# What is the essence of D&D



## lowkey13 (Aug 22, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Morrus (Aug 22, 2019)

Zero to hero in a fantasy setting. Killing things and taking their stuff.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 22, 2019)

It is a good starting list. I would add enough looseness in the rules to allow a group to drift in the direction they want with out too much trouble.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2019)

To crush yoyr enemies, see them driven before you, ànd hear the lamentations of the DM.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 22, 2019)

I honestly think the biggest thing that makes D&D D&D is the Monster Manual.  The focus of the game almost always centers around fantastic and mythical creatures that players try and kill.  While it's nice to say that the game has Three Pillars, the essence of D&D has been and always will be a combat-centric game.  Most of the statistics of a PC is meant for combat, as is most of an NPC's.  And while there will certainly be times when you will have a session where no combat happens... that is always seen as the outlier, not the other way around.  I think there are exceedingly few D&D games out there where the realization "Wow, we actually had a combat for once!" was actually true.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 22, 2019)

I don't think there's one single thread that is "the essence".   I think it is more that there's a whole lot of shared experiences, whether they were "core" to their thoughts of D&D or not.

To oversimplify...  Say we both watch a Western film.  You can say, "The cowboy hats are what made it a Western!"  I can say, "The horses are what make it a Western!"  Even if there is no agreement on our lists - we both watched the same movie!  

Difference of opinions about what was important in the experience are secondary to the fact that it was shared.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Aug 22, 2019)

Core to the D&D experience, I’d say, is the storytelling. Heck, the very first time I played D&D, we didn’t have d20, so we just used a bunch of d6s from boardgames. The game as run by the DM barely resembled D&D as written. But we were hooked.

But what never changes is the thrill of the DM describing the scaled dragon, the look of malice in its eyes, the gleaming fangs. The clink and glitter of its treasure horde sliding beneath your feet. The guy pretending to be a dwarf passionately arguing with the guy pretending to be an elf about events in a made-up history. The simple thrill of describing your character when you make that first introduction. The DM describing that simple +1 sword you found like you’ve just pulled Excalibur out of the stone.

Sure, you can do this with just about any RPG. But D&D, at its best, its core, balances the rules just right to give structure and form to these stories, being neither too little or too much.


----------



## lowkey13 (Aug 22, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Aug 22, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I agree- but I'm trying to understand something a wee bit different. This goes to the idea of why "D&D" (however defined) is, and has remained, a "Big Tent" game.




Okay, I think "What makes it a Big Tent game?", and "What makes it what is is?", are actually two very different questions.



> If you want to use your analogy, it wouldn't be that we both saw a western film; it would be "What makes something a western such that people can discuss _Stagecoach_,_ The Good the Bad and the Ugly_, _Unforgiven_, _Serenity, _and _Moon Zero Two _as westerns? If I wanted to make a western, except it was set in the 70s in Manchester England, what would that look like?"




This is easy - it is basically, "What defines a genre?"  I am now pedantic for those who have not considered the definition of genres before. 

The interesting thing about genres are that, despite folks trying to make it otherwise, they are defined by inclusion, rather than exclusion.  There's some list of tropes.  If you have enough of those tropes, you wind up recognized as in-genre by the audience.  Lacking a few tropes is fine.  Including tropes from another genre is fine.  So long as you've drawn enough from the "Bag O' Westerns", you'll be seen as a Western, whether you like it or not. 

This is how you cna get a thing like Firefly which has drawn heavily from both the Western and Sci-fi bags, so it is a sci-fi/Western both, recognizably.

Now, I'm writing this talking about fiction tropes, because that's the easiest example to reach for when discussing genre definition.  RPG genres will have tropes that aren't about the fictional genre, but are about rules, or playstyle, and the like as well.

The question of why it is a Big Tent game is not so much about precisely what is in the bag, so much as it is about how accessible and flexible those items are, in general.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Aug 22, 2019)

A cleric, a fighter, a magic-user, and a thief walk into a tavern. A stranger approaches and gives them a quest to find the macguffin and save the village. The party ventures forth into the dungeon, exploring and fighting weird monsters and strange traps that someone put there for no logical reason other than to oppose unwanted guests at that particular time. Battles are won. Treasure is found. And the party returns as heroes, stronger than before and ready to face greater battles and win better treasures. 

This, to me, is D&D at its core. The characters may change, but the roles (and the goals) remain the same. "Dungeons" are not literally defined as many variations exist as wilderness, aquatic, planar, and urban sites. Narratives can vary as much as the settings, as well as degrees. A story-driven campaign is as much "D&D" as any tactical/combat-heavy dungeon crawl.

But that is just my take from personal experience. Ask someone who just started recently, without exposure to the edition changes, supplement bloat, and enduring nostalgia. This renaissance that is occurring today is their starting point. The old style that we grew up with may appear archaic and perplexing to the modern ideals and standards of game design. 

For all its flaws and imperfections, D&D is a household name. It is the common point of reference for all other roleplaying games, as well as the yard stick by which all others are measured against. That doesn't automatically make it the best, mind you. But it remains the standard in the industry/hobby/genre.


----------



## lowkey13 (Aug 22, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 22, 2019)

The spell list.  Or specifically, having magic be a bunch of blocked rule texts that's separate from other forms of resolution.  Any sort of skill-based or freeform magic makes the game into "not quite D&D".  

Classes, and especially classes in a stretched out table with level, special bonuses, and class features in columns.  When you monkey with that, you're in Heartbreaker territory.

6 stats, Str Dex Con Int Wis Cha.  The order doesn't matter, but the stats do. 

d20 based combat.  Damage that varies in the dice used based on weapon type or the spell cast.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Aug 22, 2019)

What is the essence of D&D?  Someone in short order disagreeing with the list you make of what it means to you.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Aug 22, 2019)

In all seriousness, I think you're list is pretty close to being spot on.  I'd also add the ability for each table to make adjustments to make the game their own.  That really separates it from every other traditional face to face game.   So that was a revolutionary change at the time.

For me, the essence of D&D means some other things as well:

kill monsters and take their treasure
the social interaction among friends
daydreaming (becoming pondering as I got older) about sessions past and future, ideas, and adventures when I wasn't actually playing the game.


----------



## Oofta (Aug 22, 2019)

Gnomes and paladins. Preferably gnomish paladins dual wielding rapiers.


----------



## lowkey13 (Aug 22, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Krachek (Aug 22, 2019)

Theater of the mind.
You don’t have your rule books, nor your character sheet.
You have a single pen and a small sheet of paper,
If you rely on theater of the mind, you can play.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 22, 2019)

For me, there's always an ambition to be more than a board game. You can move a token on a board and fight enemies and take their stuff like in the *Dungeon* board game. But D&D characters are larger than that and offer a certain personal escapism that a board game token cannot.


----------



## Oofta (Aug 22, 2019)

More seriously

Common shared tropes.  People know what dwarves and elves are.  I don't have to describe what a dragon is.

Relatively simple mechanics, with a decent amount of variety.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Aug 22, 2019)

The essence of D&D, as far as I can tell, is arguing about whether or not it's wrong for low level characters to know about burning trolls.


----------



## Deleted member 7015506 (Aug 22, 2019)

@lowkey13 
I think you answered the question partially by yourself.. continuity.
D&D was the first of its game of its kind that reached a broader publicity and kept continuing to this day. The history of the game itself (more than 40 years) is the answer in itself. While those teenagers and youngsters back from the days grew up, they may have dropped out here and there, but at least to a certain point some returned at one point or the other. And decades or perhaps years later, the game is still there (different editions, but still the same name). So those old folks sometimes pass the gaming virus down to their kids, are involved in some kids programs (just remember the articles about the boy scout group designing games, etc.) or simply pick up something (OSR or new) and start a new table with either veterans or new players.

And at this point one thing clicks in: Even if you never played D&D or another TTRPG before, there is a big chance, that you heard the term Dungeons & Dragons before and have at least a clue what it is about. D&D nowadays is far more known than it was in the earlier times due to factors like video games and references made by reviewers to D&D and a far broader gaming availability in general.

So one of the reasons in summary is the game's publicity and constant availability on the market. There was never a gap, when the game wasn´t available on the mass market. D&D was always present in comparison to others. And being present means it is getting played = stays alive. 

But what is the essence of it then?

The basic concepts of it haven't changed like you pointed out: stats, AC, HD, class, level, combat and magic mechanics, saving throws etc. etc. And those are easily to understand even by new players even if they have problems at first identifying the different dice (the d12 - d20 confusion happened  couple of times at my table). But the game in itself and its mechanics are explained in a very short time (together with the concept of fantasy - whatever "level" (high /low fantasy etc.) you choose).

And although the game developed significantly over the years, it still stays true to its roots (perhaps excluding 4e, which I never grasped, despite buying the core books).

And  those basic concepts have one thing in common: Although they are easy to adapt to bascially any RPG genre and allow for great individual modifications (aka house rules), one thing remains:

Basically they can't be broken to the point of unplayability (exceptions exist I bet).

To speak more in RPG terms I would say, that the basic things that make for a fantasy game are all there in every edition: magic, swordfights, fearsome monsters and the prospect to become a hero saving the world.


----------



## SpoilSpot (Aug 22, 2019)

I think that a lot of things can be changed in D&D without loosing the D&D feeling (why D&D, AD&D and 3E, which are very different games, still felt D&D to most people), and some things cannot. 
I seem to remember the designers of 5E made some observations along those lines - some things couldn't be changed without the result no longer feeling like proper D&D (like new spell levels every 2 levels).

So, to me, those things must be the _essence_ of D&D.

I think that some of the core things are: Classes (with fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue at the core), class levels, spell levels (different from class levels), spell lists, Vancian magic (to some degree, even if not for everybody), HP, AC and rolling D20's to hit.

I didn't mention races. I don't think they affect mechanics enough that a "human only" world would not feel like D&D. 

Other games have classe (like WFRP), but not level progression. They feel different from D&D.
Other games have magic, but free form magic won't feel like D&D. 
Sorcerers, bards and warlocks have non-Vancian magic, but a system with nothing but that would fell ... less like D&D. Probably not as essential as class levels, but still part of the core feeling.
Most other fantasy games have the same weapons and armors, but few have only AC as defense. You can complicate things more, but it quickly stops feeling like D&D then.

Many other fantasy RPGs are about killing monsters with longswords and magic, and looting their lairs. That's pretty much the definition of fantasy RPG, not essentially D&D. Some monsters might be iconic, but I don't think omitting them would make things feel less like D&D. You can go far with orcs, goblins, undeads and demons (Yey, Tolkien!) and the occasional dragon (Yey, Beowulf!). I think it is the mechanics, not the setting, that makes D&D feel like D&D, and makes other games not feel the same.

Everything obviously just IMO, YMMV, etc.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Aug 22, 2019)

That commonality, that communal experience, is a huge part of it. Most D&D players can sit down and wax poetic about their favorite setting, relate what happened to them when they stormed the moathouse in Hommlet, how many PCs the Tomb of Annihilation claimed, or that crazy trick they pulled off that saved them from a TPK at the hands of Strahd.



Oofta said:


> Common shared tropes.  People know what dwarves and elves are.  I don't have to describe what a dragon is.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Aug 22, 2019)

The feeling of rolling a 1, or a 20.  No other game I've ever played had such an impact for a single result on a d20.  D20 = D&D


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2019)

For a serious answer, that cuts deeper than the brand itself and to what RPGs are, I'm going to quote Marc Miller:

"When Dungeons & Dragons came out, I was a wargame designer. In a sense, the fantasy role-playing idea was new, but in another sense, it was a familiar concept. I had done political role-playing exercises in college: model UN and model Organization of American States, and some campaign simulations."

"What struck me (and everyone else) about D&D was the application of numbers to the individual character and role. Gary Gygax’s conversion of role-playing from a touchy-feely analog system to an easy-to-use digital character system was brilliant, even if we couldn’t quite put it into words."





__





						Interview with Marc Miller – Stargazer's World
					






					stargazersworld.com
				




Dungeons & Dragons (and by that I mean RPGs like Kleenex means tissue paper) is communal storytelling with a robust system for action resolution, unlike a less robust form of communal storytelling like Model UN.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 22, 2019)

What makes tabletop D&D (and many other RPGs, all of which are more or less D&D derivatives) what it is can be largely boiled down to one word:

Open-endedness.

Every other game type has a built-in and (usually) well-defined end point, and also has hard and fast borders along the way.  But D&D is by design completely open-ended - a player can try anything, a DM can do anything, there's no defined end point (3e's 1-20 and 4e's 1-30 designs notwithstanding), the "game board" (i.e. the setting) is infinitely large...and so on.

No other game - including computerized models of this one - can claim these things.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2019)

Come to think of it, I don't know if I've ever seen anybody talk about this, but were any of the early TSR guys Badgers who participated in this:





__





						Model United Nations
					





					bhs.badger.k12.wi.us


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 22, 2019)

You’re giving me D&D Next Playtest flashbacks. This was like every 3rd thread on the WotC forums back in 2012.


----------



## Oofta (Aug 22, 2019)

I try to avoid edition wars.  Just because I burned out on 4E doesn't mean that it was a bad game, it just wasn't for me at least not when it got above the initial tier of play.

But I know a lot of people that felt that the edition just didn't "feel" like D&D.  It had a lot of things in common with D&D.  The basic structure was there, so why did it feel different?

One main reason is that the rules were too "tight".  In some ways that was a good thing but it didn't leave a lot of wiggle room.  As a DM if there was a power that could achieve something, it always felt a little bit like cheating if someone could just replicate a power through improv.

So I would say another aspect would be ease of customization and creative play.  A player picks up a gnome goblin and starts swinging it by it's legs like a club?  No problem!  Make up a rule that makes sense or use the improvised weapon attack.

That flexibility also applies to styles of play.  As much as there are some never-ending threads about how to play if you take 10 different groups, each group is going to have more in common than not.  But they are each going to be played slightly differently.  TOTM? All grid all the time? Lots of in-person RP or just describing what your PC does in third person.  It's all D&D.

Different classes just "feel" different.  A paladin plays different than a rogue, a wizard has different concerns than a fighter.  That wasn't true in 4E, with everyone having the same basic structure.

Related to that, you can have characters that feel special but not supernatural.  A champion fighter is just a guy that wades into combat and swings a weapon.  It may not be very realistic, but it's one of the classes that you could throw into a movie set in the real world and it wouldn't look too out of place.

I also think alignment as a simple hook is iconic.  Yes, I know it's overly simplified but it does give me a quick starting point, particularly for monsters.  I know a devil will be slightly different from a demon just based on alignment.

So while 4E had the sheen and look of D&D, it was a different game and just didn't scratch the same itch for a lot of people.


----------



## Shiroiken (Aug 22, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> What is that essence of "D&D"?



The playing of at least 1 character in a fantasy setting/adventure, that has a class and level. That's the only real unifying core between all editions IMO. Role-playing vs. Roll-playing, story vs. competition, these all vary by edition and group, but they are all D&D. You don't even need a DM, as there were BECMI and AD&D solo adventures you could run by yourself.

There have been a LOT of different rules for resolving issues, and while the d20 was common for combat (attacks and saves), it hasn't always been the god-king it is today. Armor Class, Hit Points, and Saving Throws will probably remain an integral aspect of D&D, but might not always be the case. You list has one particularly glaring error, however:



lowkey13 said:


> The six ability scores. Whether it's the right way (SIWDConCha) or the wrong way (heh, SDCIWC), you should have six abilities. No more. No less. Six shalt be the number of abilities, and the number of abilities shall be six. Seven shalt thou not have, nor either five, accepting that thou then write down the sixth ability. Ten is right out.



Then I suppose that 1E wasn't D&D then, as with the release of the Unearthed Arcana, the 7th ability score appeared: Comeliness. Don't get me wrong, it was abysmially bad, often ignored, and gleefully discarded in 2E, but it was officially part of 1E.


----------



## lowkey13 (Aug 22, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 22, 2019)

Class, level, hit points.

Everything that uses those things owes D&D and will feel something like D&D.

Those mechanics shape the D&D experience:

You have a role that gives you something you are good at. 
Starting from very limited ability, you have the ability to get better at that role.
You have plot protection in the form of hit points that serve to pace the story and warn you when you are getting in over your head and may be in trouble.

There a lot of other things that are really iconic as well - the six attribute bonuses certainly would be high up there. Any time you see a design with six attributes, classes, levels, and hit points, you can pretty much guarantee that the designer got his start with D&D, or got his start in games where the designer got his start with D&D.

I'm not entirely sure the shared experience is as shared as people assume. There are people playing recognizable D&D set in 4th century Constantinople and focused heavily on political intrigue where the DM is geeking out on his love of ancient history and languages. There are people playing D&D in stone age settings where the world is covered in ice and giant mammals rule the world, where the DM is geeking out on his love of primitive survival techniques and archeology. There are people playing D&D in spaceships in outer space. But we know it is all D&D because the characters are defined first by what they can do, and their story is about how they steadily acquire resources and escape death and disaster with cunning, valor, and a generous helping of hit points.


----------



## GrahamWills (Aug 22, 2019)

"AC, HD, class, level, combat and magic mechanics, saving throws etc. etc. And those are easily to understand even by new players"

Not actually so. Having run for a lot of new players, D&D is not more obvious than Fate, Big Eyes Small Mouth, GUMSHOE, or, I am guessing, many others.

D&D's core advantage is simply that a lot of experienced players can sit down and play it together with little hassle. Not just because it's popular, but also because generic  fantasy is both very understood and easy to play a wide variety of play styles in.

D&D's complete failure to make inroads into other genres shows that it is intimately tied to the genre. A reasonable was might be made that the essence of D&D is simply "being the most popular game for the fantasy genre".

If BRP or Runequest was dominating the genre, I don't imagine we'd have much of a different climate for RPGS. I don't think it's anything special about D&D, honestly


----------



## lowkey13 (Aug 22, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Mallus (Aug 22, 2019)

The essence of D&D?

Arguing over how to solve a ridiculous problem with a set of ridiculous solutions .Bonus points for any solution involving lies, fire, acid, or an ill-advised combination of all three.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 22, 2019)

Here is my essential list

1. The D&D fantasy setting (all 45 messy years of it) of Monsters, Races, Worlds and Planes
2.  A d20 to resolve uncertainty between players and DM
3.  A rule set that modifies those d20 rolls with classes, spells and abilities
4.  A rule set simple enough for a brand new player to RPGs to enjoy their first session and complex enough for the veteran to enjoy her thousandth


----------



## robus (Aug 23, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Gnomes and paladins. Preferably gnomish paladins dual wielding rapiers.




I was just coming here to make that joke. Thank the gods I checked first!


----------



## Oofta (Aug 23, 2019)

robus said:


> I was just coming here to make that joke. Thank the gods I checked first!




You only need to thank one person.  The one, the only, Sir McStabsalot.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 23, 2019)

I just came here to say that I find it interesting that two things you absolutely *don't *require to play D&D are:

1. Dungeons; and
2. Dragons.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 23, 2019)

At a high level, it's two things: 1) A toolkit for a breadth of settings and 2) An approachable, large-grain system. Let me unpack that a bit:

1) Toolkit for a breadth of settings

D&D has lists. Lists of spells. Lists of classes. Lists of races. Lists of feats. Lists of magic items. Lists -- tomes, even -- of monsters. Heck, first edition even had lists of colors, smells, and freaking furniture. No setting has to use them all. In fact, I'd say most settings would benefit from being selective in how they mine the books, but that's an aesthetic. By mostly just mixing and matching from the menu, you can get Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, DragonLance, Eberron, Ravenloft, Kara Tur, Planescape, Spelljammer, and any number of others. Those settings are all stand-alone and do not require or imply any tie to the others. You can tie them together, but I'd argue that's just a matter of using Planescape, Spelljammer, or a homebrew setting in a similar vein.

D&D lets you pick up the core books and immediately start building your own setting. I know this because that's what hooked me as a 10 year old punk in the early 1980s. There really isn't any other system that provides the tools for doing that. Things like Hero or GURPS have the mechanical wherewithal to create anything, but little is ready made. Fate and Savage Worlds are similar, but lighter weight. Shadowrun, Star Wars, and a number of others have had almost as many crunchy books published as D&D, but the lists are all tied into their dedicated settings.

2) Approachable, large-grained system

D&D is easy to play. You've always been able to hand a new player a human fighter (standard human champion, in 5E) and turn them loose with 15 minutes of explanation. You can make convoluted characters, but the basics are straightforward enough to hit the ground running. It owes a lot of the approachability to the large-grained system. So, what do I mean by that?

What do hit points mean? How about armor class? If AC determines how hard you are to hit, why do most folks say that hit points aren't just the ability to take damage? If HP includes things like near misses, why do we need AC? It doesn't make sense. But, it doesn't matter. Many of the concepts are mechanically as gross (large, not icky) as building with Minecraft. 

Anyone who has ever played in a point-based game knows that there's no way a class and level based game can compete for customizing your character. Again, it doesn't matter because most players show up to, you know, play. Many of them have a character "type" and don't mind having their 14 barbarian in a row, other than that one strength-based ranger. The levels, classes, HP, AC, even the six stats all factor into the large-grained nature of the game. It's a feature, not a bug.

The specific configuration of those large grains are a mix of taste and feature. Skills didn't used to be a thing. Now they are. Clearly, they aren't definitive for "what is D&D". I don't think that barbarian adds value to the game, as a class. Others love it. Some sick bastards want to ditch the 3-18 range in ability scores. I think that's a crime, but 2E Dark Sun wasn't "not D&D" just because they used 5d4, so who knows.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 23, 2019)




----------



## dave2008 (Aug 23, 2019)

Krachek said:


> Theater of the mind.
> You don’t have your rule books, nor your character sheet.
> You have a single pen and a small sheet of paper,
> If you rely on theater of the mind, you can play.



But is that essential to D&D?  You can play D&D without a reliance on TotM so I would think that is not core.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Aug 23, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> But is that essential to D&D?  You can play D&D without a reliance on TotM so I would think that is not core.



No individual element is absolutely essential. For any given element, you could change that one thing, and the remaining entity would still be D&D. 

(The ability to house-rule the game is a core element of D&D, which the game can nevertheless survive without.)


----------



## robus (Aug 23, 2019)

Oofta said:


> You only need to thank one person.  The one, the only, Sir McStabsalot.
> 
> View attachment 113318



Is he farting while dual wielding? I didn’t know paladins got a sneak attack?!


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2019)

I’d agree with the “shared tropes” definition. No single element defines the game but reach a certain critical mass of tropes and you’ll get people agreeing that X is dnd. 

What that critical mass is varies from person to person. 

It’s no different than the perennial “Is Star Wars SF or fantasty” genre wank. For folks Star Wars has enough tropes to qualify as one or the other. Since dnd lacks specific themes, all we are left with is trope. 

Many of which originated within the game itself.


----------



## Raith5 (Aug 23, 2019)

I play games other than D&D and I am always struck with D&D is the way progression of your character is so dramatic and addictive. In marvel heroic, pendragon and traveller, progression is pretty minor. The zero to hero progression in D&D is so dramatic, and sometimes runs against sensible story telling, but is central to what makes D&D tick.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Aug 23, 2019)

D&D is having a housecat be a potential fatal opponent at 1st level while shrugging off dragon’s breath at 10th level.


