issues.

THAT is the point. 



Well he comes in here bleating about how the Knight was this and that which boils down to "D&DN sucks because it is not 4th ed or 4.5". We get it essentials was not popular witht the 4th ed players on the forums and the designers know this as well. 

D&DN is not operating accordng to 4th ed design philosophy.



Nice.

He has specifically outlined issues which he saw with the Knight class and outlined how they are being repeated in Next, to the detriment of the edition.

And all you have in response is personal attacks and edition warring.

I actually really liked the knight. Granted I only played him til mid-paragon levels but I didnt find any problems with scaling stuff.

Anyways, i do understand what the OP says in that they (the designers) seem to ignore any and all 4E elements and ideas for fear of scaring off a "possible" fan-base.
Time has taught us that Next development ignores any critique that seems to paint fourth edition favorably.



Wh...How...Where...

I'm not even sure where this came from.  Let me try this a different way.  Under what possible pretext do you have detailed information as to what the developers do and do not 'ignore' simply because it mentions fourth edition?




When Monte Cook came up with the idea of Passive Perception in 2011.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...


I rememebr that. That was pretty hilarious.
 then the problem could also be that other classes have too many synergistic options.



There is that as well. At first level, I'd say the Knight has more flexibility than the Weaponmaster. The stances allow him to use at-wills on opportunity attacks and charges, and the Defender Aura does what it would take the Weaponmaster several feats, magic items, and powers to do. A weaponmaster who tried to do what the Knight does would have to wait several levels to reach what it does at level 1. 

But the Knight can never pull off tricks like the Weaponmaster can, if it should choose to not be like the Knight. Once it gets that stable of tricks, it gets some rewards for doing them some more, but the diversity never really expands. Not so the Weaponmaster.

I really like what the Essentials classes do (each build does one thing very very well) because I'm a big fan of the class system restricting choices in order for the designers to better predict what PCs will be capable of. To me, it feels like the continuation of the process 4ed took away from previous editions, where spellcasters could choose from hundreds of different spells, and martial heroes had to improv combat. 

They're usually very well-themed: if you really want a Thunder Cleric, the Thunder Domain Warpriest is the perfect execution of that. However, if you're not 100% sold on that idea, it's not going to be flexible. I think that, whereas pre-Essentials classes were a bit more flexible in what a class could represent (thus letting you get several character ideas within one build), Essentials builds were good for only one idea, but GREAT for it.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

 
They then proceeded to ignore every rulebook published before Essentials, and only released thin, sporadic material that didn't necessarily play well with Essentials, but played worse with the rest of the 4th edition.  

While editorials waxed eloquent about trying to create classes free from the supposed contraints of 4e's power structure, the game designers produced "subclasses" that had neither inherent freedom nor the ability to be combined with anything else.  ("No, you can't multiclass or use most of the feats, but you do get to choose between one of two options at level 7.")  They created very short, very narrow, frequently broken rails, and they hailed them as an exciting triumph.

 



Yes there where definitly balance issues whem mixing the 2 systems being 4th and essentials, but a essentials only game worked pretty well. 
If you compared essentials classes to the traditional 4th edition classes made using only the PHB their options for choices aren't that bad either.


When the playtest was anounced I personaly hoped they would use essentials as base.
Aplying some of the big changes they had anounced for the playtest, putting feats in specialties, skills in backgrounds, removing the + 1/2 level bonus.
And probebly revamp healing system to apeal to players of other editions and then evolve from there.
 
Time has taught us that Next development ignores any critique that seems to paint fourth edition favorably.



Wh...How...Where...

I'm not even sure where this came from.  Let me try this a different way.  Under what possible pretext do you have detailed information as to what the developers do and do not 'ignore' simply because it mentions fourth edition?




When Monte Cook came up with the idea of Passive Perception in 2011.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...


I rememebr that. That was pretty hilarious.



The perfect example of how the current design team are so ignorant of 4th Edition that they are incapable of applying the lessons it learned from 3.5 and had to teach it'self.

But FAR from the only one. 
Time has taught us that Next development ignores any critique that seems to paint fourth edition favorably.



Wh...How...Where...

I'm not even sure where this came from.  Let me try this a different way.  Under what possible pretext do you have detailed information as to what the developers do and do not 'ignore' simply because it mentions fourth edition?




When Monte Cook came up with the idea of Passive Perception in 2011.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...


I rememebr that. That was pretty hilarious.