----------



## Deleted member 7015506 (Aug 23, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> The feeling of rolling a 1, or a 20.  No other game I've ever played had such an impact for a single result on a d20.  D20 = D&D



That reminds me of a session, when we played the german "The Dark Eye" back in the days. The game just received a new rules companion "introducing" critical hit tables. Before that the rule was, that if you rolled a 1 or 2 (lower is better here), no parry roll allowed and your damage bypasses armor protection (= no points deducted from the damage roll due to the armor of the enemy (natural and worn alike)). Now there was this fantastic table, that you rolled on after you had that critical.
So during the session, the party encounters this big Hydra. Things go wrong and one of our fighters only had his dagger left. and since he was more or less out (being dragged to the back of the battle with like 2 or 3 HP left), he decides to throw that dagger - To-Hit roll turns a 1 Critical! Now he rolls another d20 - comes up a 20- again - maximum result on the crit table. And now you are allowed to make a third d20 roll to see what exactly happens.And voila another 20 resulting in the immediate death of the beast and party saved. One of the most memorable and cinematic moments in my player "career".


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh (Aug 23, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> A class system.
> 
> Levels.
> 
> ...




Isn't Searchers of the Unknown D&D ?
No class system, no abilities.


----------



## Deleted member 7015506 (Aug 23, 2019)

GrahamWills said:


> "AC, HD, class, level, combat and magic mechanics, saving throws etc. etc. And those are easily to understand even by new players"
> 
> Not actually so. Having run for a lot of new players, D&D is not more obvious than Fate, Big Eyes Small Mouth, GUMSHOE, or, I am guessing, many others.
> 
> ...




I have to counter that. I DMed many sessions, either with totally new people to RPGing or few experience with other systems. The basic concept of RPGing (dialogue, explaining your actions during the game) is explained easily, no matter what the system is you are playing. The game mechanics are not that complicated (combat f.e.: roll a d20, add or subtract a modifier and see if that result is equal or higher than a target number (=AC)) and are understood after the first couple of combat rounds. And for that no expereince with RPGs is necessary.

Now I agree on the basic concepts of fantasy (dragons, dwarves, elves, etc.). Basically everybody knows what that is and how it looks (thanks Mr. Jackson for making those great movies). 

One thing though, that makes D&D so easy to transport to the table is, that no matter what edition or clone you play (some exceptions exist), veteran players, even when total strangers to each other, can easily adapt to the presented system/edition (normally) and play together. The reason is, that D&D throughout all of its editions remained the same to the core mechanics and provided therefore a kind of unified "language" amongst people playing D&D. Now that might hold true for other games also (Runequest and its cousins for example), but it is (for me) most obvious in D&D.

Now for the "complete failure" to adapt into other genres I agree to a certain point. There were attempts in the past "Mask of the Red Death" for example), but IMHO they never clicked, because the support was not so large as for AD&D (2e) at that time and TSR made the big mistake in competing with itself by publishing too many settings so their customer base was split amongst itself. And this resulted in neglecting and finally abandoning those attempts.


----------



## aramis erak (Aug 23, 2019)

Whatever it was that was quintisential to D&D, beside the trademark, 4E lacked.

I believe the missing trope was the difference in combat abilities, and the lack of similarlity of the classes to prior editions' roles for those classes.

It had KTAATTS play.
It had class and level
It had d20 for combat relevant rolls.
It had single location hit points.
It had the use of alignment.
It had the standard PHB classes and races, and then some.
It had the late AD&D1E and BECMI addition of non-combat skills.

It lacked the so-called "Vancian" magic... 
It lacked disparities of combat power of 3E, AD&D, and BECMI classes



Krachek said:


> Theater of the mind.
> You don’t have your rule books, nor your character sheet.
> You have a single pen and a small sheet of paper,
> If you rely on theater of the mind, you can play.





dave2008 said:


> But is that essential to D&D?  You can play D&D without a reliance on TotM so I would think that is not core.



TOTM is very much NOT part of the way many played D&D in the 80's...
And yet it was part of D&D as experienced.


Oofta said:


> More seriously
> 
> Common shared tropes.  People know what dwarves and elves are.  I don't have to describe what a dragon is.
> 
> Relatively simple mechanics, with a decent amount of variety.



Simple mechanics? Someone's not widely read... D&D 3 is medium-high on crunch... there are MUCH simpler games that cover the same space without being anywhere near as much mechanical complexity. Arrowflight, Barbarians of Lemuria...

And 3.X was simpler than AD&D - not a lot, but a bit...  and it did so in key was that made play much simpler for the players. But even before 3E, simplified  games in the same space existed. 


Palladium Fantasy, for example (1st or 1st revised)... still a two key mechanic system - attack rolls vs AC, but at least it's linear... and the class skills are all consistently d%. roll low for skills.
The Arcanum likewise had d20 roll high for combat, and d% roll low for skills.
Despite it's tables, Rolemaster is actually a simpler game than AD&D. Half the pagecount for the core. more consistent throughout... albeit at the cost of almost half the pagecount being tables.
To be fair, since the early 1980s, there have been games more complex than AD&D, too... Phoenix Command comes to mind.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 23, 2019)

To be honest, I'd say the "essence" of D&D is really just branding. Sure, there are lots of elements that have been common throughout all editions - elements that are "on-brand". None of them _individually_ are essential to D&D - you could have D&D without classes, or with a different set of ability scores, or in a non-fantasy setting, or whatever else, and it would still be D&D. But you couldn't have D&D without _any_ of those things. Lose too many of them, and it stops "feeling like D&D". It stops being on-brand. Depending on who you ask, 4e may have crossed this threshold.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 23, 2019)

The things I have always done in D&D...

Rolled 6 ability scores
Chosen character classes 
Encountered monsters
Rolled to hit
Dealt and taken hit point damage 
Chosen and cast spells
Found and used magic items
Levelled up

The abilities, classes, monsters, spells and items have had noticeable consistencies across editions. I moot it is that framework + those consistencies that make D&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 23, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I do think that there is something special about it that must differentiate it from the many many other games that are not nearly as successful or as long-lived.



It was first to market.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 23, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> A fantasy setting. Of course. You can have variants (the d20 system, portals to other worlds, gritty v. S&S v. high fantasy v. wuxia etc.) but magic & dragons and so on tends to be part of the base experience.



I think we can go into a bit more detail about the nature of D&D fantasy.

Tolkien-esque PC races - elves, dwarves, hobbits
Tolkien-esque racial geography - elves in the forests, orcs and dwarves in the mountains
Late medieval military technology
Modern attitudes towards morality, individuality, and nature
Lawless monster-infested wilderness that resembles the Wild West or post-apocalyptic fiction
Murderhobo PCs
Vancian (also Gandalf-ian) flashbang magic
Healing magic associated with religious devotion
Alignment as an objective knowable truth
Supernatural beings are generally not unique, they are members of classes or species


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 23, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> What makes tabletop D&D (and many other RPGs, all of which are more or less D&D derivatives) what it is can be largely boiled down to one word:
> 
> Open-endedness.
> 
> Every other game type has a built-in and (usually) well-defined end point, and also has hard and fast borders along the way.  But D&D is by design completely open-ended - a player can try anything, a DM can do anything, there's no defined end point (3e's 1-20 and 4e's 1-30 designs notwithstanding), the "game board" (i.e. the setting) is infinitely large...and so on.



By this definition the West Marches sandbox campaign wouldn't count as D&D because PCs aren't allowed to return to the "civilized lands".







> PCs get to explore anywhere they want, the only rule being that going back east is off-limits — there are no adventures in the civilized lands, just peaceful retirement.




There are also many crpgs such as World of Warcraft that have no defined end point.

D&D does have limits. Adventures and campaign settings are limited geographically and by the type of action the PCs are expected to engage in. I can't have my PC become a farmer and expect most GMs to be able to make it interesting because it's going beyond the limits of D&D and the limits of GM knowledge.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2019)

aramis erak said:


> Whatever it was that was quintisential to D&D, beside the trademark, 4E lacked.
> 
> I believe the missing trope was the difference in combat abilities, and the lack of similarlity of the classes to prior editions' roles for those classes.
> 
> ...




"KTAATTS"?  Never seen that one before.  What's that?

But, again, this gets back to my point where the "essence of D&D" will be different for different people.  For some, 4e had enough of the D&D tropes to count as D&D.  For others, it didn't.  Heck, the same is true for 3e as well - one only has to look at DragonsFoot to see that.  So, really, what is "essential" for D&D depends on which bag of tropes appeals to you.

Really, it's no different than any other fanbase. Is Star Trek Discover really Star Trek or not?  Are the Abrams Star Wars movies really Star Wars?  Are the prequels?  On and on and on.  

What is "essential" to something says far, far more about the person proclaiming whatever is essential than any sort of objective scale.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 23, 2019)

Hussar said:


> What is "essential" to something says far, far more about the person proclaiming whatever is essential than any sort of objective scale.



I feel like we can admit grey areas while acknowledging that it is still frequently possible to distinguish one thing from another. Right?

The search is not so much for that which the hydrogen between the galaxies, and the stars, will say is D&D, but what many here and now will. Commonalities that are evident in the preceding pages.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2019)

clearstream said:


> I feel like we can admit grey areas while acknowledging that it is still frequently possible to distinguish one thing from another. Right?
> 
> The search is not so much for that which the hydrogen between the galaxies, and the stars, will say is D&D, but what many here and now will. Commonalities that are evident in the preceding pages.



Oh, I totally agree.

I'm not the one banging the "4e isn't D&D" drum.  Someone who claims that is saying a lot more about their personal preferences than anything about what is essential to D&D.  Same goes for Pathfinder AFAIC.  I have room in my tent for both.  If 3e and OD&D can exist in the same tent, then good grief, so can 4e and Pathfinder.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 23, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> To crush yoyr enemies, see them driven before you, ànd hear the lamentations of the DM.




Hot water, good dentishtry, and shoft lavatory paper.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Aug 23, 2019)

Arduis de Gispard said:


> That reminds me of a session, when we played the german "The Dark Eye" back in the days. The game just received a new rules companion "introducing" critical hit tables. Before that the rule was, that if you rolled a 1 or 2 (lower is better here), no parry roll allowed and your damage bypasses armor protection (= no points deducted from the damage roll due to the armor of the enemy (natural and worn alike)). Now there was this fantastic table, that you rolled on after you had that critical.
> So during the session, the party encounters this big Hydra. Things go wrong and one of our fighters only had his dagger left. and since he was more or less out (being dragged to the back of the battle with like 2 or 3 HP left), he decides to throw that dagger - To-Hit roll turns a 1 Critical! Now he rolls another d20 - comes up a 20- again - maximum result on the crit table. And now you are allowed to make a third d20 roll to see what exactly happens.And voila another 20 resulting in the immediate death of the beast and party saved. One of the most memorable and cinematic moments in my player "career".




I had something similar several years ago playing WFRP 1e.  I decided to get into an arena with a minotaur with just my fists.  Rolled 5 6's in a row (if you roll a 6 for damage, you roll again and add, and keep adding as long as you keep rolling 6s.)


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 23, 2019)

Doug McCrae said:


> By this definition the West Marches sandbox campaign wouldn't count as D&D because PCs aren't allowed to return to the "civilized lands".



A PC isn't allowed to retire? Seriously?



> There are also many crpgs such as World of Warcraft that have no defined end point.



Sooner or later in any computer program, just by its very nature, you're going to hit a point where the map doesn't go any further (though it might seem to by code-looping and repeating previously-seen terrain).  And no computer program can possibly be programmed to handle everything a player might think of.  A living breathing DM, however, can.

I've never played WoW in my life but I know someone who does; and on more than one occasion I've watched for a few minutes and then said "What happens if you try [xxxx completely ridiculous but theoretically possible action]?", only to be told "You can't do that - the program can't handle it."



> D&D does have limits. Adventures and campaign settings are limited geographically and by the type of action the PCs are expected to engage in. I can't have my PC become a farmer and expect most GMs to be able to make it interesting because it's going beyond the limits of D&D and the limits of GM knowledge.



Slight correction: you can at any time have your PC become a farmer.  But, you have no right to any expectation that the GM (or anyone else) will do anything to make that life any more interesting than that of a typical farmer.

DMs have limits, of that there's no question - a setting, for example, might be limited by how much design work that particular DM has put in to some particular element.  But that's not the game's fault - the game itself is open-ended enough to allow limitless setting design: should a DM* want to design an entire universe from the atomic level on up, for example, the game system won't stop her.

* - A DM with about a million-year lifespan, of course, as that's how long this would take.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 23, 2019)

> Slight correction: you can at any time have your PC become a farmer. But, you have no right to any expectation that the GM (or anyone else) will do anything to make that life any more interesting than that of a typical farmer.




Sounds like a person who never played Harvest Moon\Story of Seasons\Stardew Valley.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 24, 2019)

MichaelSomething said:


> Sounds like a person who never played Harvest Moon\Story of Seasons\Stardew Valley.



Guilty as charged - never even heard of any of those.


----------



## aramis erak (Aug 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> "KTAATTS"?  Never seen that one before.  What's that?



Kill Them All And Take Their Stuff.


----------



## ParanoydStyle (Aug 24, 2019)

TwoSix said:


> The spell list.  Or specifically, having magic be a bunch of blocked rule texts that's separate from other forms of resolution.  Any sort of skill-based or freeform magic makes the game into "not quite D&D".




Strongly disagree. In a memey sense I'd be all like:



TwoSix said:


> Any sort of skill-based or freeform magic makes the game into "not quite D&D" "BETTER".




"Fixed that for you." But that'd be kinda rude, so, I went with the first approach of "strongly disagree".

You're describing what I find--as a professional game designer, and being broke and penniless, desperately seeking any crap job I can get so I can take my dog to the vet, it's one of my few joys in life that I can honestly refer to myself as a professional game designer, so please don't take it away from me lol--to be the single worst aspect of the game as being the most essential aspect of the game.

My gold standard in many ways is HERO System. First, I'll recognize that it is extremely niche and not for everyone due to its lack of any implied setting outside the setting specific books, and more importantly due to its incredibly high crunch which scares away a lot of people, especially chargen which is so complex it requires special software for most people to complete (I can build a HERO System PC at 200/150 purely on paper from the book, but that's an ability I'm proud of, like a "stupid human trick", it's not something I'd want to ask of the average gamer if I could avoid it).

Anyway, in HERO System, if you can get past and through the initial wall of incredibly high crunch, you can observe that virtually every single power in the game works on the same basic principles using the same basic procedure. Resolving an Energy Blast or hand to hand attack involves essentially the same process as resolving an Ego Attack, a Presence Attack, Telepathy, Mental Illusions, Ability Drain or Mind Control. The game is complex but it is extremely consistent in that once you know how to do a thing in HERO System, you more or less know how to do all the things in HERO System.

Still needing to constantly reference special snowflake spells is probably the single thing about the current edition of D&D that I like the least.

I think it's very possible to design a version of D&D that is still very much D&D but has this kind of consistency of rules. I also think it would be a very difficult and time consuming task, so much so that even I would not want to take it on for free.

*What do I think is the essence of D&D?*

Grown people shouting very loudly and excitedly at a die that either came up a natural 20 or a natural 1, or failed to come up on the right number. JK

Good quesiton. There are all many, many things I think are the essence of what D&D is fundamentally about, individually and/or in combination. Here goes:

For me, D&D is about exploring exotic locations--often dungeons--searching for fabulous treasure,  and fighting monsters--often dragons--that are guarding it. I'm reminded of my favorite Army slogan: "Join the army and travel around the world, meet interesting people, and kill them." Replace people with "creatures" and that more or less summarizes D&D.

Like Morrus said more succinctly in the very first response, to a degree it's about your characters going from very possibly doomed novices to the major movers and shakers in the magical geopolitics of a country, a continent, or even one or more planes at the highest levels. It's about getting comfortable in your character, comfortable enough to roleplay your character's conscience/ethics/morals in a way that is a more nuanced expression of your character's alignment; it's about being a murder hobo, but it's also about how your character feels about being a murder hobo, or what justifies it to them. This has been true since several editions before it was finally codified in 5E.

D&D is about finally finding awesome magical treasure...and equally about bickering over the division of treasure with other party members.

D&D is about leveling up and getting psyched at the new stuff you can do at the new level.

D&D is about the real possiblity of dying anti-climactically to a random encounter, an unavoidable trap, and/or bad dice luck...and about whether or not the other PCs can/will get you _raised_.

D&D is about avoiding getting TPK'd, which means TPKs need to mean, or at lease seem, possible.

As a DM, the essence of my personal joy in D&D is to design encounters or scenarios that leave the PCs feeling absolutely doomed to failure and death only to barely squeak through and survive to be victorious, because of their character abilities, cunning and unpredictability, not my fudging. When the PCs exchange crisp high fives after surviving something that I knew was survivable but made seem unsurvivable via various tricks, that is the sweet spot.

*Most importantly I think, it's about pretending to be Elves and Dwarves, Fighters and Wizards, Dragonborn and Warforged, Warlocks and Rogues, and dealing with their problems for a few hours every week during which you don't have to worry about your own, probably much less fun, certainly less interesting, problems.*


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 24, 2019)

I'd actually disagree with the premise and say that there is no essence of ALL the editions of D&D that pertains strictly to D&D.

There are two DIFFERENT times, that prior to 3e and that after 3e.

Prior to 3e, it was the wargaming influence and specific rules (to hit/THACO, descending AC, Saves, varied leveling, humancentric focus) mixed with general roleplaying that made it an essence SPECIFIC to D&D.

However, after 3e came out all the way to 5e there is no strict adherence to something that makes it D&D that could not necessarily be applied to any other RPG out there.  The rules have changed too drastically to really say...this is D&D.

You could say it is leveling...but other games do that these days as well.  You could say it is specific monsters, but there are many D&D games where those monsters never show up...so that can't really be used.  You could say vancian spellcasting...at which point you ask...what differentiates between D&D and games that have their roots in 3e such as Pathfinder?  Is Pathfinder and other games like it now also included as D&D product identity or D&D itself?  I'm not sure WotC would want to include those.

At this point I'd say it's just a Name Brand that has ease of use.  It has always been popular but that popularity died down for quite a while in a downward trend.  It had a resurgence of sorts at the 3e release but then went down again, and even that resurgence was nowhere close to where it was during the height of the fad years.

Only now with a game that has ease of use is it attaining a new popularity.  I'd credit that to the name brand of D&D (and people who want to try RPGs will hear of D&D first normally, which is where they will turn to...and with the ease of use of the rules today...they stay), but not necessarily some mysterious essence of the game today that can't be found in any other RPG...or at least an essence that has been around from OD&D to 5e today.

5e has it's OWN essence of what makes it 5e, but I don't think anything that could truly connect it all the way back to the original game that is seen in almost all games of D&D (or essence) exists that could not apply to many other RPGs along the way.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 24, 2019)

ParanoydStyle said:


> Anyway, in HERO System, if you can get past and through the initial wall of incredibly high crunch, you can observe that virtually every single power in the game works on the same basic principles using the same basic procedure. Resolving an Energy Blast or hand to hand attack involves essentially the same process as resolving an Ego Attack, a Presence Attack, Telepathy, Mental Illusions, Ability Drain or Mind Control. The game is complex but it is extremely consistent in that once you know how to do a thing in HERO System, you more or less know how to do all the things in HERO System.
> 
> Still needing to constantly reference special snowflake spells is probably the single thing about the current edition of D&D that I like the least.



I'm not making a value judgment as to what is better or worse.  I'm saying that referencing special snowflake spells that are fundamentally inconsistent is a defining aspect of the overall feel of D&D.  Replacing it with something more consistent might make it a superior _game_, but it becomes a less authentic experience of _D&D_.



ParanoydStyle said:


> *Most importantly I think, it's about pretending to be Elves and Dwarves, Fighters and Wizards, Dragonborn and Warforged, Warlocks and Rogues, and dealing with their problems for a few hours every week during which you don't have to worry about your own, probably much less fun, certainly less interesting, problems.*



That's a fine definition of part of the joy of TTRPGs as a whole, but it doesn't really differentiate between D&D and every other TTRPG.  I think trying to decipher the essence of D&D requires parsing out what makes it different from other TTRPGs.


----------



## lowkey13 (Aug 24, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Aug 24, 2019)

GreyLord said:


> I'd actually disagree with the premise and say that there is no essence of ALL the editions of D&D that pertains strictly to D&D.
> 
> There are two DIFFERENT times, that prior to 3e and that after 3e.
> 
> ...




Hah!  Will I double dog disagree with you!*  My stunning wit not convincing?  Okay, this really does come down to personal opinion, but the fact that several other games (I consider Pathfinder just a clone so it's really not fair to call it a different game) copy ideas from D&D doesn't make D&D any less D&D.

But ever since I've been playing, some things have remained the same.  We still roll a D20 to resolve attacks and our defensive saving throws.  We still have HP, AC, the standard ability scores.  Yes, the math is a bit different and the number and type of dice we roll has been tweaked but my AD&D fighter/rogue can be recreated with more-or-less same feel in 5E.  Wizards still cast fireballs and clerics still heal.

I think 4E (again, a game I really, really did try to enjoy) is the exception that proves the rule.  There was just something ... missing. Some special sauce that I and others have alluded to.  A fairly simple set of base rules that can express a nearly endless number of worlds and styles.  As long as you stay within the broad outlines of it's implementation of fantasy rules, you can have an amazing variety.  If you're playing a Cthulhu, Star Wars or Vampire game, you know basically what kind of game you'll be playing.  Madness? Jedi? Gothic punk? I'm over-simplifying a bit, but not by much in my experience.

But D&D?  It can be anything from heavy political intrigue where you don't know who you can trust to exploring forgotten lands of mystery to murder hobo kick the door down and take their stuff beer and popcorn games. Yet we still know that dwarven strength based fighter is probably going to slap on armor and plunge into battle.  That elven wizard is likely to chuckle with glee as they cast their first fireball against hapless goblins.

To me, it's still the same game I learned in high school oh so many decades ago.

_*Which is fine, actually because you're entitled to your opinion.  Of course, this being the internet, there are two kinds of opinions.  Mine and the wrong one.  _


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2019)

In my view D&D is fairly limited in the style of play it supports. Yes you can use it for political intrigue or investigation but the system works against both of these due to the various mind reading spells.

Dungeon cracking is most strongly supported, followed by wilderness exploration.


----------



## Oofta (Aug 24, 2019)

Doug McCrae said:


> In my view D&D is fairly limited in the style of play it supports. Yes you can use it for political intrigue or investigation but the system works against both of these due to the various mind reading spells.
> 
> Dungeon cracking is most strongly supported, followed by wilderness exploration.




I'll have to remember that the next time I run a political/intrigue heavy campaign.  Oh wait.  I am running one now.  On the other hand I don't remember the last time I ran a traditional dungeons, they feel far too artificial for my taste.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2019)

Oofta said:


> I'll have to remember that the next time I run a political/intrigue heavy campaign.  Oh wait.  I am running one now.





Doug McCrae said:


> Yes you can use it for political intrigue or investigation


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2019)

Oofta said:


> /snip
> I think 4E (again, a game I really, really did try to enjoy) is the exception that proves the rule.  There was just something ... missing. Some special sauce that I and others have alluded to.  A fairly simple set of base rules that can express a nearly endless number of worlds and styles.  As long as you stay within the broad outlines of it's implementation of fantasy rules, you can have an amazing variety.  If you're playing a Cthulhu, Star Wars or Vampire game, you know basically what kind of game you'll be playing.  Madness? Jedi? Gothic punk? I'm over-simplifying a bit, but not by much in my experience.
> /snip




Frankly, I think this gets back to the "bag of tropes" that I alluded too.  4e didn't include the tropes to make it feel like D&D to you.  Totally fair.  I get that.  4e did shift a lot of things.  The fact that 5e does "feel like D&D", to me, just means that they managed to hit the right number of tropes.  For me, both games feel like D&D and I really don't have a strong feeling why other people wouldn't feel the same, but, hey, to each their own.  It didn't have just that right trope or collection of tropes.  

Or, to put it another way, the essence of D&D is in the presentation.


----------



## Harzel (Aug 25, 2019)

So I agree pretty much with the items listed in the OP.  I also think there is significant truth to @Umbran's notion that you may just need a substantial subset of those to make it feel like D&D, although I don't think you can take away very many before it would begin to feel 'off'.  Further, some of them I'm hesitant to say you can remove at all.  If you are missing in particular HP, AC, classes, or leveling, the game may be recognizably D&D-like, but I'm not sure it's D&D.

To the list of things that contribute to D&D-ness and you need most but not all of, I would add the familiar quartet of particular classes - fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief (rogue, whatever) - and some particular playable races - human, elf, dwarf, halfling.  Probably half-elf should be in there, too, but they've always seemed to me kind of forgettable.

I'm sort of on the fence about murderhoboing and its cousin kill-the-monsters-and-take-their-stuff.  Those are certainly play patterns that AFAIK originated with D&D and evoke D&D, but I'm not sure I think their lack in any way makes a game seem less like D&D to me.

Finally, I would add to the list one thing that is a sort of rule 'theme' and perhaps a generalization of the nature of D&D spells that @TwoSix mentioned.  D&D rules have always been, to a greater or lesser extent, idiosyncratic, irregular, asymmetric, and even inconsistent - lacking (or perhaps having a surfeit of) underlying patterns and principles, full of special cases, and greatly prone to corner cases emerging when rules collide.  Going too far in that direction, of course, leaves you with a hot mess, but if you have just a modest tendency, IMO it lends an air of warm, fuzzy, hominess - kind of like a flannel shirt vs. a starched, white linen button-down.  And while I never played 4e, the descriptions and commentary I see sound like it tamped down significantly on irregularity and asymmetry; if that's accurate, I can see that that might have made it feel less like D&D.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 25, 2019)

It’s funny how much of the first dozen or so replies have elements of the game that I would say aren’t even particularly important to what dnd is or what makes it a big tent game. 

The first two posts have: 

*Zero to hero - Eh, I rarely ever start at level 1, would never bother with level 0 type rules, and have only a couple times played a “farm boy” trope character, and my experience isn’t rare at all in the larger dnd community. 

*killing monsters and taking their stuff - common, sure, but vital to what dnd is? Not for any of my groups. We are more likely to have to find ways to fund our adventures than to make a profit from them, because we rarely play characters who are out there fighting ochre jellies and whatever else for money. 

Usually, we are trying to help/save people, in a world where most regular folk can’t do jack against trolls or winter wolves, much less cults of the drowned king and their kraken-lich. 

*Fighting fantastical creatures - It isn’t less DnD when your enemies are primarily humanoids.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 25, 2019)

Gnomes, Gnomes in the phb. No Gnomes no deal. Rapiers and paladin's.

And Gnomes.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 25, 2019)

The essence of D&D is escapism, like all games (in one way or another), books, movies, etc.

That is why once many people experience it, they are hooked, often for life. When we don't get to play, we miss it. It gives us all a chance to be someone else, do amazing things that will never happen in real life, and discover a hidden bit of ourselves we never knew or understood before. And, we get to do all this while making new friends or cementing the friendships we have in grand adventures we will be talking about for years to come.

This is what keeps us coming back and wanting more.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 10, 2019)

aramis erak said:


> Whatever it was that was quintisential to D&D, beside the trademark, 4E lacked.
> 
> I believe the missing trope was the difference in combat abilities, and the lack of similarlity of the classes to prior editions' roles for those classes.
> 
> ...



4e was more dnd for me than 3.5.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 11, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> 4e was more dnd for me than 3.5.



I found it a good game, but not a game that felt like D&D, nor a game I terribly much wanted to play. It lost the medieval super heroes feel that is what I actually like of AD&D and Cyclopedia...
3.X felt very much like late AD&D 2E to me, but that's because I had and used PO:Combat & Tactics; the AD&D descent of 3E combat is very obvious when one has used that book extensively, but not readily apparent to those who never met it...

At the time 3.0 came out, I'd have preferred something closer to 2E (I always felt AD&D 1E was clunky, even when I was running it, and 2E a good bit less so, but still so)... for example, ascending AC and converting from THAC0 to Attack bonus. I'm sore tempted to do that to the Dark Dungeons text.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 11, 2019)

Killing monsters and taking their stuff.  Oh, and traps, and weird uses of magic. And leveling, and getting your stronghold.  And henchmen.  And worrying about dying, because you very possibly could die. Permanently.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> And worrying about dying, because you very possibly could die. Permanently.



I thought it was a game... no larping with real weapons

Note even those who designed the game skipped several levels because being a minion class character and dying to a random arrow was not really the point (hence gygaxian diatribe about critical hits being bad). Everything is a question of degree though. - how very possibly is very possibly AND when you have raise dead a possibility even at moderate levels how permanent do you really mean?


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

ParanoydStyle said:


> *Most importantly I think, it's about pretending to be Elves and Dwarves, Fighters and Wizards, Dragonborn and Warforged, Warlocks and Rogues, and dealing with their problems for a few hours every week during which you don't have to worry about your own, probably much less fun, certainly less interesting, problems.*




That part is not something one can argue with me thinks


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 11, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Note even those who designed the game skipped several levels



Yes, I'd noticed.  How boring.



> because being a minion class character and dying to a random arrow was not really the point (hence gygaxian diatribe about critical hits being bad).



Dying to a random arrow is just part of the luck of the draw.  The achievement lies, in part, in surviving that phase and moving on to the next as you get a few levels under your belt.  4e, much to its discredit*, skips over this early phase entirely.

* - except in the eyes of those who start their games in other editions at 3rd level or 5th level or whatever, which to me is just as bad.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> * - except in the eyes of those who start their games in other editions at 3rd level or 5th level or whatever, which to me is just as bad.




Game designers themselves disagree but you can like what you like to me it says that is not the essence of the game but merely a flavor, like pepper or something.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Yes, I'd noticed.  How boring.



Never name a character til level 5.... for the win.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So I had a comment a while back discussing how the greatest strength of D&D, the very reason why D&D is the "Big Tent" RPG, is because it is a continuing dialogue between the past and the future; that "D&D" (construed as the various editions of D&D, the various OSR clones of D&D, and even PF) share a commonality and a continuity, as well as a scale, that other RPGs lack. Here's the original comment I made- https://enworld.org/threads/where-was-4e-headed-before-it-was-canned.661161/page-38#post-7789707



Y'all know I'm cynical.   So, y'know what's coming...

Other RPGs lack name recognition and fad status from the 80s satanic panic.  Many of them do have communities, continuity, and scale - and scope.  Long histories, adaptation to many genres, sold in multiple countries, etc.  They just aren't household names.

D&D is not a big tent RPG, at all.  It's the only visible tent for those ducking into the hobby for the first time.  But the scope of games you can run with it, compared to RPGs less baroque, broken, or hobbled by tradition?   Really pretty narrow.  So, especially early on, when unaware of alternatives, enthusiasts would just re-write it like crazy into whatever they wanted, but still call it D&D.

Now, 5e was conceived as a 'big tent' /for existing fans of D&D/.  That's where 'Big Tent' became a D&D buzzword.



> You can have people discussing 5e, but bringing in perspectives from the 70s, and from just having picked up the game. You can have people trying to bend it to a "old school OD&D feel" or to a more "3e" or "4e" feel. People discussing their preferences not just in terms of, say, Greyhawk v. Forgotten Realms, but 3e Greyhawk v. Grey Box Forgotten Realms.



Yes, D&D has a long history.  So do Traveler and RuneQuest/BRP.  It's not the length of the history.



> But to have all of this, to have these continuing conversation, you can't have a discontinuity. There has to be some common thread that makes D&D, D&D.



Well, there's the name.  Name recognition and history are a huge part of what makes D&D relevant in the hobby.  OK, they're basically all of what makes it relevant.  Plus they make up for all the things that /should/ have made it irrelevant decades ago.

And we have had some HUGE discontinuities.  Like the Edition War.  So whatever commonality it is, it skipped over one edition....

So:



> And what is that? What is that essence of "D&D"?
> ...
> What do you think is absolutely core to D&D?



 Magic.

*The Primacy of Magic.*

In the form of both Casters and Magic Items.

I mean, there's many details that have gotten calcified in the D&D experience - hit points, AC, saves, class, level, etc, etc, but most of them get compromised or tweaked at some point without causing the game to 'not be D&D' anymore.

AC went from matrix to THACO, to DC, and inverted, all without not being D&D, for instance.  Hit points have inflated and deflated, been defined different ways, etc.   We've had classes come and go, change radically, level differently, MC very differently, bleed into races, etc.

*But, the only time D&D was JUST NOT D&D, was when casters were roughly balanced with non-casters, and magic items were little more than fungible baseline gear and fashion accessories.*



Oofta said:


> But I know a lot of people that felt that the edition just didn't "feel" like D&D.  It had a lot of things in common with D&D.  The basic structure was there, so why did it feel different?



 Balance.  Specifically, class balance, though encounter balance was also a factor.  Especially the way caster classes balanced with non-casters, and the way magic items (and rituals) were indexed to wealth/level that made them just another build resource, _and not nearly the most important/powerful one_.



> Different classes just "feel" different.  A paladin plays different than a rogue, a wizard has different concerns than a fighter.  That wasn't true in 4E, with everyone having the same basic structure.



  This is one of those odd misconception that  reminds me that we have to accept what others 'feel' as their own personal experience, no matter how at odds with certain of the facts they may seem.

Objectively, classes in 4e had similar structures in terms of number of powers, very different characteristics in play based on role and features, and very different flavor & breadth based on Source (and powers used a consistent/set of rules & keywords while giving the players freedom to define their flavor).  Focus on one, ignore the others, and we get the cosmetic aspect of one of the core rifts of the edition war:  4e detractors feeling that the classes were 'samey,' 4e fans, in stark contrast, feeling that they're /finally/ getting to play something closer to the full range of characters from genre.

But, the root is that core of D&D:  the Magic.
Magic in 4e - magic items and class 'Sources' other than martial - had greater breadth of effects, very different flavor, but weren't flat-out more powerful.  You could quite literally remove magic from the game with little issue.  Martial classes only, inherent bonuses on - the game would progress about as normal (for any other party that lacked a controller, that is, so a bit rougher when outnumbered, for instance).
That's the not-D&D part.



> Related to that, you can have characters that feel special but not supernatural.  A champion fighter is just a guy that wades into combat and swings a weapon.



Nothing about the champion seems remotely special.  Seriously.  Absolutely everything in D&D with hands (and a few things without, I suspect) can wade into combat swinging a weapon.


> It may not be very realistic, but it's one of the classes that you could throw into a movie set in the real world and it wouldn't look too out of place.



That, you could say about the BM - or the 4e Warlord, or any other 4e martial class... or the 3e or earlier fighters, rogues, & thieves/assassins, to a point.
D&D characters tend to be overly-specialized for typical protagonists, in particular, protagonists tend to be charismatic, perceptive, and clever in ways 6-stat, STR-or-DEX-primary/DEX-and/or-CON-secondary D&D classes can rarely manage.



> So while 4E had the sheen and look of D&D, it was a different game and just didn't scratch the same itch for a lot of people.



 Very true.  But, really, it went beyond just not scratching an itch, or it'd've just been a matter of go rub up against PF or Hackmaster or whatever, and :::ahhhhh…:::  ...we're good.

4e was actively infuriating.  It wasn't just a D&D some D&Ders didn't care for, it was one they couldn't /tolerate/.  It would not be exaggerating much to say that it was viewed as an existential threat.

Because the _Magic_ wasn't there.

When it came time to put the magic back, with 5e, it was up-front about it:


			
				5e Basic pdf said:
			
		

> The Wonders of Magic
> Few D&D adventures end without something magical
> happening. Whether helpful or harmful, magic appears
> frequently in the life of an adventurer, and it is the focus
> ...


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Because the _Magic_ wasn't there.




Because the supremacy of magic wasn't there


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> Y'all can discuss whatever you want, but just as a reminder, this is supposed to be about the commonality in all D&D.
> 
> You know, the things that bring us together. Not ... the other stuff.



You are bound to have them saying 4e lacked the essence... Not sure how you could not expect that to happen.

To me 4e delivered on so many of the promises of 1e and 2e.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

Me: Utterly unabashed about it... indeed.

The Wonders of Magic
Few D&D adventures end without something magical
happening. Whether helpful or harmful, magic appears
frequently in the life of an adventurer, and it is the focus
of chapters 10 and 11.

Me:So far so good....  and then

In the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons, practitioners
of magic are rare, set apart from the masses of people
by their extraordinary talent. 

Me: Pretty sure every heroic archetype should be extraordinary
and as for rarity... the adversaries in the monster manual
do not need to be "A Fighter" ... they are a human soldier or
the orcish warrior. 

Common folk might see evidence of magic on a regular basis, but it’s usually
minor—a fantastic monster, a visibly answered prayer,
a wizard walking through the streets with an animated
shield guardian as a bodyguard.

Me: No problem really...

Me: But then we have reinforced dependence and superiority on a stick

*For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival.
Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers
would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without
the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors
might be overwhelmed by powerful foes.* *Without
the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and
druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold.*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, sometimes it's like Charlie Brown and the football.
> 
> I assume, because we are all honorable gamers, that the topic won't come up this time.
> 
> And then I'm flat on my back, staring at the sky.



lowkey13 the Charlie Brown of posters...


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 11, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> and magic items were little more than fungible baseline gear and fashion accessories.




I'm not going to get into the 4e debate, but I thought this line was interesting.

I've thought a lot about why magic items are so awesome, and why (if they're so awesome) I don't like magic shops and DDAL treasure points.  (Or their equivalent in other games, including in video games.)

What I think is going on, at least in my own little brain, is that the abilities (or power) you get from "found" magic items is inherently different from abilities/power you get as part of standard game progression. It feels like "bonus" power, beyond what you are supposed to have at whatever level you are.

I'm not saying it very eloquently, but does that make sense?

So it wouldn't have to be magic items.  It could be that as a quest reward a powerful NPC grants you some ability.  That, to me, would feel as special and cool as a magic item.  And I think it's for the same reason: it makes my character just a little bit better than the baseline for the game.

Of course, variable rewards have all kinds of troublesome impact on supposedly fair and balanced games (e.g., DDAL).  But those aren't design goals I care about a whole lot.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 11, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> lowkey13 the Charlie Brown of posters...



Does that mean 'Garthanos' is some language's translation of 'Lucy'?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Hey everyone!
> Y'all can discuss whatever you want, but just as a reminder, this is supposed to be about the commonality in all D&D.
> You know, the things that bring us together. Not ... the other stuff.



Yeah, I acknowledged, up-front, that I was going to be cynical about it.  But, I'm afraid that - thanks to the rejection of the 4e outlier - their just isn't any such commonality.  At least, not a meaningful one, not the "continuity" you posited.



Garthanos said:


> You are bound to have them saying 4e lacked the essence... Not sure how you could not expect that to happen.



Really, the litmus test for something being the Core & Essence of D&D prettymuch /has/ to be that it be somehow absent from - or, at the very least, severely lacking in - 4e.

Class/Level?  Hps?  Killing things & taking their stuff? 
Can't be the core of D&D, because 4e had 'em, and it just wasn't D&D.

For that matter, whatever it is, it prettymuch /has/ to be in PF1, because it /was/ D&D, just w/o the trade dress.

So all those settings and copyrightable/trademarkable proper nouns and other IP? 
Not it.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Does that mean 'Garthanos' is some language's translation of 'Lucy'?



I am not the one pulling the ball LOL  but I admit predicting the issue and watching quietly while he ran up to take the shot.

It could be a greekification of Garth which means guard to protect or maybe garden?
but its actually a greekification of Garthan means straight/true one in a homebrew dragon language.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 11, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I thought this line was interesting.
> I've thought a lot about why magic items are so awesome, and why (if they're so awesome) I don't like magic shops and DDAL treasure points.  (Or their equivalent in other games, including in video games.)
> What I think is going on, at least in my own little brain, is that the abilities (or power) you get from "found" magic items is inherently different from abilities/power you get as part of standard game progression. It feels like "bonus" power, beyond what you are supposed to have at whatever level you are.
> I'm not saying it very eloquently, but does that make sense?



Yes.  Perfect sense.
As MM put it when introducing 5e, "magic items make you _just better_."

But, 3.x/PF had wealth/level & make/buy and still retained the core & essence of really being D&D.  The difference was that those made/bought, part of level progression, magic items were still /very important & powerful/, not fungible, not just accessories that do something cool-but-not-that-important. 



> So it wouldn't have to be magic items.  It could be that as a quest reward a powerful NPC grants you some ability.  That, to me, would feel as special and cool as a magic item.  And I think it's for the same reason: it makes my character just a little bit better than the baseline for the game.



 As long as it's some /magical/ ability, sure.  
Classic D&D had many examples (albeit, mostly in modules, not rulebooks) of arbitrary magical abilities granted by interacting with the environment ("I drink from the glowing pool!") or getting a whammy put on you by some uber-being (god or devil or high-level wizard or whatever) for good, ill, or some combination. 



> Of course, variable rewards have all kinds of troublesome impact on supposedly fair and balanced games (e.g., DDAL).  But those aren't design goals I care about a whole lot.



 Indeed, unfair & imbalanced /is/ arguably a necessary part of the essence of D&D, of Magic being Really Magical, because fair & balanced-with-the-mundane just ain't _magical_.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> Y'all can discuss whatever you want, but just as a reminder, this is supposed to be about the commonality in all D&D.
> 
> You know, the things that bring us together. Not ... the other stuff.




Eh. If someone was very specific about the essence of D&D - specific enough that some editions had it and others didn't - it could certainly cut out other editions. Just because you're seeing some answers you don't like doesn't mean people aren't sincerely answering the question.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 11, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> As long as it's some /magical/ ability, sure.
> Classic D&D had many examples of arbitrary abilities granted by interacting with the environment ("I drink from the glowing pool!") or getting a whammy put on you by some uber-being (god or devil or high-level wizard or whatever) for good, ill, or some combination.




Mmm...I don't think I agree with this.  If a quest reward was that I was taught how to do something cool (basically a free feat? are feats magical?) I'd find it equally satisfying.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Indeed, unfair & imbalanced /is/ arguably a necessary part of the essence of D&D, of Magic being Really Magical, because fair & balanced-with-the-mundane just ain't _magical_.



You cynic.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 11, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> You cynic.



We have a few Cap'n's on the board, already, but not a Cpt Obvious. 
 Are you auditioning?



Elfcrusher said:


> Mmm...I don't think I agree with this.  If a quest reward was that I was taught how to do something cool (basically a free feat? are feats magical?) I'd find it equally satisfying.



Most feats, at least in the ed that introduced them, were not magical... though some, like metamagic feats, obviously were, and Stunning Blow was, IIRC, (SU)pernatural.  I can't say I recall free feats being given out, though, in any WotC edition.

But, would a free (but mundane) feat really cut it?  You're just doing something anyone else with a feat available and the right BaB (or whatever perquisites) could choose.   Maybe if it was feat-like, but unique?

But, really, what could be an example of that?  Magical or at least, supernatural, powers can be arbitrarily unique.  Learned mundane skills/feats/whatever could presumably be learned by anyone.  At least, that seems to be the D&D paradigm: mundane can't be special or unique, it must be, well, mundane.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Mmm... don't mind people expressing preference. Just don't want to see another "This edition sucks," "No it doesn't, yo momma" thread.



 It's not about sucking, it's about being _Really D&D_ or not.   And it certainly needn't be about preference.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 11, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> We have a few Cap'n's on the board, already, but not a Cpt Obvious.
> Are you auditioning?
> 
> Most feats, at least in the ed that introduced them, were not magical... though some, like metamagic feats, obviously were, and Stunning Blow was, IIRC, (SU)pernatural.  I can't say I recall free feats being given out, though, in any WotC edition.
> ...




I'm trying to get my head around what you're saying here.  Most magic isn't special or unique, either, right?  A +1 sword could "presumbably be (found) by anyone."  Right?

Then again, you've got some theory about magic vs. supernatural vs....something else that I've never quite understood, so we might just be coming at this from totally different angles.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 11, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I'm trying to get my head around what you're saying here.  Most magic isn't special or unique, either, right?  A +1 sword could "presumably be (found) by anyone."  Right?



 Magic seems to get to be arbitrarily unique, but that's not the same thing as /always/ being unique. 

But even a 'mere' +1 sword can't readily be made by the smith in the next town.  Depending on the ed, it might not even be readily made by the next full Wizard, since he might be loath to part with another point of CON for the Permanency spell.  Even when it's not unique, D&D makes magic special - I mean, that +1 sword can 'hit' monsters against which you'd otherwise be helpless, or at least, at a severe disadvantage (except in 4e, of course).



> Then again, you've got some theory about magic vs. supernatural vs....something else that I've never quite understood, so we might just be coming at this from totally different angles.



 Magic vs mundane, really.  
The Essence of D&D is the Primacy of Magic. 
In D&D, 'Magic' the way I'm using it, really is anything supernatural, though, "Magic" just sound pithier, and more rooted in fantasy.  
Psionics for instance, whether 'magic' or 'not magic' technically, could still fill the bill.  So could 'sufficiently advanced' technology, I suppose (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks).  But, generally, "Magic" says enough.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 11, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> The Essence of D&D is the Primacy of Magic.




Ah, I see.  Since I don't agree with you about that assumption, I guess we won't agree on some of the conclusions you reach.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> "*So I had a comment a while back discussing how the greatest strength of D&D*, the very reason why D&D is the "Big Tent" RPG,* is because it is a continuing dialogue between the past and the future*; that "D&D" (*construed as the various editions of D&D*, the various OSR clones of D&D, and even PF) share a commonality and a continuity, as well as a scale, that other RPGs lack. ...
> 
> So what was interesting to me is that, for example, this is why we get such interesting conversations on enworld. *You can have people discussing 5e*, but bringing in perspectives from the 70s, and from just having picked up the game. You can have people trying to bend it to a "old school OD&D feel"* or to a more "3e" or "4e" feel ...*"
> 
> ...



Oh I admire the effort

Here is the football stand (I am not really that cynical but my humor is now engaged)


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 11, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 11, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ah, I see.  Since I don't agree with you about that assumption, I guess we won't agree on some of the conclusions you reach.



It's not an assumption.  It's a possible answer to the question posed by the thread.  One that lines up with the rejection of 4e as NOT-D&D - and the acceptance of PF, OSR & the like as D&D.

I mean, the Primacy of Magic /is/ a common thread throughout non-4e D&D, retroclones, and most D&D-imitators that might pretend to the 'being essentially D&D.'  

It's also to be found in Ars Magica, but I'm not sure something has to be exclusive to D&D to be it's Essence?  Just that lacking it disqualifies you from being D&D, out of hand.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 11, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's not an assumption.  It's a possible answer to the question posed by the thread.  One that lines up with the rejection of 4e as NOT-D&D - and the acceptance of PF, OSR & the like as D&D.
> 
> I mean, the Primacy of Magic /is/ a common thread throughout non-4e D&D, retroclones, and most D&D-imitators that might pretend to the 'being essentially D&D.'
> 
> It's also to be found in Ars Magica, but I'm not sure something has to be exclusive to D&D to be it's Essence?  Just that lacking it disqualifies you from being D&D, out of hand.




Ok.  I don't think it's a good or correct answer to the question of the thread, though.

At least, when I think about what I love about D&D (specifically, as opposed to other RPGs) it's not "because magic is primary!".  In fact, the more overt and omnipresent it is in a setting, the less it feels like the D&D I loved playing the 80's.  Forgotten Realms?  Too..."magical".  Eberron?  WAY too magical.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 11, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok.  I don't think it's a good or correct answer to the question of the thread, though.