The perfect example of how the current design team are so ignorant of 4th Edition that they are incapable of applying the lessons it learned from 3.5 and had to teach it'self.

But FAR from the only one. 




Yes the current design team....
   
which does not include Monte Cook.



Thats actually pretty hilariously ironic. 

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Time has taught us that Next development ignores any critique that seems to paint fourth edition favorably.



Wh...How...Where...

I'm not even sure where this came from.  Let me try this a different way.  Under what possible pretext do you have detailed information as to what the developers do and do not 'ignore' simply because it mentions fourth edition?




When Monte Cook came up with the idea of Passive Perception in 2011.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...


I rememebr that. That was pretty hilarious.



The perfect example of how the current design team are so ignorant of 4th Edition that they are incapable of applying the lessons it learned from 3.5 and had to teach it'self.

But FAR from the only one. 

Passive Perception was used in 4th Edition as well; so, I don't know how it applies to the "ignore anything that mentions 4th Edition" argument.

Someone help me out here.  I see an article describing an idea.  Was that not the correct link?  If it was, what does that have to do with ignoring something because it paints fourth edition favorably?  Is there a followup article or something?

I feel like I've just asked a question and been handed an encyclopedia with all the entry names redacted -- I'm sure there's an answer somewhere, but its being intentionally obfuscated.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Time has taught us that Next development ignores any critique that seems to paint fourth edition favorably.



Wh...How...Where...

I'm not even sure where this came from.  Let me try this a different way.  Under what possible pretext do you have detailed information as to what the developers do and do not 'ignore' simply because it mentions fourth edition?




When Monte Cook came up with the idea of Passive Perception in 2011.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...


I rememebr that. That was pretty hilarious.



The perfect example of how the current design team are so ignorant of 4th Edition that they are incapable of applying the lessons it learned from 3.5 and had to teach it'self.

But FAR from the only one. 

Passive Perception was used in 4th Edition as well; so, I don't know how it applies to the "ignore anything that mentions 4th Edition" argument.


That's where the funny part comes from.  It was indeed used in 4th edition, which was published three years before Cook wrote the article.

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
That's where the funny part comes from.  It was indeed used in 4th edition, which was published three years before Cook wrote the article.



Reading the comments, it looks like Fourth (and I say right now I don't remember one way or another on this from personal experience) used something similar but involving DC's instead of a three-tier or four-tier rank method.  So it's not the exact same system, it was an attempt at streamlining that system.

What, exactly, does that prove about 'ignoring something that paints fourth in a positive light'?

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

The part where he says this:

but what about what I like to call "passive perception?"


It's not "what he likes to call" passive perception, it is passive perception, and had been for three years until that point. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The part where he has to explain this newfangled concept that's "passive perception."  If he had actually known anything about 4e at all, he'd have realized it wasn't new.

It is, really, the exact same concept. 



Isn't it entirely possible he explained it in detail because not everyone reading the article would necessarily be familiar with how fourth did it?  I mean, I realize they hadn't announced the playtest at the time, but work had been going on in the game for a while.

And finally, even if the guy legitimately didn't know about it -- and sure, I'll concede the possibility -- I don't see how that shows that the developers 'are willing to ignore anything that paints fourth edition in a positive light'.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

It's not the detail, it's the framing. 

Not only did he never mention 4e, as he mentioned other editions when they had a specific contribution to the topic, he described "what I like to call 'passive perception.'"  As if it were some thing he came up with because he's a game designer, that the general D&D-playing public had no knowledge of.

To people who were already 4e fans at that point, and had been using "what Cook the PHB called Passive Perception" for three years at that point, it was pretty insulting to have someone be quite that clueless about what the people buying the books WotC was putting out were actually doing with them.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Its a very minor nitpick. I suggest people became to sensitive. Hell when 3.5 rotated the perception was they outright told you that 3.5 sucked. I t wasn't quite like that of course but it left a lingering bad taste.
I can see that, I suppose.  I don't think it matches up to the accusation, but instead shows a (typically) nerd-level degree of PR failure and an assumption that he'd have to mention the other ones specifically because they weren't the current edition (and hence current players likewise might not know what he was talking about).  How's the phrase go, 'never ascribe to malevolence what is most likely mere incompetence'?

At either rate, thanks for the insight Mand.  I was boggling over how the two were even remotely related (mainly because I didn't know something like it was already in use).