It wouldn't be the internet if everyone just agreed.   



> At least, when I think about what I love about D&D (specifically, as opposed to other RPGs) it's not "because magic is primary!".  In fact, the more overt and omnipresent it is in a setting, the less it feels like the D&D I loved playing the 80's.  Forgotten Realms?  Too..."magical".  Eberron?  WAY too magical.



 The thing about magic becoming pervasive and common is it can stop feeling magical....   Make/buy threatens to do that, spells being even somewhat balanced with mundane maneuvers really does it - magic items becoming comparatively minor build resources, nail in the coffin, really.

Now, I don't think FR or Eberron (in 3e or 5e) cross that line to the point of being not-D&D - there's still actual, strictly-inferior, mundanity to be had there, for contrast - but I can certainly empathize (moreso with FR.  Eberron feels almost cyber-punk, to me, with magic taking the place of tech, which is, well, not the steampunk or film noir it was going for, but still kinda cool... and still pretty D&D, AFAICT).


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 11, 2019)

@Tony Vargas When your argument amounts to "The essence of D&D is that people secretly want a broken game, even though people expressly deny that they want a broken game, and this fact lets me pin the blame on the market failure of my preferred edition on this character flaw of others", I can't help but detect an ulterior motive that casts a shadow of doubt on your conclusions.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 11, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> @Tony Vargas When your argument amounts to "The essence of D&D is that people secretly want a broken game, even though people expressly deny that they want a broken game, and this fact lets me pin the blame on the market failure of my preferred edition on this character flaw of others", I can't help but detect an ulterior motive that casts a shadow of doubt on your conclusions.




 Hey you have to push that narrative. 

 Mines a lot simpler. The casuals don't really care one way or another, most people don't play level 10 plus so God wizards don't functionally exist.

Give then something simple that's good enough and they will come. B/X, 5E etc. Lose the casuals though and you're screwed.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 11, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> When your argument amounts to "The essence of D&D is that people secretly want a broken game,



It's never that simple, though, it has to be broken in /just the right way/… (for instance, when we detected a 0.5-average-damage difference between the 3.x Great Axe & Greatsword, that was a broken that drew complaints)

...and the case can be made* that the Primacy of Magic needn't be radically imbalanced (just give everyone access to magic in some form**), or at least needn't be unfair (just give every player the option to access magic - no one forces you to play the Tier 5 mundane class)...

...and it's no secret.







*of course the contrary case can also be made:  that fair & balanced-with-the-mundane just ain't magical.
**1e AD&D, for instance, which, for me, is the defining edition, went to some lengths to salt treasure tables such that fighter-useable magic items would pop up quite a bit, in the name of balance.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 11, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Hey you have to push that narrative.
> 
> Mines a lot simpler. The casuals don't really care one way or another, most people don't play level 10 plus so God wizards don't functionally exist.
> 
> Give then something simple that's good enough and they will come. B/X, 5E etc. Lose the casuals though and you're screwed.




God that's condescending/elitist/dismissive.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Mines a lot simpler. The casuals don't really care one way or another, most people don't play level 10 plus so God wizards don't functionally exist.



Sure but I have also been noticing if your DM does insane things like giving every party member limited use magic item creation for down time activity by way of WoW crafting for instance  and those items are all over the field over powered, everybody is ridiculous and you cannot even notice the limits that martial character might have had in the default rules. DMs willing to go zongo whether its by magic items or whatever will have players not even blinking at the disparity that makes me cringe or Tony pull out his hair.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 11, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> The essence of D&D is that people secretly want a broken game, even though people expressly deny that they want a broken game



"Secret" - since when? Do we need to hunt for the numerous quotes either explicitly or amounting to "Of course magic should be more powerful it's magic after all" or the various incarnations of "you cannot do that with skill it would step on the toes of the spell caster." Note they arent exactly saying they want the game broken we are the ones saying what they want really means something we consider a broken game which is two different things. Note even if my fighter has a strong guarantee of having some ancient relic class artifact weapon by taking a uniquely fighter background "Fated Wielder" I can be very powerful the relic might make me skilled in a super wide variety of things and provide other spell like non-combat elements too. Magic remains supreme but I get to use it with my non-caster archetype.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 11, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> ... the disparity that makes me cringe or Tony pull out his hair.



Hey, I lost my hair naturally.  Genetics, testosterone, age.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> It's not Festivus; we do not need the ritual airing of grievances.



Wait is that a thing...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Wait is that a thing...



It was a skit on some comedy show.  SNL?  Seinfeld?  Friends?  ...something inexplicably popular in the 90s, anyway...


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 12, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 12, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> It was a skit on some comedy show.  SNL?  Seinfeld?  Friends?  ...something inexplicably popular in the 90s, anyway...



Seinfeld created a new holiday tradition that some people actually follow. Not me, but some friends of mine do, complete with the ritual airing of grievances. 
My faith tradition has twice a year, minimum, forgiving ones who have wronged one, and asking forgiveness for wrongs done. Preferably as part of a paraliturgical celebration.

D&D flavors have a preference spectrum not unlike many mainstream religions... a few devout faithful, a good number of regular participants, including a range of levels of participation, a lot of lip-service and "go to meeting for the social after", and many more who look on with sheer disbelief.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 12, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's never that simple, though, it has to be broken in /just the right way/...
> 
> ...and the case can be made* that the Primacy of Magic needn't be radically imbalanced




There are plenty of ways to balance magic vs mudane!

1. Attach a large time and money cost to the most powerful spells! An hour casting time and 1000 gold cost will balance a lot of spells. 4E Rituals and spell componets did this; which lots of people didn't like.

2. Casting an OP spell? Roll a D20 and kill your character of you get a 1! Risk vs reward. The Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG has something like this.

3. Force spell casters to ration spells! Three to ten spells slots vs six to eight encounters a day means you don't cast willy nilly. Its how 5E solved it.

4. Make the wizard a carry. You make wizards suck at the lower to make them earn late game brokenness. It's the classic solution.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

MichaelSomething said:


> There are plenty of ways to balance magic vs mudane!



Which of them provided anything approaching climactic encounter changing benefits for non-magic aside perhaps from skill challenge structures and 4e assumptions of utility power equity and resource similarity.



MichaelSomething said:


> 1. Attach a large time and money cost to the most powerful spells! An hour casting time and 1000 gold cost will balance a lot of spells. 4E Rituals and spell componets did this; which lots of people didn't like.




Yeh it can but not if you decide to make wealth an utterly indeterminate thing. That only works in 3e and 4e actually. (ok one might be able to compute expected wealth in 1e and 2e from random encounter tables but not easy)



MichaelSomething said:


> 2. Casting an OP spell? Roll a D20 and kill your character of you get a 1! Risk vs reward. The Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG has something like this.



Yeh one could put risk vs reward in D&D by having spell casting cost hit points as standard and other similar things or one could allow anyone to perform heroic exertions that allow feats of Martial Prowess or feats of Magic of appropriate style. OOPs I just introduced resource commonality to get martial types similar benefits

To be clear big climactic significant awesome is part of the imbalance. So magic is more powerful just sucks because it's basically a lime light issue.  Oh right random crit fisher fighter gets limelight randomly instead of when its needed gee that cannot be a problem.  (everybody should like lack of strategic and tactical choice)



MichaelSomething said:


> 3. Force spell casters to ration spells! Three to ten spells slots vs six to eight encounters a day means you don't cast willy nilly. Its how 5E solved it.



Actiual seen use in the wild 3 or maybe 4 encounters a game week. Shrug assumptions about "encounters a day" having variable impact on your characters depending on which subsystem the game designer thinks is appropriate is a pretty willy nilly as far as everyone contributing. Kind of locks down the story flow.  Instead of player choice.



MichaelSomething said:


> 4. Make the wizard a carry. You make wizards suck at the lower to make them earn late game brokenness. It's the classic solution.



Presumption people begin campaigns at level 1 and play through out when even the games designers didnt do that ... regardless even if they do what you really get is constant imbalance not actual balance.  so yeh that was bull when I seen it in 1976. 

Point is no balance was never easy to achieve.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Technically making magic items less overwhelming/awesome I feel was really to emphasize the hero themselves not their toys AND was something easily adjusted by a DM in 4e if you wanted to with relatively low impact. A player could similarly attribute the skill they just gained or even multiclassing feat they gained as an effect of the sentient sword and do there own my magic item is awesome thing.  Flavor wise most of the time my ranger or warlord or fighter or whatever being dependent on something a caster theoretically made to have awesome is kind of meh  - So I like that it is flexible I might want to play an Elric dependent on his blade for even some of his attributes (but I can just omg roleplay that) but not necessarily. 

To me the sedateness of item power was not actually a tool to balance things and has low impact in that arena from initial fluxiness when you acquire an item.  (one could make it take a level to open / acquire a power of a multiple power item and that would go away).


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> *Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and
> druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold.*



Assuming they achieved this the argument the casters are balanced with the piddling couple of non-caster classes sounds like well probably not.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 12, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's never that simple, though, it has to be broken in /just the right way/...
> 
> ...and the case can be made* that the Primacy of Magic needn't be radically imbalanced (just give everyone access to magic in some form**), or at least needn't be unfair (just give every player the option to access magic - no one forces you to play the Tier 5 mundane class)...
> 
> ...and it's no secret.




...

Okay.

You really don't see the problem with what you're doing here, do you?

You quibble my choice of the words "broken" and "secret", but those weren't the meat of my critique. The meat of my critique is that you're trying to tell me that you know why I switched from 4E to 5E better than I do, and although the reason you've invented is conveniently uncritical of 4E, it manages this trick by being unflattering to me instead. Do you want to know why I switched? _Ask me._ I will not use the phrase "Primacy of Magic". I will not give any explanation that could reasonably be called "Primacy of Magic". And I will not be impressed by any attempt to bend my words into a "Primacy of Magic" framework.

And don't write me off as an exception to your generalizations, either. Ask a whole bunch of other players who made the upgrade. You will get a broad variety of reasons. Will some of them give you stuff that sounds kind of like this "Primacy of Magic" idea? Yes, of course. But if you cite those reasons to say "Aha! I was right! Primacy of Magic is the essence of D&D and the reason why 4E failed through no fault of its own!", and ignore all the other reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with Primacy of Magic but maybe _do_ find some fault in 4E... well, then, that's what's known as _cherry-picking_.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 12, 2019)

Well, no, @TheCosmicKid, that's not quite what he said.  Not that 4e failed through no fault of its own.  It failed BECAUSE it failed to learn the lesson of a successful D&D - Magic MUST be primary.  That is the one trope the holds true in every single edition of the game.  That magic, whether through class abilities or items, must be beyond whatever mere mortals can do.

It's not really a coincidence that all but, what, 3 PHB classes don't have any magic.  I mean, they even let barbarians FLY and people accepted it.  A ranger that didn't have magic?  NO WAY!  THAT'S NOT A RANGER.  But a flying barbarian?  No problems at all. 

While I often find that @Tony Vargas takes his points too far, he's actually got a decent amount of evidence to back this one up.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 12, 2019)

aramis erak said:


> ... a paraliturgical celebration.



Never heard this term - does this mean the sort of celebration where you all go down to the pub, drink enough beer that you all forget any wrongs anyone else there has done to you, and all leave as the best of friends?

If not, it should.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Yeh it can but not if you decide to make wealth an utterly indeterminate thing. That only works in 3e and 4e actually. (ok one might be able to compute expected wealth in 1e and 2e from random encounter tables but not easy)



Something else to keep in mind from 1e-2e that almost completely vanished afterward was that wealth - as expressed by magic items owned - was much more easy come, easy go.

Fail your save vs a fireball or lightning bolt in 1e?  Everything you're carrying now has to save individually, and some of those saves - particularly against lightning - ain't easy to make.

Makes it far easier as a DM to give out magic items when you know the odds are they won't last forever.



> To be clear big climactic significant awesome is part of the imbalance. So magic is more powerful just sucks because it's basically a lime light issue.  Oh right random crit fisher fighter gets limelight randomly instead of when its needed gee that cannot be a problem.  (everybody should like lack of strategic and tactical choice)



Randomly hitting the big score can be far more fun than being able to predict and control when it happens.



> Actiual seen use in the wild 3 or maybe 4 encounters a game week. Shrug assumptions about "encounters a day" having variable impact on your characters depending on which subsystem the game designer thinks is appropriate is a pretty willy nilly as far as everyone contributing. Kind of locks down the story flow.  Instead of player choice.



Yeah, the adventuring day tends to end when either a) the casters run out of spells or b) the party in general runs out of hit points; and of those a) is far more common IME.



> Presumption people begin campaigns at level 1 and play through out



Yes, that is the baseline assumption.



> when even the games designers didnt do that ... regardless even if they do what you really get is constant imbalance not actual balance.  so yeh that was bull when I seen it in 1976.
> 
> Point is no balance was never easy to achieve.



Compounded by some of the early-days balancing mechanisms being thrown out at the design level starting with 3e e.g. different advancement rates by class, casting becoming harder and harder to interrupt, etc.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 12, 2019)

@Lanefan, something that gets left out though is that AD&D PC's were assumed to have more than 10 magic items each.  Otherwise, the strictures on paladins don't make any sense.  So, if we assume a 6-8 PC party, it's reasonable to think that most of the time, they would be lugging around 60-80 magic items.  O.O

And, if we look at the old 1e modules, that wasn't actually a hard limit to reach.  There were a LOT of magic items in those old magic items.  Sure, a lightning bolt save was hard to make, but, they also weren't all that common.  Blue dragons and 5th level+ wizards were about the only things that shot lightning.  

Sure, you might be running through magic items, but, the point is, you had a LOT of magic items to run through.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 12, 2019)

Wands of lightning were a thing. 

 Old D&D did a better job of elemental damage.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 12, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Never heard this term - does this mean the sort of celebration where you all go down to the pub, drink enough beer that you all forget any wrongs anyone else there has done to you, and all leave as the best of friends?
> 
> If not, it should.



It's not a distinction commonly made outside a theological context, and even then, it's not a commonly made distinction in West European theologies... but within a Byzantine, Coptic, or Syriac frame of reference...

Liturgical celebrations: divine liturgy - to use the roman term, the mass.
Paraliturgical: any other formal church services other than the Divine Liturgy.

For more, Forgiveness Sunday - OrthodoxWiki


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> e.g. different advancement rates by class,



Your 1e fighter was level 9 when the mage as 11 this did not do what people thought it did.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Your 1e fighter was level 9 when the mage as 11 this did not do what people thought it did.




AD&D was funky.

 B/X yeah wizard was behind.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> casting becoming harder and harder to interrupt, etc.



So much eraticness ... to that implementation. I liked it in concept didnt see it actually do its thing in practice easy to interrupt at low level when it was most well rude (you get 1 magic thing only to do at low level and oops nope not today) and potentially very quickly a lot harder to do at high level when it really might be needed to keep them in line. Honest this is like boosting the availability of magic items of the fighter types IT seems like it can/could work in theory land but it really makes huge assumptions which failed in practice land like mages not getting the items.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Makes it far easier as a DM to give out magic items when you know the odds are they won't last forever.



Destroying magic items in stories usually seems a big deal... them volcanos and the like come in handy not so much incidental damage on a battlefield (important choices involved)


Lanefan said:


> Randomly hitting the big score can be far more fun than being able to predict and control when it happens.



Really says who... (yes I know the gambler and its why you call it a big score and I call it a climactic - it is actually pretty telling)
Fluke die rolls honestly don't impress me as much as those based on choices remember the game was supposed to be about the player expressing their character through choices (such as what things seem important to the player and character) AND on top of that the class most interested in fighting had the fewest functional tactical and strategic choices IMHO that sucks.
TBH In the end I want having a *really* climatic effect to not be just because of resource management (it is part of it) but  occurring because of a combination of that planning and  team work and combining more than one characters abilities and exploiting features of the scene and so on to me that is way more interesting than just an ooh look the plastic said so.  (or just the bald faced decision* but even just the decision says something about the character and what the player considers important*). To me things like the 4e slayer or champion in 5e lack expressiveness (and the 5e bm only seems a bit better with kill it fast dominating everything).


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> AD&D was funky.



But it was so popular it must be good.... made somebody money


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Never heard this term - does this mean the sort of celebration where you all go down to the pub, drink enough beer that you all forget any wrongs anyone else there has done to you, and all leave as the best of friends?
> 
> If not, it should.



Works for me... everybody clear your blocked lists!!!!!


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> But it was so popular it must be good.... made somebody money




 I like AD&D wouldn't claim it's perfect and I like different xp for classes and OSR multiclassing


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I like AD&D wouldn't claim it's perfect and I like different xp for classes and OSR multiclassing



I still do not know what to really like for multiclassing 5es is a huge trap nice and pretty and  organic (but easy to fail at) and while 4e worked once it got all its features in place it was complex I mean 4e multiclassing has huge numbers of components. From  feats (even ones like ritualist or skill training or melee training) to explicitly labeled multiclass feats (which also opened paragon paths and other feats) to themes and finally hybrids (which are kind of like forcing people to keep two classes close to the same level by splitting experience but balanced by using a combined level for regulating max effectiveness of things a bit like getting half druid spells and half wizard spells but with the same level maxes as a single class)


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I still do not know what to really like for multiclassing 5es is a huge trap nice and pretty and  organic (but easy to fail at) and while 4e worked once it got all its features in place it was complex I mean 4e multiclassing has huge numbers of components. From  feats (even ones like ritualist or skill training or melee training) to explicitly labeled multiclass feats (which also opened paragon paths and other feats) to themes and finally hybrids (which are kind of like forcing people to keep two classes close to the same level by splitting experience but balanced by using a combined level for regulating max effectiveness of things a bit like getting half druid spells and half wizard spells but with the same level maxes as a single class)




No edition has really got mcing right. Maybe a clone like C&C?


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> No edition has really got mcing right. Maybe a clone like C&C?



I have no idea... the Cleric was arguably the first multiclass/hybrid and look at all the effort to try and get it right over the years.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I have no idea... the Cleric was arguably the first multiclass/hybrid and look at all the effort to try and get it right over the years.



Yep I'm not convinced any follow up effort on clerics has been any better than 1E or 2E priests.

 BECMI got it wrong along with 3E,and 4E IMHO. 

 It's a class idk where the solution is.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Yep I'm not convinced any follow up effort on clerics has been any better than 1E or 2E priests.
> 
> BECMI got it wrong along with 3E,and 4E IMHO.



 I think the first time a cleric seemed interesting was in 2e when they made priests of specific gods.  3e made the cleric a major component of CoDZilla over powered to attract someone to heal. I think 4e Clerics work fine ie not being crazy broken like in 3e ought to count for something  I still find in general the more connection to the nature of your god stylistically better.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I think the first time a cleric seemed interesting was in 2e when they made priests of specific gods.  3e made the cleric a major component of CoDZilla over powered to attract someone to heal. I think 4e Clerics work fine ie not being crazy broken like in 3e ought to count for something  I still find in general the more connection to the nature of your god stylistically better.




Yeah I think my favorite is the 2E priest. Some were op some sucked most were interesting.

 I used to put an effort into designing priests now I'm pick a domain unless that domain is really weird for the campaign.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 12, 2019)

Having just finished up playing 11 levels of a Forge Priest, I have to say, I'm not in love with the cleric class in 5e.  It's a class with too many contradictions - it's got good AC, and good HP, but, all the cantrips are for standing back and pew pewing.  It seems to me like a class that doesn't know what it wants to be.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 12, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Having just finished up playing 11 levels of a Forge Priest, I have to say, I'm not in love with the cleric class in 5e.  It's a class with too many contradictions - it's got good AC, and good HP, but, all the cantrips are for standing back and pew pewing.  It seems to me like a class that doesn't know what it wants to be.




Mostly this. 

 Unless you roll good stats just play a light cleric or something similar. 

 Waste of time trying to be a beatdown cleric unless you have good rolled stats or are good at min maxing.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

One problem with figuring out why people like/do something (which may be part and parcel of that original question) is impoverished self awareness/reporting ie its not even about deception but rather people are really bad at figuring out their own "whys" - I cannot tell you how many times I have pointed out that when someone said they disliked X because of Y, how easy it was to point out Y was simply not true. We humans rationalize the "why" wrt just about everything we do and so often we are bad at it. What Tony was doing is working backwards from a result to figure out the whys, which also has its limits but side steps that one.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Mostly this.
> 
> Unless you roll good stats just play a light cleric or something similar.
> 
> Waste of time trying to be a beatdown cleric unless you have good rolled stats or are good at min maxing.



I think there are two concepts and the pew pew lazer priest healer in the back that really isnt and the front liner that the hybrid concept is original cleric.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I think there are two concepts and the pew pew lazer priest healer in the back that really isnt and the front liner that the hybrid concept is original cleric.




The hybrid cleric doesn't really work anymore IMHO unless you're good at min maxing with the right feats and spells.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Your 1e fighter was level 9 when the mage as 11 this did not do what people thought it did.



It didn't let them both establish strongholds at about the same time?



Hussar said:


> something that gets left out though is that AD&D PC's were assumed to have more than 10 magic items each.  Otherwise, the strictures on paladins don't make any sense.  So, if we assume a 6-8 PC party, it's reasonable to think that most of the time, they would be lugging around 60-80 magic items.  O.O
> 
> And, if we look at the old 1e modules, that wasn't actually a hard limit to reach.



I'm not sure that assumption holds - class designs were not that carefully thought-out (heck, they still aren't), the guy that was tossing out semi-pointless RP restrictions on the Paladin to 'balance' it with the strictly-inferior Fighter may have thought 10 was a serious limit, sure, but those classes were just dreamed up by different folks at different times, before the DMG and it's nominally-balancing treasure tables.

But, if it does hold it makes sense.  Magic items were very high-impact, the fighter with dozens of items (never know when this +1 Fauchard-Fork might come in handy, and there's plenty of room in the Portable Hole) might very well be competitive with the Paladin with the top 10 best items he chose to retain.  Ok, might possibly be competitive. 

I mean, General Tagge said "... it is possible — however unlikely —" and it turned out that possible happened.




Lanefan said:


> Something else to keep in mind from 1e-2e that almost completely vanished afterward was that wealth - as expressed by magic items owned - was much more easy come, easy go.
> Fail your save vs a fireball or lightning bolt in 1e?  Everything you're carrying now has to save individually, and some of those saves - particularly against lightning - ain't easy to make.



 IIRC, that didn't actually go away in 3e.

4e had a level of magic item churn that (along with the lesser importance of items) would have tolerated that, now that I think of it - it also had a briefly-stated philosophy that, if you go and take the party's items away, they should get replaced (which, I'm sure, while accomplishing the same thing, is utterly appalling).



> Makes it far easier as a DM to give out magic items when you know the odds are they won't last forever.
> Randomly hitting the big score can be far more fun than being able to predict and control when it happens.



Sometimes predict & control is the unquestionable apotheosis of fun - CaW, for instance, with carefully choosing & planning your battles to be in your favor - othertimes, it's the very antithesis of fun.



> Yeah, the adventuring day tends to end when either a) the casters run out of spells or b) the party in general runs out of hit points; and of those a) is far more common IME.



 Plus, when healing is primarily through spells, you finally run out of hps with there's no healing spells left - more an issue in the TSR era, than the WotC (WoCLW/Surges/HD).
Then there are privileged-rest spells & items, from Rope Trick to Leo's Hut to Mord's Mansion (not to mention Daern's Fortress).

So, in essence, pacing, the most significant balance mechanism nominally limiting casters (and, by extension, the whole party in terms of encounter balance), is under the de-facto control of casters.

Primacy of Magic, again.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I still do not know what to really like for multiclassing 5es is a huge trap nice and pretty and  organic (but easy to fail at) and while 4e worked once it got all its features in place it was complex I mean 4e multiclassing has huge numbers of components. From  feats to explicitly labeled multiclass feats to themes and finally hybrids.



 In a way, multi-classing rules are just a tacit acknowledgement of the inadequacy of class-based systems.

I do think that 3e style 'modular multi-classing' is the most elegant, promising approach.  But the classes - apart from the Fighter - weren't simple nor balanced enough to work with it.  5e's optional take is particularly frustrating as it fixes some issues (favored classes/xp-penalties, caster level/spell progression) while breaking others (Extra Attack, ASIs/Feats) that worked fine in 3e.

The implication of 4e feat-based MCing - swapping out powers - had a similar promise, but it was kept too limited (& 4e hybrids worked, but, really, were not elegant, at all).  HoML sounds like it did a better job.  PF2 sounds interesting, that way, too.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 12, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Not that 4e failed through no fault of its own.  It failed BECAUSE it failed to learn the lesson of a successful D&D - Magic MUST be primary.



I don't buy that narrative. I dispute that Primacy of Magic is a sufficient explanation for the failure. I strongly suspect that if 4E had _e.g._ given rangers spells and done something else besides healing with the warlord (and recall that 4E actually _did_ do the magical barbarian first), but retained all the the other structural and presentation traits that people object to about it (which I'm not going to enumerate; I'm sure we all already know the litany), then it would have suffered much the same fate. Something else besides the status of magic made it "not D&D" to the people who were into that sort of thing. Furthermore, the perception that it was "not D&D" would have been immaterial to all the potential new players with no preconceptions about D&D whom it didn't attract and whom 5E did, and to the somewhat smaller number of new players whom it did attract but who then also switched to 5E. So something _beyond_ it being "not D&D" seems to have made it comparatively unappealing as well.

And as a side note, for my money the nonmagical ranger was one of the things 4E did right. So, again, Primacy of Magic is really not looking like a good explanation for me.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 12, 2019)

TarionzCousin said:


> I just came here to say that I find it interesting that two things you absolutely *don't *require to play D&D are:
> 
> 1. Dungeons; and
> 2. Dragons.




A complete absence of dungeons wouldn't feel like D&D to me. But Dragons are certainly optional - my Primeval Thule group fight other humans and the occasional eldritch abomination, not dragons.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 12, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> The meat of my critique is that you're trying to tell me that you know why I switched from 4E to 5E better than I do



 I'm offering a theory about what was so different in 4e from prior and subsequent versions of D&D when it was perceived as 'not really D&D.' 

Not really much to do with the folks doing the perceiving nor their real or professed ratiocinations for doing so. 
Just identifying the significant difference that corresponds.



> I will not use the phrase "Primacy of Magic". I will not give any explanation that could reasonably be called "Primacy of Magic".



The Primacy of Magic in D&D is a common thread - except in 4e - it really doesn't matter how you feel about that.  I may have, like, just put that label to it, but it's pretty obvious. Love it or hate it or ignore it:  it had been there for a long time, it was briefly absent, it's back.  It correlates with that discontinuity - a time when D&D wasn't really D&D, and Pathfinder had to step up an /be/ off-label D&D.



> You will get a broad variety of reasons.



 I mean, I'd /heard/ a very broad variety of reasons for judging 4e, uniquely among all editions of D&D, to be NOT D&D.  Many of those reasons are just outright nonsense, or fail because other eds not so harshly judged, shared them.  Those that stand tend to boil down to class balance or rewards for system mastery - the latter issue isn't something that's been consistent in all eds, the former is. 

Now, sure, it's just a correlation, but it's consistent. 



> I don't buy that narrative. I dispute that Primacy of Magic is a sufficient explanation for the failure.



Try thinking about it the other way-round.  That continuity the OP mentioned?  The break in that continuity was 4e.  That break would still have been there even had it been commercially successful in spite of the nerdrage (and so many other factors went into the failure, if they'd /all/ been different that doesn't even seem implausible).

What did it do /so differently/ that coincided with that?  Not to the appeal-to-popularity 'failure,' but the rejection of it as "not really D&D."

Presentation?   1e presentation and 3e presentation, for instance, were very different from eachother, too, as was 0e, as was BECMI vs AD&D.  The nerdrage was minimal by comparison in all cases.

Inverting saving throws into defenses?  3e inverted (un-inverted) AC, broke out Touch AC, re-defined save DCs by spell level - no major issues.  The 'power' rubric?  Clerical prayers had long used the same mechanic as conceptually-different MU spells with no issue.



> Something else besides the status of magic made it "not D&D" to the people who were into that sort of thing.



What "something else" would that be?  What broke the OP's continuity of D&D in 2008, if not the unprecedented treatment of martial classes, the unprecedented powering-down of caster classes, and the near-trivialization of magic items?
What, that prior eds hadn't already done, nor 5e retained in some bowdlerized fashion?



> Furthermore, the perception that it was "not D&D" would have been immaterial to all the potential new players with no preconceptions about D&D whom it didn't attract and whom 5E did



 Actually, the perception of continuity with past versions quite material to a game that trades so heavily on it's legacy & name recognition.
But, again, it's not about how that perception affected sales or fueled appeal-to-popularity arguments, but that the perception existed, and was so virulent & persistent.

And, yes, the status of magic seems like a very real candidate for that difference.  The various details people complained about were generally present in other editions - some of the most divisive, even still present in 5e - without significant issue.

Take martial healing (and, indeed, surges & overnight healing) - in 4e, when it was balanced with clerical & other magical forms of healing, it was horrifying, the very concept was supposedly intolerable.  Yet, in 5e, it's (all, counting HD as Surges) still present, but martial healing is much weaker (as are HD relative to surges), you couldn't depend upon it to keep a party going, you /need/ the magical healing the Cleric &c, again - and, while the martial-healing /concept/ that was supposedly so intolerable, before, is there, the 'problem' with it isn't:  that continuity with all other Real D&D is restored.



> And as a side note, for my money the nonmagical ranger was one of the things 4E did right. So, again, Primacy of Magic is really not looking like a good explanation for me.



The Primacy of Magic /requires/ non-magical options (attractive ones, or 'traps,' at that).
"If everyone is special" (magical), "then no one is," afterall.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Sep 12, 2019)

So what I'm taking from this is that Fighters and Rogues can go FLOCK themselves like the dirt-eating peasants they are? And if they get uppity, the magic bougie boot should stomp them back down post-haste?

Wow, thank you people.

Please keep the language “family friendly”.  Thanks!


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 12, 2019)

Hussar said:


> @Lanefan, something that gets left out though is that AD&D PC's were assumed to have more than 10 magic items each.  Otherwise, the strictures on paladins don't make any sense.  So, if we assume a 6-8 PC party, it's reasonable to think that most of the time, they would be lugging around 60-80 magic items.  O.O



No argument there - though quite a few of those would often be minor magics e.g. scrolls and potions. (also, carrying a 3,000 g.p. item is far easier than hauling around 3,000 g.p. in coin)



> And, if we look at the old 1e modules, that wasn't actually a hard limit to reach.  There were a LOT of magic items in those old magic items.  Sure, a lightning bolt save was hard to make, but, they also weren't all that common.  Blue dragons and 5th level+ wizards were about the only things that shot lightning.



Along with one or two rather memorable traps in certain modules, also the electric version of Glyph of Warding and a few much less common effects.

The biggest hazard is your own 5th level+ wizards and their bad aim and-or geometry.



> Sure, you might be running through magic items, but, the point is, you had a LOT of magic items to run through.



Like I said, easy come, easy go.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Your 1e fighter was level 9 when the mage as 11 this did not do what people thought it did.



Fair point - I'm so used to our houserules where we kept wizards on slow advancement throughout that I forget that by 1e RAW they had that speed-up between about levels 6 and 11.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Destroying magic items in stories usually seems a big deal... them volcanos and the like come in handy not so much incidental damage on a battlefield (important choices involved)



If magic items weren't relatively easy to destroy I'd have to give out far fewer of them, and if I did that you'd be able to hear my players' squawks no matter where in the world you are. 



> Really says who... (yes I know the gambler and its why you call it a big score and I call it a climactic - it is actually pretty telling)
> Fluke die rolls honestly don't impress me as much as those based on choices remember the game was supposed to be about the player expressing their character through choices (such as what things seem important to the player and character)



Only partly.

If it was to be entirely this way then dice would not be part of the game.  But they are, which emphatically states that luck is also an intentional and important component of the game.



> AND on top of that the class most interested in fighting had the fewest functional tactical and strategic choices IMHO that sucks.



Mechanically, this is correct.  But I've played 1e Fighters forever and provided I give 'em enough character and personality, they never get boring.

I'm happy to just keep swingin' this axe until the foe falls down.



> TBH In the end I want having a *really* climatic effect to not be just because of resource management (it is part of it) but  occurring because of a combination of that planning and  team work and combining more than one characters abilities and exploiting features of the scene and so on to me that is way more interesting than just an ooh look the plastic said so.  (or just the bald faced decision* but even just the decision says something about the character and what the player considers important*). To me things like the 4e slayer or champion in 5e lack expressiveness (and the 5e bm only seems a bit better with kill it fast dominating everything).



I dunno - when the party is (quite literally!) down to its last hit point and the only standing PC puts a critical into the arch-lich and destroys it, saving the party at the same time - yeah, it don't get better than that. Play of the Year!

(this actually happened in my game - fighting an arch-lich way above their pay grade, the whole party is down and out except one who is still fighting at 1 h.p.; and she max-crits the thing on what would have almost certainly been her last swing)


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 12, 2019)

@Tony Vargas Did you notice that you just put the words of a literal supervillain into the mouths of the people whose opinion you're supposedly describing?

That's the sort of stuff that makes me worry there's a little bit of motivated reasoning going on.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> If magic items weren't relatively easy to destroy I'd have to give out far fewer of them, and if I did that you'd be able to hear my players' squawks no matter where in the world you are.



Not with the items I give out and gave out in 1e too they arent flotsam and easily broken trash. 


Lanefan said:


> If it was to be entirely this way then dice would not be part of the game.  B



"Important" unless you perform the most difficult things in reality and get to have magic... then it can go flank itself. Sorry gambler man just not impressed


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Fair point - I'm so used to our houserules where we kept wizards on slow advancement throughout that I forget that by 1e RAW they had that speed-up between about levels 6 and 11.



Gygax once said he figured anyone interested in playing the game long term would be "drawn" to being a caster... this wasnt accidental


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> I dunno - when the party is (quite literally!) down to its last hit point and the only standing PC puts a critical into the arch-lich and destroys it, saving the party at the same time - yeah, it don't get better than that. Play of the Year!



Funny how the awesome play is just a piece of plastic rolling a certain way coincidentally and mine are heroes working together and exploiting the situation and bring together their resources and deciding this is really important we need it.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Funny how the awesome play is just a piece of plastic rolling a certain way and mine are heroes working together and exploiting the situation and bring together their resources and deciding this is really important we need it.



I find that successes - even major ones - that come after lots of careful planning and scouting and management are always somewhat anti-climactic, in that unless something goes wrong somehow they're pretty much a foregone conclusion.  You can see them coming, there's no surprise when they happen, and thus there's much less emotion involved.

Never mind that I'd have probably gotten bored with all the planning long since, and gone and done something rash.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 12, 2019)

S'mon said:


> A complete absence of dungeons wouldn't feel like D&D to me.



Underground tunnel delving required really? Not cities and mysterious forests with Temples to evil gods and  castles with realistic one room tiny actual dungeons?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 12, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> wizards by 1e RAW they had that speed-up between about levels 6 and 11.



And they weren't the only ones, either.  Druids sped up from, maybe, 4-11, IIRC?  

In retrospect I have to wonder /why?/  The sweet spot was something like 3-9, at the outside, why zip through part or even most of it?
And, then after name level, everyone just hit the wall.

Something 5e progression got very right, IMHO, savoring the sweet spot, then speeding back up.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 12, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Underground tunnel delving required really? Not cities and mysterious forests with Temples to evil gods and  castles with realistic one room tiny actual dungeons?




Yeah, I'm with S'mon.  There are lots of aspects of D&D I enjoy, but without going into spooky underground complexes with monsters, it just wouldn't be the same.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 12, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> you notice that you just put the words of a literal supervillain ?



 . Syndrome was the super-villain in Incredibles.  Both he and Dash said that line, though, or something close to it "that's just another way of saying nobody is," I think, was Dash's version.  

Let's see:

Elastigirl:  Everyone is special, Dash.                        
Dash Parr:  That's just another way of saying no one is.

later,

Syndrome:    And when everyone's super, [evil Laugh] no-one will be.                                       

OK, paraphrasing either way.


But, yes, it is essentially the same sentiment as the whole samey-classes/fighters-cast-spells/magic-doesn't-feel-magical line of criticism.  I repeated it because I'd heard it in this context more than a few times.  
And, yes, it's been pointed out before that Syndrome said it, too, to little effect.


----------



## jhingelshod (Sep 12, 2019)




----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 12, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> . Syndrome was the super-villain in Incredibles.  Both he and Dash said that line, though, or something close to it "that's just another way of saying nobody is," I think, was Dash's version.



So the people in whose mouths you're putting these words aren't supervillains -- they're just angry children?

Have you considered not putting words in peoples' mouths at all?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 12, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> So the people in whose mouths you're putting these words aren't supervillains -- they're just angry children?
> Have you considered not putting words in peoples' mouths at all?



 Oh, you joined in 2011.

From 2008:








						"Syndrome" Syndrome: or the Fallacy of "Special"
					

Lately, I have noticed that the talking-point criticism of the 4E system has been a co-opted quote from the movie The Incredibles, in that "When everyone is special, no one will be."  Lets ignore the fact that the source of the quote is a deranged maniac; the quote itself, when applied as it has...




					www.enworld.org
				











						I hate game balance!
					

So, I bought the 4E books. I read them. I read a lot of posts here on enworld, reading about others opinions and helping to solidify my own.  And heres the deal.  I HATE GAME BALANCE!  I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a...




					www.enworld.org
				




So, yeah, folks were quoting Syndrome (or Dash) in summing up their reactions to the way, well, 4e repudiated the Primacy of Magic.  I didn't make use the quote then.  I just alluded to its usage.

Really, it was a much-beaten drum.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 12, 2019)

@Tony Vargas



TheCosmicKid said:


> Ask a whole bunch of other players who made the upgrade. You will get a broad variety of reasons. Will some of them give you stuff that sounds kind of like this "Primacy of Magic" idea? Yes, of course. But if you cite those reasons to say "Aha! I was right! Primacy of Magic is the essence of D&D and the reason why 4E failed through no fault of its own!", and ignore all the other reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with Primacy of Magic but maybe _do_ find some fault in 4E... well, then, that's what's known as _cherry-picking_.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Never mind that I'd have probably gotten bored with all the planning long since, and gone and done something rash.



I identified that in you....  My coworker says next campaign he is being that guy since he is bloody tired of the one who usually is and he figures to put the shoe on the other foot.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Really, it was a much-beaten drum.



The site that really rang with those war drums was torn down ... so there is that. A lot of resources were lost too.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 13, 2019)

Ummm @TheCosmicKid, perhaps actually addressing the point rather that get upset about a single sentence might be more productive? 

I mean there’s a whole wall of text there with considerable supporting evidence. Getting twisted up in a single line seems a little pointless.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 13, 2019)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> So what I'm taking from this is that Fighters and Rogues can go naughty word themselves like the dirt-eating peasants they are? And if they get uppity, the magic bougie boot should stomp them back down post-haste?
> 
> Wow, thank you people.




Nope there's more than one way to defang magic.

You need some of the classics in their though.

Cheap n cheerful magic items in 3E was a mistake. Letting players buy them is probably another one (3E and 4E).


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Letting players buy them is probably another one (3E and 4E).



except I am pretty sure players having the magic items they wanted in 4e did not have anything like the same impact as in 3e or some other editions  It's just not even comparable, unless you have completely different reasons. For instance - Buy as many healing potions as you like in 4e unless the DM was enabling those super special fountain of youth whatevers (that he made up himself) they were only useful for triggering healing surges quickly  -> not for having infinite healing.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Ummm @TheCosmicKid, perhaps actually addressing the point rather that get upset about a single sentence might be more productive?
> 
> I mean there’s a whole wall of text there with considerable supporting evidence. Getting twisted up in a single line seems a little pointless.



Addressing the wall of text is pointless when the real issue is the one raised by the single sentence. I could point out that Tony Vargas cherry-picks his evidence by dismissing alternative objections to 4E with no more than a handwave and a label of "outright nonsense", as though objections that don't make sense _to him_ must not be sincere or genuine or coherent to the person making them. I could point out that he rules out 4E's presentation and its defense system as potential explanations by noting that they also exist in other editions, but then turns around to argue that the nonmagical healing _is_ a potential explanation _despite_ also existing in another edition. I could pull out all the old debate club tricks, but it wouldn't matter, because all of these are just symptoms of the underlying problem: he is demonizing the players who killed 4E.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> except I am pretty sure players having the magic items they wanted in 4e did not have anything like the same impact as in 3e or some other editions  It's just not even comparable, unless you have completely different reasons. For instance - Buy as many healing potions as you like in 4e unless the DM was enabling those super special fountain of youth whatevers (that he made up himself) they were only useful for triggering healing surges quickly  -> not for having infinite healing.




To enable 4E buy what you want mentality they made magic items boring, turns the game into accounting (lots of fun) and rewards powergaming (frostcheese).

Sure some people might find it fun but conceptually it's a bad idea.

Also adds in complexity when people try to marry up class features, powers, feats and magic items.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 13, 2019)

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

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

I’ve played modern low fantasy with 5e rules and used so little homebrew that I didn’t even have to put together a document to keep it all straight. Same deal (played or seen others playing) Weird West, political intrigue, heists and capers, team of investigators in a futuristic megatropolis, literally Shadowrun, alternate 1630’s magic school for magical swashbucklers with a homebrewed “magical parkour rugby on roofs” sport, final fantasy, knights of the romanticized chivalrous age, and more. 

Most other games are purpose built for a narrow range of stories. DnD 5e particularly is a toolbox whose classes and races are geared toward fantasy. That’s about as narrow as dnd 5e is, and tbh the other editions aren’t much narrower.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> except I am pretty sure players having the magic items they wanted in 4e did not have anything like the same impact as in 3e or some other editions  It's just not even comparable, unless you have completely different reasons. For instance - Buy as many healing potions as you like in 4e unless the DM was enabling those super special fountain of youth whatevers (that he made up himself) they were only useful for triggering healing surges quickly  -> not for having infinite healing.




Yeah, 4e pre-Essentials certainly worked fine with free crafting or purchase of items; it was designed that way. The main issue was that to maintain balance, apart from the + items, they tended to be very weak especially the combat items.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> To enable 4E buy what you want mentality they made magic items boring,



There was never enough cash around with a 20 percent buy back for a "buy what you want mentality" in the games typical play,  I wonder where that idea came from oh yes I suspect it wasnt generally from actual players more likely someone making massive assumptions . I am sure a generous DM might want it to happen. And low level items did become very accessible when you were bouncing around the planes approaching demigod status.  (That is so horrible shudders)

I personally like the hero to be more significant and more awesome than his toys. That said... one might want an Elric or Arthur. For instance if I want to use my feat to make my intelligent sword now provide me trained history tadah its pretty trivial to adjust where you flavor/perceive resources and character abilities. Or King Arthur can attribute his new ability to knock his enemy prone as being a function of Excalibur to forcing submissive responses in enemies.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> There was never enough cash around with a 20 percent buy back for a "buy what you want mentality" in the games typical play,  I wonder where that idea came from oh yes I suspect it wasnt generally from actual players more likely someone making massive assumptions . I am sure a generous DM might want it to happen. And low level items did become very accessible when you were bouncing around the planes approaching demigod status.  (That is so horrible shudders)
> 
> I personally like the hero to be more significant and more awesome than his toys. That said... one might want an Elric or Arthur. For instance if I want to use my feat to make my intelligent sword now provide me trained history tadah its pretty trivial to adjust where you flavor/perceive resources and character abilities. Or King Arthur can attribute his new ability to knock his enemy prone as being a function of Excalibur to forcing submissive responses in enemies.




If you have the cash you can basically buy what you want. They even made a ritual for it.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Sure some people might find it fun but conceptually it's a bad idea. Also adds in complexity when people try to marry up class features, powers, feats and magic items.



Opinions I disagree with yours more often than not.... making magic items too significant I think sucks a high level fighter without a bloody artifact was a sidekick it reached obvious levels in 3e.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> If you have the cash



Ignores actual game economy where the hell do you think the "cash" came from.... LOL


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

20 percent return rate... LOL ... buy anything you want... mentality LOL


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

S'mon said:


> The main issue was that to maintain balance, apart from the + items, they tended to be very weak especially the combat items.



Weak enough that they didnt over shadow the powers of heros.  As I mentioned earlier this was actually something one could adjust to taste without actual huge impact.  All classes were no more dependent on magic items than each other...


----------



## S'mon (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 20 percent return rate... LOL ... buy anything you want... mentality LOL




Well the item prices increase x5 per demi-tier, so with finding items 1-4 levels above your level, you can generally afford to buy stuff 1 demi tier lower; at worst 1 tier lower. A Paragon PC can buy Heroic Tier items and an Epic PC can buy Paragon items.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

When you marry a given classes versatility to their items you need some system that assures that is followed through on. (Like my earlier mentioned "Fated Wielder" background)  Random treasure tables? in practice failed as often as not (from my experience).


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Well the item prices increase x5 per demi-tier, so with finding items 1-4 levels above your level, you can generally afford to buy stuff 1 demi tier lower; at worst 1 tier lower.



Yes it allowed the player to decide that a lower level item was more worthwhile than one at their current grade... ie it allowed player/character choice to impact.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 20 percent return rate... LOL ... buy anything you want... mentality LOL




Misses the point.

Boring magic items, more work for DMs, D&D the accounting rpg.

Also complexity.

 Most magic items also suck a'la 3E so you are heavily incentivised to get the best ones.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> more work for DMs,



What work? 

I get if a player wants to align the feats and items and class features you have player driven and selected complexity.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

The non-boringness is a question of story in my experience.... not having items more powerful than the abilities of those who use them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> What work?
> 
> I get if a player wants to align the feats and items and class features you have player driven and selected complexity.




Encounter design.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

In arthurian legend and even in the Movies they rarely gave excalibur super powers ... a recent movie not-withstanding. Excaliber was attributed as blinding an enemy temporarily when drawn and helping induce submission which was made a singularly used power in the movie Excaliber.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> There was never enough cash around with a 20 percent buy back for a "buy what you want mentality" in the games typical play,



Yeah, 4e 'treasure parcels' weren't exactly generous compared to other editions, at least in the modules I've read and-or run.

However, if one fights the system a bit* and accepts that magic wielded by the enemies remains magical once those enemies drop then there's some reasonable loots in there sometimes.  This does, however, require the DM to read the enemy write-ups carefully in order to figure out what they have; as their gear won't be listed under 'treasure'.

* - for some inexplicble reason, enemy magic items suddenly not being magical any more once the PCs get them seems to be a baked-in assumption in 4e, or at least its published modules.  Internal consistency - what's that?

Mind-boggling.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Encounter design.



I assume you are talking about characters who are 25 percent more powerful because of optimization.
Some players like to optimise some are not so interested  (my players starting with a 16 in their primary stat not a big deal and yeh they are not interested in a stat under 10)

To me making the boring bags of hit points in 5e into interesting encounters seems like it would be rather more work.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> * - for some inexplicble reason, enemy magic items suddenly not being magical any more once the PCs get them seems to be a baked-in assumption in 4e, or at least its published modules.