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I was boggling over how the two were even remotely related (mainly because I didn't know something like it was already in use).


Which is precisely the problem.  The article is a perfect opportunity to explain something cool and fun that 4e introduced that 4e fans really like and that people who didn't play much/any of 4e might find interesting - a concept that spans editions, hasn't ever really offended anyone and could be helpful in a ton of different circumstances, playstyles, and editions.

Instead, you're left boggled, clueless as to the nature of the thing people are complaining about because there's no indication that it already exists as part of D&D.


The edition war was still pretty fresh at that stage (it still is, it seems, but moreso then).  On one hand, you have the edition warriors decrying 4e and everything in it as abominations that must be burned, and on the other hand you have one of the core 3e devs who gets brought in to work on 4e and demonstrates a shockingly poor understanding of the product he's about to work on. Despite the part where he talks about "research" and says that he's played them all, the 4e fans who read that really didn't think it was the case - or he might have noticed the "Passive Perception" block on the standard 4e character sheet that's in the back of the PHB.  It really isn't that hard to find, really doesn't take that much delving into the system to find it and use it.

What were 4e fans supposed to take from that, given the context?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
you have one of the core 3e devs who gets brought in to work on 4e and demonstrates a shockingly poor understanding of the product he's about to work on. 



And even more concerning: do they have any editing/proofreading process at all? How could this be allowed to go into print?

I do get that the devs were genuinely willing to make DDN appeal to 4e players as well (since those are paying customers too) and I appreciate the good will and intentions, but they have shown time and time again to have little clue about how to achieve that.
Its a very minor nitpick. I suggest people became to sensitive. Hell when 3.5 rotated the perception was they outright told you that 3.5 sucked. I t wasn't quite like that of course but it left a lingering bad taste.



Yes, but at the same time people on this forum are using it in order to burn 4E because it's still quite online. Including yourself at several stages.
The part where he has to explain this newfangled concept that's "passive perception."  If he had actually known anything about 4e at all, he'd have realized it wasn't new.

It is, really, the exact same concept. 



Isn't it entirely possible he explained it in detail because not everyone reading the article would necessarily be familiar with how fourth did it?  I mean, I realize they hadn't announced the playtest at the time, but work had been going on in the game for a while.

And finally, even if the guy legitimately didn't know about it -- and sure, I'll concede the possibility -- I don't see how that shows that the developers 'are willing to ignore anything that paints fourth edition in a positive light'.



I think he must have known about passive perseption in 4th edition.
But instead of saying I realy liked this from 4th edition and we will be using it again.
Wrote the article to pretend like it was somthing new, becouse the design seems to be about not hurting fealings of players who did not switch to 4th edition.
so they even avoid mentioning that they use somthing from 4th editon.

Same thing with the healing hitdice.
instead of saying ok each character has 4 healing sugges that can be used for natural healing curing 25 % each.
they come up with this new system of healing hitdice becouse using surge or percentile based healing remind people of 4th edition.
and they woulden't want to hurt the fealings of people who did not enjoy 4th edition.

 
Its a very minor nitpick. I suggest people became to sensitive. Hell when 3.5 rotated the perception was they outright told you that 3.5 sucked. I t wasn't quite like that of course but it left a lingering bad taste.



Yes, but at the same time people on this forum are using it in order to burn 4E because it's still quite online. Including yourself at several stages.



 I'm not in a position to influence D&D development though and it is not my company. They learnt from the 3.5 o 4th ed transition anyway. Sometimes it is better to say nothing. They are being very careful how they are phrasing things promising things like playstyles as opposed to mechanics.

 Dollars to donuts they are using the reprints as marketing research as well. 


Same thing with the healing hitdice.
instead of saying ok each character has 4 healing sugges that can be used for natural healing curing 25 % each.
they come up with this new system of healing hitdice becouse using surge or percentile based healing remind people of 4th edition.
and they woulden't want to hurt the fealings of people who did not enjoy 4th edition.

 



Well, no. HD were not a way of presenting healing surges in a different way. It was completely missing the point of healing surges by conflating it with self-healing. Again, one more case of misunderstanding the system. 

With a truly modular approach we would have had no surges as default, and then a surges module istead of the mashup they tried with HD.
  Passive Perception was used in 4th Edition as well; so, I don't know how it applies to the "ignore anything that mentions 4th Edition" argument.



Oh maybe cause the article made it seem like passive perception was just made up... instead of existing in the game already.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

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

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