More enemies "magical" abilities are focus like than independently providing ability. Why did you assume that lightning bolt he was firing was from the staff. And you could use the same goblin bleeding blast wand if you were sanctified by the goblin priest every full moon while they sacrificed some innocent... hey want to become the monster?

I mean players have lots of abilities that do not come from devices... why assume NPCs are vastly different

Making an enemy magic  item temporary only is also an option. So that its useful for helping get passed a certain barrier ... but its energies are supported by some other feature the NPC had.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Yeah, 4e 'treasure parcels' weren't exactly generous compared to other editions, at least in the modules I've read and-or run.




I actually found because my PCs do not over optimize or even bit fiddle their grab the loot behavior one can be a lot more generous than the default and it will work fine

Not everyone jumps online to find the latest light brigade cheese wiz to eke out more power. A DM making encounters more powerful for characters who are higher into that (is the grand difficulty of upping their level OR adding some minions - which can be played better or worse)


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> More enemies "magical" abilities are focus like than independently providing ability.



If this was the case, wouldn't the ability be written up as part of the monster?



> Why did you assume that lightning bolt he was firing was from the staff.



You must have read my mind, as it's a particular shock-staff* in KotS - wielded by a Hobgoblin, I think - that's always been my go-to example for this.

I assume the shocking is being done by the staff as that's how the write-up parsed when I read it.



> And you could use the same goblin bleeding blast wand if you were sanctified by the goblin priest every full moon while they sacrificed some innocent... hey want to become the monster?



Sure, and if that was given as part of the story in the module as to what makes that item tick that'd be great.  But is it?  

If it's not given in the module, how many DMs are likely to add something like this to an item's backstory?  I'd wager very few indeed.



> I mean players have lots of abilities that do not come from devices... why assume NPCs are vastly different



When writing up an opponent for a module the writer really needs to take a few basic things into consideration.  The shock-staff, for instance: can the Hobgoblin still do (or even attempt?) the shock effect without the staff if he gets disarmed?  If yes, then this needs to be made clear.  If no, then the ability comes from the staff itself unless some other explanation is provided - which it isn't.



> Making an enemy magic  item temporary only is also an option. So that its useful for helping get passed a certain barrier ... but its energies are supported by some other feature the NPC had.



Yep, this works sometimes...but to do it every time would be a bit much. 

* - I ran KotS (converted to our modified 1e system) in early 2009 and the party came out with that shock-staff in their treasury; and ten real-world years later that thing is still booting around in my game world somewhere (though I can't for the life of me remember which character has it these days).


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> I assume the shocking is being done by the staff as that's how the write-up parsed when I read it.
> 
> Sure, and if that was given as part of the story in the module as to what makes that item tick that'd be great.  But is it?
> 
> ...



Focus items work that way...the wizard has one at first level and does at-will effects with it. 

My very first sentence... most NPC abilities are a function of being performance through a focus. (A focus item is like an ingredient required by a magic and do not simply provide that to whomever picks them up).


----------



## S'mon (Sep 13, 2019)

I always took it than many items were crafted to only work for particular wielders, indeed this counts as a limitation which could make the items cheaper to craft.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I always took it than many items were crafted to only work for particular wielders, indeed this counts as a limitation which could make the items cheaper to craft.



The idea that items only function for particular bloodlines or races or individuals has plenty of legendary/mythic heritage. The treating magic items like they are just tools of technology anyone can use is not however


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

That reminds me one of the martial practices I made allowed one to bind ones magic item when created to a bloodline or tightly knit group...  including the party who participated in either the blood bond practice or the ritual "comrades succor"


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Yep, this works sometimes...but to do it every time would be a bit much.



You are right that is a case of coming up with a way to make something more significant to the story.... and making that particular adventure more interesting.  This is what i want my DMing effort spent on, not fixing bags of hit points.   

Or adjudicating on the fly every bloody use of a skill because the game system thinks DM decide is a better way.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

And you could use the same goblin bleeding blast wand if you were sanctified by the goblin priest every full moon while they sacrificed some innocent... hey want to become the monster?



Lanefan said:


> Sure, and if that was given as part of the story in the module as to what makes that item tick that'd be great. But is it?
> 
> If it's not given in the module, how many DMs are likely to add something like this to an item's backstory? I'd wager very few indeed.



TBH never have liked modules out of the box and the only way i would use them is to put in the extra effort so if the complaint is modules suck I consider that almost a D&D essence but on the other hand for me details get elaborated on "when I need them" most of the time as the rest of the time its a waste of brain power.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

I have had players as far back as the 70s who wanted to design their characters own weapons .to me the item creation mechanics are tools for myself and those players a system where the impact of money on character power is ignored seems like an obfuscation. (In 1e wealth expectations were buried it in the random treasure tables and DMs/games which ignored that became an insulted joke).


----------



## billd91 (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Gygax once said he figured anyone interested in playing the game long term would be "drawn" to being a caster... this wasnt accidental




Definitely a personal bias on his part. But I seriously doubt there's any significant real evidence of it among the AD&D crowd.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 13, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> And they weren't the only ones, either.  Druids sped up from, maybe, 4-11, IIRC?
> 
> In retrospect I have to wonder /why?/  The sweet spot was something like 3-9, at the outside, why zip through part or even most of it?
> And, then after name level, everyone just hit the wall.
> ...




Maybe to give each class something of its own sweet spot feeling of improvement? Because, overall, with the possible exception of comparing a main class to a subclass with more benefits (and I think that really only applied to the comparison between fighters, paladins, and rangers), the leveling difference didn't really do much good. They just added mess, particularly for some classes like the thief who could level up long before they could afford to do so by training rules (and thus got stuck) and who never really achieved parity with the other classes despite the quicker leveling at the higher end.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Definitely a personal bias on his part.



Such affects the game design


----------



## billd91 (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Such affects the game design




Or is an outcome of his game design. Or is a mixture. Impossible to tell, really.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 13, 2019)

I gotta admit, I never saw the "you can't afford to train" be even remotely an issue after about 3rd level.  In AD&D, about 75% of your xp was from gold, which meant that you had SO much gold floating around that training costs were largely a formality.  

Different strokes I guess.

But, I don't think that Gygax was such a terrible game designer that he would create a system where you would level up, but, then not be able to because of a lack of funds and thus would have to wait for everyone else to catch up.  That's terrible game design.  It would mean that the AD&D designers had absolutely no clue how the game was actually working.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 13, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## S'mon (Sep 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, I don't think that Gygax was such a terrible game designer that he would create a system where you would level up, but, then not be able to because of a lack of funds and thus would have to wait for everyone else to catch up.  That's terrible game design.  It would mean that the AD&D designers had absolutely no clue how the game was actually working.




I think when he set level 2>3 minimum training cost at 3000gp he forgot that Thief XP 2>3 was 1,250. The 1e training rules seem pretty bodged, frankly.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 13, 2019)

@lowkey13 Well, it was a nice idea for a thread.  Better luck next time.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 13, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Encounter design.



Absolutely no need for more work there. I never once took magic items into account when designing encounters in 4e.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 13, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Addressing the wall of text is pointless when the real issue is the one raised by the single sentence. I could point out that Tony Vargas cherry-picks his evidence by dismissing alternative objections to 4E with no more than a handwave and a label of "outright nonsense", as though objections that don't make sense _to him_ must not be sincere or genuine or coherent to the person making them.



 There was a lot of outright nonsense spewed throughout the edition war, I'm not going to refute years of it in detail.  If there's a particular bit of outright nonsense you'd like to hitch your wagon too, though, I'd go ahead and refute it for the _nth_ time.  
I'm a sucker that way.

But you haven't actually presented /anything/ to refute,  just blasted away with baseless personal attacks.



> I could point out that he rules out 4E's presentation and its defense system as potential explanations by noting that they also exist in other editions, but then turns around to argue that the nonmagical healing _is_ a potential explanation _despite_ also existing in another edition.



You could point that out, but you'd be absolutely wrong.  Presentation, inverting numeric mechanics, and martial/overnight healing were /all/ examples I gave of professed conceptual issues that don't hold up because they've been done in other editions before and/or since.   



> he is demonizing the players who killed 4E.



Again, you're focusing on the commercial failure of the odd-edition out, when the issue is the perception of it as "not D&D" - the gap in the 'continuity' that the OP posited as a quality of the line.  Relative commercial success or popularity simply isn't relevant. There were many factors contributing to that failure, said perception being only one of them, and not necessarily the most critical.  Had those other factors been different, it's market performance might even have been satisfactory, and 5e have been delayed - but that discontinuity would still have been there.  Heck, had 4e been a wild success, we'd be looking for the differences to determine what contributed to that success - but we'd be looking at the same differences.  

And, if we look at the qualities of the various editions, the main difference that stands out as uniquely correlated to that perception is the reduced importance of magic as such.  The martial classes were more closely balanced with the magic-using ones than every before or since, even having a rough resource parity with them.  Magic items were routine, expected, fungible, equally available to all classes (the notorious 'wish list' concept), and less significant than they had been before or since (leading to the frequent complaint that they didn't 'feel magical').  
Throughout the rest of D&D history, magic items have been critically important, especially to those classes that didn't have magic of their own to draw upon, and at the same time, it was those classes that had the least control over what items they might acquire.  Similarly, the power and versatility of spells and other supernatural abilities /far/ outstripped those of mundane classes.  

It seems like a very legitimate, significant difference, and one that correlates to and was intimately involved in that "Not D&D" perception.

On the flip side, consider the perception & role of magic in the other, more orthodox, editions:  5e's rapt introduction to the critical importance & wonder of magic I have already quoted, above.  In 3.x, of course, the community shook out the classes into Tiers with those having the most potent/versatile magical abilities rising to Tier 1.  In 1e, Gygax opined that experienced players would naturally gravitate to magic-users.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 13, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


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



What if the other game is Hero?  ;P  Or any of the other core or universal systems of the 80s?  Or FATE, for that matter.

And, yes, there have been plenty of lazer-focused niche & licensed games, too, and they're even narrower by intent than D&D is by inertia.



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



D&D doesn't even do traditional, 'High' or S&S genres of fantasy without a fair bit of work.  D&D does D&D.  DMs re-jigger it to do other things, sure, but if you're willing to rewrite one rules system into another, that's a quality of flexibility and range /of the GM-come-game-designer/, not the system you started with.



Garthanos said:


> There was never enough cash around with a 20 percent buy back for a "buy what you want mentality" in the games typical play,  I wonder where that idea came from



 You could certainly play 4e in a more restrictive mode with regard to items, or with no items at all by flipping on inherent bonuses.  Because they weren't that significant.  But, yes, the make/buy in 4e was very generous and gave you a lot of latitude to get what you wanted - and, as if the implications of that system weren't enough, it outright recommended the 'wish list.' 



> And low level items did become very accessible when you were bouncing around the planes approaching demigod status.  (That is so horrible shudders)



 But, again, not a lot of point to them.  Especially pre-E, when so many items did little beyond provide a fairly minor daily power - and the number of item dailies you could use were limited by Milestones. 

Not only were items lower-impact, that impact was capped by slots, named bonus stacking, healing surges, and milestones.

In its attempt to bring 4e back into line with the classic game, though, Essentials made lots of (but still, too little, too late) changes, including doing away with the milestone limit, re-introducing surgeless healing potions, bringing back classic OP items, powering up wizards' spells while taking powers away from fighters, etc...
...WotC was, even then, clearly aware of the mistake they'd made in backing off from the Primacy of Magic.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> for some inexplicble reason, enemy magic items suddenly not being magical any more once the PCs get them seems to be a baked-in assumption in 4e, or at least its published modules.  Internal consistency - what's that?
> Mind-boggling.



Another instance of how 4e abandoned the Primacy of Magic - the power of monsters/NPCs (even Companion characters) was generally innate, not concentrated in the tools they used, which were more like foci for that power than sources.  So heroes were not constantly looting the black armor and unholy-symbol laden gear off their vile foes for their own use.  Not a terrible idea, really.   

Magic items, like classes, were primarily PC-facing mechanics... but that's getting into another difference, Player Entitlement vs DM Empowerment, that 4e shares with 3e.  ::


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> What if the other game is Hero?  ;P  Or any of the other core or universal systems of the 80s?  Or FATE, for that matter.
> 
> Yeah, there have been plenty of lazer-focused niche & licensed games, too, and they're narrow by intent than D&D is by system inadequacy.
> 
> ...



I do btw inherent bonuses and before that I used heirloom items that improved as you levelled.


Tony Vargas said:


> Because they weren't that significant.  But, yes, the make/buy in 4e was very generous and gave you a lot of latitude to get what you wanted



Buying lower level items  maybe if you were picking after their particular effects but honestly sell the item you just got 5 times over to make just 1 level appropriate item?  Essentials made that easier actually... a "rare" item is suddenly being handed full cash. It didnt cut it back on the buy magic items ability of players it just ditched or hid the make the item you want.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 13, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> On the flip side, consider the perception & role of magic in the other, more orthodox, editions:  5e's rapt introduction to the critical importance & wonder of magic I have already quoted, above.  In 3.x, of course, the community shook out the classes into Tiers with those having the most potent/versatile magical abilities rising to Tier 1.  In 1e, Gygax opined that experienced players would naturally gravitate to magic-users.



3e, with its much easier item-creation rules and much lower pricing on many basic items, put magic far more front-and-centre than any other edition even at very low character levels.

Also, while Gygax might have opined that experienced players would gravitate toward MUs my own experience doesn't agree; and shows long-term players eventually playing nearly all the classes.

The only basis for what he says might lie in that new players were often suggested toward a martial class (or Thief) while they learned the ropes; and the same is still true today.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Also, while Gygax might have opined that experienced players would gravitate toward MUs



It meant the game designer focused on Magic to the exclusion of other things it meant if I wanted to lop of limbs with a special move as a martial character .,.. it wasn't a special move it was a magic item


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Buying lower level items  maybe if you were picking after their particular effects but honestly sell the item you just got 5 times over to make just 1 level appropriate item?



Why on earth would I-as-PC sell the item for 20% value when I can just as easily trade it to someone for a more useful (to me) item in return, or sell it directly to someone who needs it (including another PC!) for much more than 20%?

The 20% sale value idea is an arbitrary rule that doesn't hold water when subjected to the realities of trade, supply, and demand.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> The 20% sale value idea is an arbitrary rule that doesn't hold water when subjected to the realities of trade, supply, and demand.



If you sell to another PC lol sure... DM is god and controls supply and demand ie 20 percent


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Its DM ultimate POWER



What has this got to do with players (maybe) gravitating toward playing casters?



> It meant the game designer focused on Magic to the exclusion of other things it meant if I wanted to lop of limbs with a special move as a martial character .,.. it wasn't a special move it was a magic item



In part that's because the D&D combat system hasn't really ever done called shots.  Were the system more granular, and thus able to allow for more specific targeting of each attack, then you'd probably see this sort of thing a lot more.  However, combat is slow enough already....

What probably also prevented this was the quick realization that the opponents would get these abilities too, much to the long-term detriment of the PCs.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> 3e, with its much easier item-creation rules and much lower pricing on many basic items, put magic far more front-and-centre than any other edition even at very low character levels.



It did.  And it reigned in some of the most OP/character-re-defining and cursed items, too.  But, items were still a very important component of PC effectiveness, were not readily dispensable, and were counted on to give mundane classes the magic they needed to remain at all relevant as the game progressed.

3e, like 4e, also made magic items a more payer-facing resource.  Both 3e & 4e did that sort of thing a lot, more decisions, more agency, was on the player side of the screen - heck, there wasn't even much of a point to the screen in 4e - the DM's role was less all-encompassing.  If you wanted to point up the DM as the defining essence of D&D, you might have to count out both 3e & 4e as not /really/ D&D.

Magic items became more common, available & player-controlled in both 3e and 4e, yes.  But, it was in 4e that their impact declined precipitously.  That's part of why I chose "Primacy" of magic, rather than 'power' or 'superiority' or 'prevalence.'   As the Essence of D&D, Magic is the most significant thing, not the only thing, it can be rare or relatively common, it can be easy to use or strictly limited, as long as it matters sufficiently more than the mundane alternatives.  Magic was very limited in 1e, items were rare and claiming them risked picking up a nasty cursed version, spells were few and hard to cast safely in combat.  3e & 4e made items readily available.  Every edition made casting easier than the one before.

But, only 4e made magic dispensable, and that made it not D&D anymore.



> Also, while Gygax might have opined that experienced players would gravitate toward MUs my own experience doesn't agree; and shows long-term players eventually playing nearly all the classes.



 My experience back in the day did, especially when it came to higher levels.  New players would either naturally play the fighter, or be dragooned into playing the cleric.  More experienced ones would play the MU, more often... but... at low level you'd see a mix of single-class fighters & the obligatory cleric and MC fighter/magic-users, magic-user/thief, etc... MCs being pretty dominant, really, even among experienced players.  
If you ran higher level off the cuff, you'd get a lot of single-class MUs.  Where'd they come from?  IDK?  In some cases things as out there as an MC'd something/something/MU, unable to circumvent racial level limits any other way, contriving to become human via Wish, Reincarnate, or some other shenanigans. 



> The only basis for what he says might lie in that new players were often suggested toward a martial class (or Thief) while they learned the ropes; and the same is still true today.



 It's not exactly a weak basis.  It's also not the whole story, IMHO, since the fighter most resembles, in concept, the familiar heroes of legend & genre.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> What probably also prevented this was the quick realization that the opponents would get these abilities too, much to the long-term detriment of the PCs.



Sword of Sharpness are you an amnesiac it was a magic item....


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

AND the opponents in 1e (presumedly 2e) are just like in 4e and 5e they didnt necessarily have any abilities not listed in the Monster manual. 

You sometimes seem a 3e fan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Sword of Sharpness are you an amnesiac it was a magic item....



Er...I know that.

I was referring to a hypothetical called-shot combat system, where instead of just "I swing at the Orc" it's "I try to chop the Orc's arm off" no matter what weapon you're using (as long as it's bladed, of course).  Then the to-hit roll has multiple elements: did you hit at all, and if you did was your hit good enough to achieve your declared called-shot.

D&D has (wisely, IMO) never gone this route; the closest it's come is some later-edition martial maneuvers e.g. disarm, trip, etc.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> AND the opponents in 1e (presumedly 2e) are just like in 4e and 5e they didnt necessarily have any abilities not listed in the Monster manual.
> 
> You sometimes seem a 3e fan



We'd long ago started using the MM write-ups as just the baseline, and had already modified many of our 1e monsters to give them various abilities (and to make them more of a challenge) a whole lot o' years before 3e came out. Maybe even before 2e came out. 

That 3e went the same route is merely a nice validation of what we did.  (though that 3e went completely overboard with it, isn't)


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Er...I know that.
> 
> I was referring to a hypothetical called-shot combat system



The point was this supports Tonys Magic is Supremacy paradigm.  (not some hypothetical implementation) 
The sword of sharpness was kind of a critical hit system all of its own and instead of it being something learned by a martial hero able to exert themself in some awesome way..... it was tadah something a spell caster made


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> (though that 3e went completely overboard with it, isn't)



Yes the build NPCs and stat them up like a PC was attractive to me in 1976 when I seen it in RuneQuest I grew out of it.

The obligation to give NPCs any power or abiltiy a PC might have is silly.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Yes the build NPCs and stat them up like a PC was attractive to me in 1976 when I seen it in RuneQuest I grew out of it.
> 
> The obligation to give NPCs any power or abiltiy a PC might have is silly.



Silly?  Or essential.

I'm big on in-fiction consistency (without it, the game becomes a waste of time), and part of that consistency resides in the PCs being, first and foremost, residents of the game world* just like anyone else there (i.e. all the NPCs).  They were born here, they grew up here, they have friends here who were born and grew up just the same as they did.

Sure, the PCs maybe ended up being a cut above in one way or another, much like having a school chum who went on to become a Rhodes scholar - but underneath, that Rhodes scholar is still the same as you; and the PCs are, underneath, much the same as their non-adventuring contemporaries.

Which means, either the PCs are 'built' (a term I've come to despise) like non-adventurers, or non-adventurers are built like PCs.  3e went hard to the latter option; harder than I'd ever go, but then in my game there's very little difference between a commoner and a 1st-level character anyway and so I can leave it a bit fuzzier.

Giving logical abilities to generic monsters that they should have had all along (in 1e, for example, by RAW Giants don't get strength bonuses to hit and damage!) is an absolute no-brainer.

* - you can get around this by having the PCs be aliens from another world, but as soon as someone tries to bring in a PC native to the game world being played you're right back to square one.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Silly?  Or essential.



The only edition that did it excepting for exceptions was 3e....


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Silly?  Or essential.
> 
> I'm big on in-fiction consistency (without it, the game becomes a waste of time), and part of that consistency resides in the PCs being, first and foremost, residents of the game world*



Making them everyday schmucks and just like everyone else sounds boring

And additionally putting that much detail in the npcs is too much work.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Silly?  Or essential.



Contrary to genre, at the very least.



> I'm big on in-fiction consistency (without it, the game becomes a waste of time), and part of that consistency resides in the PCs being, first and foremost, residents of the game world just like anyone else there (i.e. all the NPCs).  They were born here, they grew up here, they have friends here who were born and grew up just the same as they did.



Well, that is a particular school of thought when it comes to fiction.  Not usually heroic fantasy fiction, more like slice-of-life, but, well, it's a school of thought that exists.



> Sure, the PCs maybe ended up being a cut above in one way or another, much like having a school chum who went on to become a Rhodes scholar - but underneath, that Rhodes scholar is still the same as you; and the PCs are, underneath, much the same as their non-adventuring contemporaries.



In another thread someone (Celebrim?) was going on about people being unable to conceive of what things were like in a period of history more than 100-200 years prior to their own time...
...I wonder if it's not more like 50? 
(I mean, I'm like 50, and I remember larger-than-life heroes - OK, and criticism of them - but I didn't think the very idea had be wiped from the very genre within which they were most firmly ensconced.)



> Giving logical abilities to generic monsters that they should have had all along (in 1e, for example, by RAW Giants don't get strength bonuses to hit and damage!) is an absolute no-brainer.



I thought 1e was clear that such hypothetical bonuses were just bundled into their more favorable combat matrix and handfuls of damage dice?



Garthanos said:


> The only edition that did it excepting for exceptions was 3e....



I guess sorta back on topic, yes, 3e is the only edition that really went all-in with the PCs & NPCs & Monsters are All The Same Things.   Almost to the extent RQ did it. 

But, while 3e was say over on that side of the spectrum and 1e & 4e (& now 5e) way over on the other, there was not much "3e isn't really D&D because all NPCs have levels" being bandied about.

And, even 3e had lesser classes meant for NPCs (thought he 'lesser' Warrior, clearly inferior overall, with d8 HD and no bonus feats, had a slightly better skill list than the Fighter - yeah, I'm sorry, still perplexes me).

So, yeah, treatment of PC vs NPCs vs Monsters seems "orthogonal to" the Essence of D&D.  They've been treated very differently to virtually the same in different editions that were clearly accepted as Really D&D.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I thought 1e was clear



LOL


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> LOL



 OK, y'got me.  Clear /about that one specific thing/.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> But, again, not a lot of point to them.  Especially pre-E, when so many items did little beyond provide a fairly minor daily power - and the number of item dailies you could use were limited by Milestones.



Tadah  and the players can have the items they want ... and even shock shock make them comes down to being  a faux problem across the board. Which is what I said earlier when I commented about letting people buy as many healing potions as they wanted.... it wasnt going to derail anything. Mr optimizer can have his fun. Mr I want to make my items can have his fun. I let them combine items into bigger cooler items too.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

To me the really boring magic item isnt because of its power... its when it lacks story.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> To me the really boring magic item isnt because of its power... its when it lacks story.



5e has some cute little tables that can spark ideas like that.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 13, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> 5e has some cute little tables that can spark ideas like that.



anything like the random dungeon ones in 1e?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 13, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> anything like the random dungeon ones in 1e?



I don't think so.....  

...y'know, I remember the random dungeon tables of 1e more clearly...

#oldmanisold


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 13, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> There was a lot of outright nonsense spewed throughout the edition war, I'm not going to refute years of it in detail.  If there's a particular bit of outright nonsense you'd like to hitch your wagon too, though, I'd go ahead and refute it for the _nth_ time.
> I'm a sucker that way.



Which is _why_ I haven't enumerated it. Believe it or not I'm trying to avoid yet another edition war conversation. What would happen if I put my flag down on a particular objection: _"Some players didn't like 4E because of reason R"_? I can only imagine you'd come back with _"Reason R is nonsense because of X, Y, and Z"_, right? But then what? What would you have actually "refuted"? Are you claiming that the players who cite reason R are lying or mistaken about their own motives? Because what they say doesn't make sense to you? Really? No. Irrespective of whether or not you can make sense of it, it is still the case that some players didn't like 4E because of reason R. If you dismiss reason R as nonsense, you are wrongly discarding evidence about why players didn't like 4E. Reason R could be _"4E is a bad edition because the earth is flat_" and it would still be relevant to the question.

I see the rest of your post, but again, this is the real problem: you are not giving credit to the testimony of people who say things contrary to your narrative. When you see reason R, it's not constructive in the slightest to try to "refute" it. It might defend the benighted honor of 4E, and it might reduce the objectors to irrelevant simpletons. But it actively leads you away from understanding.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 13, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Which is _why_ I haven't enumerated it. Believe it or not I'm trying to avoid yet another edition war conversation. What would happen if I put my flag down on a particular objection: _"Some players didn't like 4E because of reason R"_? I can only imagine you'd come back with _"Reason R is nonsense because of X, Y, and Z"_, right? But then what? What would you have actually "refuted"? Are you claiming that the players who cite reason R are lying or mistaken about their own motives? Because what they say doesn't make sense to you? Really? No. Irrespective of whether or not you can make sense of it, it is still the case that some players didn't like 4E because of reason R. If you dismiss reason R as nonsense, you are wrongly discarding evidence about why players didn't like 4E. Reason R could be _"4E is a bad edition because the earth is flat_" and it would still be relevant to the question.
> 
> I see the rest of your post, but again, this is the real problem: you are not giving credit to the testimony of people who say things contrary to your narrative. When you see reason R, it's not constructive in the slightest to try to "refute" it. It might defend the benighted honor of 4E, and it might reduce the objectors to irrelevant simpletons. But it actively leads you away from understanding.




It's an old technique they have been using since 2008. 

 RPG equivalent of fake news. 

 The main problem with 4E IMHO is the class design, it alienated a lot of people.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 13, 2019)

In general denying people's experiences and preferences is a huge problem in message board conversations of all types. It never feels good, and I am sorry that people had to deal with it. Personally I also experienced it from the other side when I talked about why I like games like Fourth Edition (not so much anymore), Apocalypse World, Moldvay B/X, and more recently Pathfinder 2. That experience does not diminish your own in any way. We should all make more of an effort to really hear each other out.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 13, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> What would happen if I put my flag down on a particular objection: _"Some players didn't like 4E because of reason R"_?



 Well, you'd be drifting topic again, as the issue isn't liking or disliking, but merely correlating something unique to 4e with the perception of that edition as NOT-D&D.

But, given that, you should expect one of 3 possible responses:
1) R did not exist in 4e (possibly because R doesn't exist at all).
2) R was also present in another, undisputedly-Really D&D, edition (or PF1, for that matter)
3) Oh, I hadn't thought of that, that's another possibility (though maybe a remote or trivial one) to consider along side the Primacy of Magic.



> I see the rest of your post, but again, this is the real problem: you are not giving credit to the testimony of people who say things contrary to your narrative.



 Just stick to the actual content of the editions and we won't have that issue. 

The "Primacy of Magic" is something we can pretty clearly see throughout the rest of D&D.

Now, since I tend to be OK with arguing both sides of an issue, I can also go ahead and help you out on this: 
You could also make the case that Magic (supernatural power in general, really) is as or more balanced with the mundane and items as or more blah in some other undisputedly-really-D&D edition (or clone). 
Or, alternately, you could argue that the Primacy of Magic held even in 4e (not entirely baseless, it becomes a matter of degree).

Or you could just agree...


Zardnaar said:


> The main problem with 4E IMHO is the class design, it alienated a lot of people.



Those'd be the class designs that balanced martial & magic-using classes, in significant part by giving them rough resource parity, thus undermining the Primacy of Magic.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 13, 2019)

Campbell said:


> In general denying people's experiences and preferences is a huge problem in message board conversations of all types. It never feels good, and I am sorry that people had to deal with it. Personally I also experienced it from the other side when I talked about why I like games like Fourth Edition (not so much anymore), Apocalypse World, Moldvay B/X, and more recently Pathfinder 2. That experience does not diminish your own in any way. We should all make more of an effort to really hear each other out.




Yup. I like 2E, 5E and B/X. Doesn't bother me to much if other people don't. 

 Even if it's as simple as not liking an edition based on cover art.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 13, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, you'd be drifting topic again, as the issue isn't liking or disliking, but merely correlating something unique to 4e with the perception of that edition as NOT-D&D.
> 
> But, given that, you should expect one of 3 possible responses:
> 1) R did not exist in 4e (possibly because R doesn't exist at all).
> ...




You over exaggerated the primacy if magic though. 

1. Most gamers don't play high level.
2. Most gamers aren't power gamers
3. Old D&D had plenty of drawbacks and restrictions on magic. 
4. Older D&D also had things like magic resistance and anti magic.
5. Things like d4 and d10 hit dice mattered a lot more along with the ability to use armor. 

 So it mostly applies to 3E really. Most people I saw played 3E like advanced 2E not how people on forums assumed. 

 It worked fine from that pov, it didn't work for people who knew how to break it. 

 4E kind if fixed it, created new problems and threw the baby out with the bathwater and made it impossible to play D&D like how most people played it over the previous 3 decades.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 13, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> 3e, with its much easier item-creation rules and much lower pricing on many basic items, put magic far more front-and-centre than any other edition even at very low character levels.
> 
> Also, while Gygax might have opined that experienced players would gravitate toward MUs my own experience doesn't agree; and shows long-term players eventually playing nearly all the classes.
> 
> The only basis for what he says might lie in that new players were often suggested toward a martial class (or Thief) while they learned the ropes; and the same is still true today.




Again, I disagree with this.  AD&D character, because of the random treasure generation, or, if you played 1e modules, were absolutely dripping with magic items.  A given lair (and a lair could easily be 2 trolls or a single wyvern) had about a 15% chance of 3-4 magic items.  How many lairs were the PC's looting per level?  10?  20?  More?   Even if they were looting only 10 lairs per level, by 5th level, that's 20 magic items across the party.  Sure, some of them were potions and scrolls, but, more than half were permanent items, if you were following the random treasure generation.

And that's a very, VERY lowball estimate.  Sure, you wound up with extra +1 swords lying around, fair enough, but, that's still the point - you had so many magic items that you had _spare_ items floating around.  3e certainly didn't start the notion that PC's would be dripping in magic items.  Heck, the wealth by level presumptions of 3e were probably considerably lower than AD&D.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It's an old technique they have been using since 2008.
> 
> RPG equivalent of fake news.
> 
> The main problem with 4E IMHO is the class design, it alienated a lot of people.




The problem with that narrative is that 5ed follows much of the same class design and people love it.  See, that's the problem that I have.  Virtually EVERY criticism you can make about 4e equally applies to 5e, but, it's perfectly acceptable in 5e.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Again, I disagree with this.  AD&D character, because of the random treasure generation, or, if you played 1e modules, were absolutely dripping with magic items.  A given lair (and a lair could easily be 2 trolls or a single wyvern) had about a 15% chance of 3-4 magic items.  How many lairs were the PC's looting per level?  10?  20?  More?   Even if they were looting only 10 lairs per level, by 5th level, that's 20 magic items across the party.  Sure, some of them were potions and scrolls, but, more than half were permanent items, if you were following the random treasure generation.
> 
> And that's a very, VERY lowball estimate.  Sure, you wound up with extra +1 swords lying around, fair enough, but, that's still the point - you had so many magic items that you had _spare_ items floating around.  3e certainly didn't start the notion that PC's would be dripping in magic items.  Heck, the wealth by level presumptions of 3e were probably considerably lower than AD&D.




Players didn't choose then though. Having 8 +1 swords no big deal. 

 8 +1 swords become a +2 weapon in 3E or more likely +1 with an ability. That ability could be married to feats and class abilities. 

 Keen plus improved critical comes to mind. On a scimitar.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> You over exaggerated the primacy if magic though.
> 1. Most gamers don't play high level.



 High level isn't necessary for the Primacy of Magic to manifest.  Look at something as simple as healing.  With magic, it's a slate of Cure..Wounds spells per day, w/o, it's 1 hp/day, or some more baroque, but still quite slow, formula. 


> 2. Most gamers aren't power gamers



Weighs the opposite direction, actually:  /with/ pervasive power gaming a non-caster can pull some pretty crazy DPR or other extreme tricks and narrow the gap.



> 3. Old D&D had plenty of drawbacks and restrictions on magic.



 I never said otherwise, in fact, I pointed it out.







> 4. Older D&D also had things like magic resistance and anti magic.



Ditto.
Both those points reinforce the Primacy of Magic, because magic is so all-important, harsh restrictions are needed to 'balance' it, and negating it is the DM's nuclear option to get the players back in line.



> 5. Things like d4 and d10 hit dice mattered a lot more along with the ability to use armor.



Also just trying to 'balance' the extreme importance of magic.  
Of course, the ability to use armor /really/ mattered when you got awesome magical armor.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

Generally magic items are an equalizer. They tend to benefit fighters and thieves a lot more than Wizards.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The problem with that narrative is that 5ed follows much of the same class design and people love it.



I can't say I see the class-design similarities.

@Hussar said:







> Virtually EVERY criticism you can make about 4e equally applies to 5e, but, it's perfectly acceptable in 5e.



Criticisms of concepts, perhaps...
I mean, I see clear conceptual similarities among classes, especially between post-E & 5e:
The Valor Bard corresponds to the HotFW Skald, the Totem Barbarian to the PH2 Primal take on that class, the Champion to the Slayer, even, with the right Feat choice, the BM to the Knight, and, an Essentials-era Dragon mag introduced the EK.

But, when you look at what those concepts can do, the restoration of the Primacy of Magic is clear.
The PDK, for instance, fits the same conceptual space as the Warlord, it even has shouty healing.  But, that healing is pretty late and trivial compared to what's readily available to a half-dozen classes with magic.  And it has nothing like the breadth, number, and effectiveness of the Warlords 'exploits' - certainly not to the extreme point of having rough resource parity with a Cleric or even Paladin.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The problem with that narrative is that 5ed follows much of the same class design and people love it.  See, that's the problem that I have.  Virtually EVERY criticism you can make about 4e equally applies to 5e, but, it's perfectly acceptable in 5e.




5E uses a lot of 4E mechanics to duplicate pre 3E playstyles probably more like 2E.

Mechanically there's not that much wrong with 4E it's class design specifically powers and it's playstyle.

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


I could use 4E to clone AD&D, of course you would rewrite the classes and dump it's powers.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> 5E uses a lot of 4E mech itanics to duplicate pre 3E playstyles probably more like 2E.
> 
> Mechanically there's not that much wrong with 4E it's class design specifically powers and it's playstyle.
> 
> 4E was good at being an advanced minis skirmish game. Wasn't so good at everything else.




It was really good at heroic fantasy. With strong scene framing and good handle on skill challenges it could be used to play out some really epic fantasy. This really plays out well with the thematic material attached to Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.

It was horrible at dungeon crawling and conflict neutral play. Unfortunately they decided to make almost all the official adventures dungeon crawls.

It was really good at being what it was. It was really bad at being Dungeons and Dragons.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


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



1e was good at being fantasy vietnam.... not much good at anything else.  See what that sounds like?


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 1e was good at being fantasy vietnam.... not much good at anything else.  See what that sounds like?




That was Zardnaar. Not me.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> That was Zardnaar. Not me.



pardon my Copypasta


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 1e was good at being fantasy vietnam.... not much good at anything else.  See what that sounds like?




 I don't think 1E was played as fantasy Vietnam although you could do it. B/X is better for that.

 It was decent at dungeon crawling. Wasn't that good at much else until late 1E and some splats.

 4E was good at what it was. Big problem was most people don't play like that.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't think 1E was played as fantasy Vietnam although you could do it.



You would be very much wrong it was so common that brutality is celebrated !!!!


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Looks up thread about DEATH being easy and permanent yeh it came from somewhere.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

I could have even said 1e was good at playing pac man with a veneer of fantasy tropes on top as dungeons were nonsense ... and I am the one telling people the only good paladin and ranger were from 1e


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> You would be very much wrong it was so common that brutality is celebrated !!!!




On forums, gritty yes but fantasy Vietnam is more like Tomb of Horrors.

 Things like that were the exception not the rule. 

 We played some old adventures 2012-14 most are fairly easy. You always had that element is risk though due to blowing a save.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Players didn't choose then though. Having 8 +1 swords no big deal.
> 
> 8 +1 swords become a +2 weapon in 3E or more likely +1 with an ability. That ability could be married to feats and class abilities.
> 
> Keen plus improved critical comes to mind. On a scimitar.




Heh, but, then we run into actual play.

No DM is ever going to simply hand out 8 +1 swords.  At some point, that +2 sword is going to slip in.  Then a +3.  Then a Sword of Sharpness or whatever. 

And, to the surprise of no one, these will all follow the level of the characters pretty closely.  So, that module for 8th level characters will feature lots of magic items that are more powerful than a module for a 2nd level party.  The change in 3e was that the rules allowed the players to be specific about what they added to their character.  But, in terms of actual power?  Naw, AD&D gave TONS of magical power to the party in terms of magic items.  

Again ,you have to realize the sheer number of items we're talking about.  A 7th level 3e party might have what, 2-4 items per PC.  Somewhere close to that anyway, not counting potions of healing anyway.  That 7th level AD&D party, particularly if they played modules, would have 3-4 TIMES more items.  Three or four magic weapons, and half a dozen items wasn't out of line.  Even the pregen AD&D PC's, which were woefully underequiped, still generally had half a dozen items.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> On forums, gritty yes but fantasy Vietnam is more like Tomb of Horrors.
> 
> Things like that were the exception not the rule.
> 
> We played some old adventures 2012-14 most are fairly easy. You always had that element is risk though due to blowing a save.



Poppy poo you had earn your way through death after death.... the gygaxian school of thought was pretty well expressed.

In fact if you didn't want all that easy death and save or dies at the drop of a hat your DM was fighting against a system geared for anti heroic fear danger avoidance was explicitly encouraged. Go ahead and tell me I am wrong and we will quote your methods being exactly what you deride.

Because experiences even factually utterly wrong must be swallowed


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heh, but, then we run into actual play.
> 
> No DM is ever going to simply hand out 8 +1 swords.  At some point, that +2 sword is going to slip in.  Then a +3.  Then a Sword of Sharpness or whatever.
> 
> ...




Yeah but having a large pile of magic items isn't a big deal.

 Hell you had +3 swords of special ability in level 6 modules. 

 The problem is when you marry that ability to feats and modern class design. You don't know how it's going to turn out. 

 Say you give a Paladin a holy avenger level 6 to 8 pre 3E.

 You know what that weapon is going to do. The Paladin is going to be happy with that blade for the rest of their career.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Poppy poo you had earn your way through death after death.... the gygaxian school of thought was pretty well expressed.
> 
> In fact if you didn't want all that easy death and save or dies at the drop of a hat your DM was fighting against a system geared for anti heroic fear danger avoidance was explicitly encouraged. Go ahead and tell me I am wrong and we will quote your methods being exactly what you deride




 We played the actual adventures. T1 Village of Hommlet, B2,3,4,5, X1,8, some AD&D Dungeon adventures, 1st part of Night Below.

 Even played the Tomb of Horrors, PCs gave up on that one. 

We played B/X, 2E and some clones.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

I do not get what this argument is about. I will reiterate the point that generally speaking abundance of magic items favors the character who do not cast spells. The less magic items in play the greater the comparative power of wizard.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I do not get what this argument is about. I will reiterate the point that generally speaking abundance of magic items favors the character who do not cast spells. The less magic items in play the greater the comparative power of wizard.




This we didn't use a single magic items table. Just published adventures. 

 Fighters had a relative abundance of magic items. My reliable fighter player was "my fighter rocks" and he's played 3E,4E and 5E.

The clones a lot if them get the essence of D&D we used ACKs, C&C, Basic  Fantasy. 

 I paid attention when Mearls said try older D&D. We like it so much we ditched modern D&D for 3 years. And I didn't have grognard players, had to use 3E ones.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> You know what that weapon is going to do. The Paladin is going to be happy with that blade for the rest of their career.



Guess what wish lists are for making the players happy and heirloom weapons and the inherent bonus systems in 4e... no need for out levelled items either


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I do not get what this argument is about. I will reiterate the point that generally speaking abundance of magic items favors the character who do not cast spells. The less magic items in play the greater the comparative power of wizard.



 Well, my bit of it is about the Primacy of Magic as the unique Essentially D&D element missing from 4e.

And that ties into the fact that magic item abundance tends to favor classes who lack magical abilities, themselves, in the sense that the fact supports the supposition.  In authentically-D&D D&D, classes with magic are superior to those without, but that disparity is equalized by sufficiently available, class-specific, and powerful magic items.  

In contrast, 4e, lacking the Primacy of Magic, could do without magic items by flipping on inherent bonuses, and the mundane (martial source) characters would still be reasonably balanced with the supernatural (Arcane, Divine, etc) ones.



Campbell said:


> It was really good at heroic fantasy. With strong scene framing and good handle on skill challenges it could be used to play out some really epic fantasy. This really plays out well with the thematic material attached to Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. It was horrible at dungeon crawling and conflict neutral play. Unfortunately they decided to make almost all the official adventures dungeon crawls.



Conflict-neutral play?

Dungeons weren't automatically horrible, it was the 'Crawling' that was just tedious* compared to the other modes of play you mentioned - unless you abstracted the crawling into a Skill Challenge, then it was fine.   I figured that out early - but converting Temple of the Frog really drove it home.   Trying to have players map that thing was a nightmare, having them make a series of decisions and checks to explore the area and string together the otherwise random combats, though, worked nicely.



> It was really good at being what it was.



So, an Epic Heroic Fantasy RPG? 







> It was really bad at being Dungeons and Dragons.



Heh.



Hussar said:


> Heh, but, then we run into actual play.
> No DM is ever going to simply hand out 8 +1 swords.  At some point, that +2 sword is going to slip in.  Then a +3.  Then a Sword of Sharpness or whatever.



Well, and if you do end up with 8 +1 swords you can pretty quickly recruit 8 surprisingly loyal low-level-fighter henchmen, and carve up some magic-weapon-to-hit monsters.  Oh, some of the henchs'll die, but the swords'll still be there...



> The change in 3e was that the rules allowed the players to be specific about what they added to their character.  But, in terms of actual power?  Naw, AD&D gave TONS of magical power to the party in terms of magic items.



True.  3e actually slightly reigned in magic items, slightly.  They became less arbitrary and more consistent with the power of spells.  Still hugely powerful, vitally important, could be quite character-defining, but didn't quite rise(?) to the level of character-overriding they could in the TSR era.










* it's not like a dungeon crawl being tedious is doin' it wrong or anything, it's just contrasted with other, non-tedious adventures, they kinda stood out.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

Basically what I mean by conflict neutral play is that a 4e DM should not be a dispassionate referee. They should be actively framing conflicts.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Basically what I mean by conflict neutral play is that a 4e DM should not be a dispassionate referee. They should be actively framing conflicts.



 Ah.  DM as old-school-wargaming Judge.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I do not get what this argument is about. I will reiterate the point that generally speaking abundance of magic items favors the character who do not cast spells. The less magic items in play the greater the comparative power of wizard.



Ever see a Wizard with armor better than the fighter and immune to arrow fire whenever it counted oh I did in 1e it was out of the box magic items too. I am not sure it really really does. Unless items are "designed" that way instead of slap dashed together like they always seemed.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Making them everyday schmucks and just like everyone else sounds boring



Unless one sees the excitement and interest lying in what they do, rather than (mechanically) what they are.



> And additionally putting that much detail in the npcs is too much work.



Not every NPC gets statted up to the nines; I us the bare minimum for what I need at the moment, but the underlying assumption is that they're the same as PCs if-when I do need to fully stat one out.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Doing another room with 2 orcs and barely distinguishable furnishings and no rational reason for any of it being there... WELL is not on my goal list.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Ever see a Wizard with armor better than the fighter and immune to arrow fire whenever it counted oh I did in 1e it was out of the box magic items too. I am not sure it really really does. Unless items are "designed" that way instead of slap dashed together like they always seemed.




It could happen but wasn't that common. Wizard would still have around half the hit points as well.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I thought 1e was clear that such hypothetical bonuses were just bundled into their more favorable combat matrix and handfuls of damage dice?



Yeah, not so much. 

The quickest of glances at Giant hit points tells you there's no way they got any Con bonuses, even though a typical Giant has the constitution of a dump truck.



> I guess sorta back on topic, yes, 3e is the only edition that really went all-in with the PCs & NPCs & Monsters are All The Same Things.   Almost to the extent RQ did it.
> 
> But, while 3e was say over on that side of the spectrum and 1e & 4e (& now 5e) way over on the other, there was not much "3e isn't really D&D because all NPCs have levels" being bandied about.



I'll posit that's because many 0-1-2e tables (like ours) took steps in-house in this direction - though nowhere near as far as 3e took it - and thus 3e at least looked somewhat familiar, if dialled to 11.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Late 2E wasn't to different from 3.0.

 3E retained things like spell patterns and a lot if spells were functionally the same as 2E (different range maybe).


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Those'd be the class designs that balanced martial & magic-using classes, in significant part by giving them rough resource parity, thus undermining the Primacy of Magic.



Depends how you look at it: did it undermine the Primacy of Magic, or enhance it by in effect giving magic to all classes?


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Unless one sees the excitement and interest lying in what they do, rather than (mechanically) what they are.



Rolling a plece of plastic at the right moment is on your exciting list .  I dont think I would find your fantasy vietnam survivor stories so interesting oh remember that d20 I rolled.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Again, I disagree with this.  AD&D character, because of the random treasure generation, or, if you played 1e modules, were absolutely dripping with magic items.  A given lair (and a lair could easily be 2 trolls or a single wyvern) had about a 15% chance of 3-4 magic items.  How many lairs were the PC's looting per level?  10?  20?  More?   Even if they were looting only 10 lairs per level, by 5th level, that's 20 magic items across the party.  Sure, some of them were potions and scrolls, but, more than half were permanent items, if you were following the random treasure generation.



I'm not arguing with you.  1e generates lots of magic items, absolutely.

But it, unlike 3e-and-newer editions, isn't shy about blowing them up; and isn't shy about salting cursed and-or deadly items into the pot.



> And that's a very, VERY lowball estimate.  Sure, you wound up with extra +1 swords lying around, fair enough, but, that's still the point - you had so many magic items that you had _spare_ items floating around. 3e certainly didn't start the notion that PC's would be dripping in magic items. Heck, the wealth by level presumptions of 3e were probably considerably lower than AD&D.



My experience of 3e when it came to treasure was surprisingly similar to 1e (in most games I play in I tend to end up as treasurer, so I speak from experience): in either system we'd come back from an adventure with about the same amount of gype - same length of list, same rough total value. We were loaded with magic in 3e, with the main difference being that we could also make or easily commission exactly what we wanted. (self-made Rod of Wonder for the win!!!)


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> We played the actual adventures.



I played a couple as a player (and actually been so long I do not know what their names were) but doors locking behind you as you went through was a feature of one. The lack of story with nonsensical dungeons (one DM indeed tried the random dungeon generator it didnt fee much different than the module). I had players telling me that they never would tell a DM what their characters family was like because it would be used against them.... adversarial DMs were the meat of the game.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I played a couple as a player (and actually been so long I do not know what their names were) but doors locking behind you as you went through was a feature of one. The lack of story with nonsensical dungeons (one DM indeed tried the random dungeon generator it didnt fee much different than the module). I had players telling me that they never would tell a DM what their characters family was like because it would be used against them.... adversarial DMs were the meat of the game.




 That's on the DM not the system. 

 It's like getting really drunk using a cheese grater as a sex you and blaming the booze for the results.

 I have been running published adventures, there's a more if a risk sure because it's not kid gloves treatment like 5E but it's not fantasy Vietnam.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I could use 4E to clone AD&D, of course you would rewrite the classes and dump it's powers.



More than that: you'd close-to-have to rewrite the entire game from the ground up.  Have fun!

Feats don't fit in 1e, nor do tiers, nor does the 3e-4e skill system (though the skill system could at least be made to work, sort of).  Something would have to fill the gap in 4e between commoner and 1st level PC - a gap that 1e largely doesn't have - so you'd need to design several sub-levels.  I don't think 1e can handle PCs going to 30th level on a consistent basis.  3e-4e style 'additive' multiclassing won't fit in 1e.  And so on.

When 4e came out I actually gave this all a fair amount of thought: I was ready to start a new campaign anyway (which is the best time to overhaul the system!) and looked at whether I could kitbash 4e into something I'd want to run.  On getting halfway through the list above I abandoned the idea and stuck with refreshing our existing system.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Yeah, not so much.



Darn, have to pull down that box again...  



> The quickest of glances at Giant hit points tells you there's no way they got any Con bonuses, even though a typical Giant has the constitution of a dump truck.



How do you know a dump truck isn't CON 9?

More to the point, why does it matter that a giant does 25 damage to you because he was rolling 7d6 vs 2d12+12?
By the same token, what difference does it make that his are from rolling 15 HD vs rolling 10 HD +20?



> I'll posit that's because many 0-1-2e tables (like ours) took steps in-house in this direction - though nowhere near as far as 3e took it - and thus 3e at least looked somewhat familiar, if dialled to 11.



 I did hear a few folks comment that 3e was a lot like their house rules. 
Wasn't much like mine.  
(Oddly, 5e's a bit like my old house rules here & there.)

But, then, you wouldn't expect D&D enthusiasts to house-rule D&D to be NOT-D&D, anyway, right?



Lanefan said:


> More than that: you'd close-to-have to rewrite the entire game from the ground up.  Have fun!



I mean, that's prettymuch what we all did with 1e, anyway.... ;P


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 1e was good at being fantasy vietnam.... not much good at anything else.  See what that sounds like?



"Fantasy Vietnam" - a term I've heard many times but still don't know what it's supposed to mean.  Definition, anyone?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> More than that: you'd close-to-have to rewrite the entire game from the ground up.  Have fun!
> 
> Feats don't fit in 1e, nor do tiers, nor does the 3e-4e skill system (though the skill system could at least be made to work, sort of).  Something would have to fill the gap in 4e between commoner and 1st level PC - a gap that 1e largely doesn't have - so you'd need to design several sub-levels.  I don't think 1e can handle PCs going to 30th level on a consistent basis.  3e-4e style 'additive' multiclassing won't fit in 1e.  And so on.
> 
> When 4e came out I actually gave this all a fair amount of thought: I was ready to start a new campaign anyway (which is the best time to overhaul the system!) and looked at whether I could kitbash 4e into something I'd want to run.  On getting halfway through the list above I abandoned the idea and stuck with refreshing our existing system.




You could use the 4E engine to clone anything. You could hack out parts you don't like.

Same with 3Eor 5E really.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> "Fantasy Vietnam" - a term I've heard many times but still don't know what it's supposed to mean.  Definition, anyone?




 It's a term generally used to take pot shots at 1E or BECMI pushing the narrative that it's a waste of time naming your character to level 5. 

 Tomb of Horrors might be the poster child for it. 

 You can play like that if course but it's not really supported by the actual adventures. They do exist but there's not many if them. 

 My fighter made it from level 1 to 4 in BECMI. 

 If you had a hard assed DM death at 0 hp I'm going to screw you over sure it may be a thing. 

 Death at 0 would be a houserules, B/X I think it was RAW. 

 How people actually played the game (death at -10, max hp level 1, not an asshat DM) is different.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Ever see a Wizard with armor better than the fighter and immune to arrow fire whenever it counted oh I did in 1e it was out of the box magic items too.



Yep, seen it.  DMed it, for that matter: High Dex (18), Bracers AC 2, Ring of Protection +5 so net AC -7*; and that's before any defensive spells e.g. Protection from Normal Missiles such as you allude to.

Still couldn't beat the inherent wizardly squishiness, though.  Fireballs got her every time.

* - this was on a long-serving Illusionist PC who'd had about 20 adventures to build up that kind of wealth; and no she didn't have access to PfNM.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> More to the point, why does it matter that a giant does 25 damage to you because he was rolling 7d6 vs 2d12+12?
> By the same token, what difference does it make that his are from rolling 15 HD vs rolling 10 HD +20?



In 1e RAW a Hill Giant does 2d8 melee damage.  Given that it in theory should be +7 damage due to strength, and to avoid negative damage amounts, that means its actual damage die is d9. (or 2d5-1 if you want to keep a bell curve in there).  That's about the same as a bastard sword and less than a 2-hander against S-M size creatures - which, for a Giant, is pathetic. 

What you say might hold water for some of the bigger Giant variants.



> I did hear a few folks comment that 3e was a lot like their house rules.
> Wasn't much like mine.
> (Oddly, 5e's a bit like my old house rules here & there.)



First 2e and then 3e in different ways kind of followed in directions our houserules had already gone.  4e and 5e, however, largely did not.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It's a term generally used to take pot shots at 1E or BECMI pushing the narrative that it's a waste of time naming your character to level 5.
> 
> Tomb of Horrors might be the poster child for it.
> 
> You can play like that if course but it's not really supported by the actual adventures. They do exist but there's not many if them.



Heh - tell that to the players I had when I ran Keep on the Borderlands ten years ago. Each of 'em churned through at least 5 characters in that thing (though some of that was self-inflicted through internal fights and bickering getting deadly); and the stories are told and retold to much merriment to this day.



> If you had a hard assed DM death at 0 hp I'm going to screw you over sure it may be a thing.
> 
> Death at 0 would be a houserules, B/X I think it was RAW.
> 
> How people actually played the game (death at -10, max hp level 1, not an asshat DM) is different.



Death at 0 is RAW in 1e; death at -10 is optional (though an option nigh-universally chosen).

I'd never heard of the concept of max h.p. at 1st level until playing 3e, but we'd added 'body points' to our 1e system which made 1st-level types a bit more resilient, so it ended up much the same.

But yes, character survival at low level is as much by luck as by management unless the DM is going really easy on you.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Heh - tell that to the players I had when I ran Keep on the Borderlands ten years ago. Each of 'em churned through at least 5 characters in that thing (though some of that was self-inflicted through internal fights and bickering getting deadly); and the stories are told and retold to much merriment to this day.
> 
> Death at 0 is RAW in 1e; death at -10 is optional (though an option nigh-universally chosen).
> 
> ...




RAW death in 1E is -3 or -4.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

So there are some pretty big differences between Moldvay and AD&D in terms of how you were instructed to run the game. Gygax advocate some fairly adversarial techniques, although not nearly as extreme as the worst horror stories would indicate, while Moldvay insisted on you functioning as a referee. Make mine Moldvay on this count.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> So there are some pretty big differences between Moldvay and AD&D in terms of how you were instructed to run the game. Gygax advocate some fairly adversarial techniques, although not nearly as extreme as the worst horror stories would indicate, while Moldvay insisted on you functioning as a referee. Make mine Moldvay on this count.




People carry it to extremes online to prove points or push a narrative. 

 Fantasy Vuetname can absolutely be a thing in 1E and B/X. 2E as well probably. 

 It's not really reflected in published TSR modules although bad things can happen absolutely.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Heh - tell that to the players I had when I ran Keep on the Borderlands ten years ago. Each of 'em churned through at least 5 characters in that thing



Yeh to my experience it was all that was supported was fantasy vietnam.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> So there are some pretty big differences between Moldvay and AD&D in terms of how you were instructed to run the game. Gygax advocate some fairly adversarial techniques, although not nearly as extreme as the worst horror stories would indicate, while Moldvay insisted on you functioning as a referee. Make mine Moldvay on this count.



Depending on the situation, functioning as a referee can sure appear to be adversarial. 

Ideally I prefer the neutral-referee approach, but with the proviso that the DM is allowed to (and expected to) stick to her guns if-when things go wrong for the PCs and not feel obliged to let them off the hook.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> People carry it to extremes online to prove points or push a narrative.



Oh right but we can discard that as just trying to undermine someone elses experiences... because of your agenda.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Yeh to my experience it was all that was supported was fantasy vietnam.



I wonder if some of our differences are based around perceived expendability of our own PCs.

Me, I roll up a PC in the expectation that it's gonna die; and then am pleasantly surprised if-when it doesn't.

I'm going to guess that you don't take kindly to losing your PCs.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Yeh to my experience it was all that was supported was fantasy vietnam.




 That's just you though, there's not one true way to play D&D. 

 I think that's a big mistake 4E made. They tried to present a unified way to play based off assumptions of forum posts and the RPGA but most people don't play D&D in organised play.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I have been running published adventures, there's a more if a risk sure because it's not kid gloves treatment like 5E but it's not fantasy Vietnam.



Sure it was and there is much boasting about the deaths and number of PC they make their playres go through.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Sure it was and there is much boasting about the deaths and number of PC they make their playres go through.




Maybe in forums occasionally but forums are inherently for hard core players.

 I'm not saying it doesn't exist just rare. Can you play that way sure.
 Do most people play that way. No


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> I wonder if some of our differences are based around perceived expendability of our own PCs



Or my players PCs as the DM has to fight that system to have heroic game play


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I'm not saying it doesn't exist just rare. Can you play that way sure.
> Do most people play that way. No



I saw people intentionally pulling punches not inerupting mages at low levels. They were fighting the system


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> That's just you though, there's not one true way to play D&D.
> 
> I think that's a big mistake 4E made. They tried to present a unified way to play based off assumptions of forum posts and the RPGA but most people don't play D&D in organised play.




I would argue that only Fourth Edition and to a lesser extent Fifth Edition is good at heroic fantasy. It's only good at it, but it enabled a style of play that was lacking in other editions. Fifth Edition in my experience is decent, but not great at both heroic fantasy and dungeon crawls. It's a bit better at heroic fantasy than it is at dungeon crawls.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I saw people intentionally pulling punches not inerupting mages at low levels. They were fighting the system




 Once again not denying your experiences.

 I've interrupted mages, my players try. 

 We used weapon speeds and casting times. Doesn't really benefit wizards using those rules. 

You can't really nail down a one true way to play D&D. 

 The best you can do is keep most of the people happy most of the time.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Once again not denying your experiences.



Bull your 4e Doesnt do D&D is exactly denying my experience


Zardnaar said:


> You can't really bail down a one true way to play D&D.



You seem fine with it when its someone elses flavor

The system fought against the experience I was seeking and seemed to encourage fantasy Vietnam and easy death sometimes even at high levels ... of course years later found out Arneson skipped levels and so did Gygax.  But I also found levels 9+ left a still useless thief and a fighter already turning into a side kick sensation.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

When I run B/X I do not pull punches. I try my best to play the world with integrity and remain as neutral as possible. That being said I would never try to use it for heroic fantasy. I have so many other games that are better at heroic fantasy.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


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



Because that is different than me saying 1e was designed to and did fantasy Vietnam and fought against anything else.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

4e does heroic fiction experiences and that apparently is a Minis skirmish gam


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Bull your 4e Doesnt do D&D is exactly denying my experience
> 
> You seem fine with it when its someone elses flavor
> 
> The system fought against the experience I was seeking and seemed to encourage fantasy Vietnam and easy death sometimes even at high levels ... of course years later found out Arneson skipped levels and so did Gygax.  But I also found levels 9+ left a still useless thief and a fighter already turning into a side kick sensation.




I don't think most people played high level in AD&D.

 Back then if you don't like it just don't play it.  It's what it was it's not for everyone. 

 I've never claimed 4E is a bad game but it wasn't the first it was the 4th part of a franchise.

 It didn't offer what most people wanted so people went and played Pathfinder, or OSR or stuck with 3.5. 

 If you had fun with 4E that's great but it ticked boxes for people on forums to argue about it didn't have the appeal for most of the playerbase.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> That's just you though



No it wasnt... some people just liked it that way


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 4e does heroic fiction experiences and that apparently is a Minis skirmish gam




 I played the minis game. It was designed by the same people who designed 4E. A 4E combat took a similar amount of time to play as a D&DM game. 

 It felt like a more advanced version of that with tick the box type powers.

4E combat could've fun but it took so long you couldn't do 3 or 4 combats in a session and have time for anything else. 

 I played a 3 hour session if 5E last week, had two encounters which lasted an hour or less and the other 2 hours were other stuff.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I played a 3 hour session if 5E last week, had two encounters which lasted an hour or less and the other 2 hours were other stuff.



I would rather a three hour combat that was interesting than a half hour of I hit the boring bag of hit points with my sword oh with a smite tacked on so it's really really hard and who needs a rest of the party.

I am fine with the time it takes to get things done in 4e I am even more fine with teamwork and heroic feeling martial characters who arent looking to the spell casters to make it NOT be 10 x as hard. (to quote the pdf mentioned earlier)


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> If you had fun with 4E that's great but it ticked boxes for people on forums to argue about



They didnt have forums when they changed simultaneous resolution to turn taking like a bloody board game in yesteryear... but they did have apa zines and the like.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> I'm not arguing with you.  1e generates lots of magic items, absolutely.
> 
> But it, unlike 3e-and-newer editions, isn't shy about blowing them up; and isn't shy about salting cursed and-or deadly items into the pot.
> 
> My experience of 3e when it came to treasure was surprisingly similar to 1e (in most games I play in I tend to end up as treasurer, so I speak from experience): in either system we'd come back from an adventure with about the same amount of gype - same length of list, same rough total value. We were loaded with magic in 3e, with the main difference being that we could also make or easily commission exactly what we wanted. (self-made Rod of Wonder for the win!!!)




Honestly, I'm not sure how. 

A 7th level 3e party should have about 16k worth of goodies/PC.  That's about a +1 weapon, +1 suit of armor, a +2 stat boost item, and a couple of odds and sods.  A 7th level AD&D PC, IME, was carrying at least twice, if not three times that.  I look at the Dragonlance Pregens.  5th level PC's with +3 weapons.  :wow:  Now, that's certainly an outlier.  But, given the mountain of magical loot in AD&D modules, I find it hard to see how you could have similar numbers.  Unless your 3e characters were massively over wealth.



Zardnaar said:


> I played the minis game. It was designed by the same people who designed 4E. A 4E combat took a similar amount of time to play as a D&DM game.
> 
> It felt like a more advanced version of that with tick the box type powers.
> 
> ...




I wonder if my experience is so different because I play on virtual tabletops.  Because, in our 3 hour sessions, in 4e, we routinely had 2-5 encounters with tons of time for extra stuff, even in the double digit levels.  Actually combat time didn't really change too much throughout the campaign, but stayed relatively static.

But, I will certianly give 5e credit - MUCH faster combats than 4e or 3e.  And it's definitely a plus AFAIC.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I played the minis game. It was designed by the same people who designed 4E. A 4E combat took a similar amount of time to play as a D&DM game.
> 
> It felt like a more advanced version of that with tick the box type powers.




That's only looking at part of the game though. Did it have compelling skirmish mechanics? Yes. It also featured a compelling scene based noncombat resolution system that in my experience enabled heroic fantasy narratives better than any other edition did. That was part of the game. It was not the whole game.

My own games featured a combat maybe every other session.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Bull your 4e Doesnt do D&D is exactly denying my experience.




And your assertion that it does... by the same standards, doesn’t that deny *our* experiences that it really doesn’t?

Or is either statement really just a personal perspective that shouldn’t be seen as trampling over each other? This is the heart of the edition war - denying that either side had a point and belittling each other’s perspectives.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> That's only looking at part of the game though. Did it have compelling skirmish mechanics? Yes. It also featured a compelling scene based noncombat resolution system that in my experience enabled heroic fantasy narratives better than any other edition did. That was part of the game. It was not the whole game.
> 
> My own games featured a combat maybe every other session.



What no clearing two orcs out of a room like the oh so heroic 1e?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

billd91 said:


> And your assertion that it does... by the same standards, doesn’t that deny *our* experiences that it really doesn’t?
> 
> Or is either statement really just a personal perspective that shouldn’t be seen as trampling over each other? This is the heart of the edition war - denying that either side had a point and belittling each other’s perspectives.





 Difference is I'm not denying that you can have fun with 4E, or that you shouldn't enjoy it. If you like 4E its great, didn't do it for me. 

 Gathanos and Tony Vargas posts always have an undercurrent of your an idiot or not playing the game properly if you are playing any other edition other than 4E and its 4E that is the odd one out. 

 They're also insisting their experiences are the only narrative when we can look at an old adventure and find out that they're basically full of it. Can you play that way sure but very few adventures are actually printed like that. 

 If you look at what was printed for 4E and how long the copmbat actually took you can't really deny that as a personal anecdote. If 4E powers and class designs don't really do it for you its hard to argue against it its not really subjective. 

 Its not really subjective either that AD&D modules had a lot of loot in them, its mostly true. In the context of the edition though it kind of makes sense with gold= xp, if you don't like that fact that is fine. Personally I like the old find what you want approach others might like buying items and that is fine as well.

 3E screwed up with powerful magic that was reasonably easy to get/trade for with powerful class options which OSR lacked (it had the powerful magic item part). Its basically what broke 3E.

 4E powered magic down (fact) made them boring (mostly subjective but most people would probably agree). The items were even easier to aquire though you could ritual them up didn't even need to go back to town or spend xp making them.Both 3E and 4E had it baked in.

5E you still have OSR type magic items (nerfed a bit IMHO) but you get a lot less of them in printed 5E materials and you can't buy them RAW except for some of the most basic ones.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Or is either statement really just a personal perspective that shouldn’t be seen as trampling over each other?



Sorry you missed how I was pointing out he wasnt actually being so equimenical but rather argues just like Tony about inaccuracy he perceives in others assertions about games, "no that isnt how it was supposed to be it wasnt Fantasy Vietnam just ummm grittierr yeh" f  ... just as he complained or actually another poster did with whom he agreed about Tony talking about how people who misattributed why they dislike 4e, where met with corrections with show they didnt make much sense.

Flatearth was considered valid ffs.

There is very much intentional trampling going on just like when I say 1e was Fantasy Vietnam.

The difference is the Trampling was used to helped burn 4e to the ground.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Difference is I'm not denying that you can have fun with 4E, or that you shouldn't enjoy it. If you like 4E its great, didn't do it for me.




LOL I do not care but apparently it still isnt D&D its not heroic fantasy its a skirmish game... its a board game go ahead you can say it. 

Sure you can have fun with it but.....


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Difference is I'm not denying that you can have fun with 4E,



Am I denying people have fun playing fantasy Vietnam...


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> LOL I do not care but apparently it still isnt D&D its not heroic fantasy its a skirmish game... its a board game go ahead you can say it.
> 
> Sure you can have fun with it but.....




Its not a board game but it did tactical skirmishing very well, it just took a bit of time. 3 hour fights are an exaggeration but 30-45 minutes weren't. We were struggling to get more than 3-4 per 4 hour session.

I had some fun with it but I had DDI, the players at the table with only the core books were struggling. We had one really good session but it wasn't good enough to convert from 3.5 even though we were looking for something new (which turned into heavily houseruled 3.5 and SWSE).


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Difference is I'm not denying that you can have fun with 4E, or that you shouldn't enjoy it. If you like 4E its great, didn't do it for me.
> 
> Gathanos and Tony Vargas posts always have an undercurrent of your an idiot or not playing the game properly if you are playing any other edition other than 4E and its 4E that is the odd one out.



Your undercurrent is 4e isn't D&D, not sure where you get the idiot reference.  But you argue quite strongly against misassertions or even just assert oh but that is a rare thing it's just YOUR experience --> ie it shouldn't be considered important others have different ones ....  just saying.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Am I denying people have fun playing fantasy Vietnam...




Perhaps not, in a literal sense, but it sure is a loaded reference...


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Your undercurrent is 4e isn't D&D, not sure where you get the idiot reference.  But you argue quite strongly against misassertions or even just assert oh but that is a rare thing it isnt real it shouldn't be considered important....  just saying.




D&D wasn't D&D for me, if you liked what it offered great, I'm not going to argue against why you like it nor do you need to justify it.

You and TOny Vargas to deflect and deny and use very silly examples to try and deflect.
I don't like 4E point blank its mostly the class design and things like healing surges and its magic item rules.

That is my opinion.

I'm not denyiong any experiences you had with say AD&D but going by what is published its not fantasy Vietnam by any means. Can be played that way sure, the occasional adventure is, and death is a bigger threat in most than modern D&D absolutely. But the default is not fantasy Vietnam, I like that its grittier than modern D&D but fantasy Vietnam to me is implying something like DCC, Tomb of Horrors or extreme DM and players who do like that sort of thing.

Old Adventures often assumed bigger groups as well, 6-10 or even 20 (OD&D) so if you have a smaller group and don't realize it yeah sure some of those adventures would be brutal. I just read a 1E intro 6-10 people. 

Crap antagonistic DMs are not a system problem, it may have been a problem in the 80's IDK I wasnt there and its really a YMMV.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

I am personally a fan of addressing each version of the game as if it were its own game. I get the argument that the changes to the setting and the fact that Fourth Edition does a poor job at the foundation activity of the game (dungeon crawling) makes it not feel like the other versions.

@Garthanos

You have made it clear that dungeon crawling is not a personal priority of yours. Can you understand how to others it might be the very essence of what makes it Dungeons and Dragons?

The skirmish war game stuff I personally find beyond the pale because the game was so much more than that. It's also weird to me because the game was designed by war gamers for war gamers.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Perhaps not, but it sure is a loaded reference...



The game was a painted over war game originally ... its as accurate as his calling 4e nothing but a skirmishing game that didnt do anything else well. But calling out the other a game which does only fantasy vietnam well...  is WRONG


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> The game was a painted over war game originally ... its as accurate as his calling 4e nothing but a skirmishing game that didnt do anything else well. But calling out the other a game which does only fantasy vietnam well...  is WRONG




BECMI is better for fantasy Vietnam, 1E does dungeon crawling well.

You're mixing up your editions or projecting faults from 1 edition of D&D onto another. Its funny when you backwards project 3E stuff onto OSR stuff as well like magic being uber. 

BECMI the hit dice were smaller, death at 0 hp, and Clerics couldn't cast spells.

Alot of the adventures reward the social and exploration pillars if you make the effort to find the NPCs to help you out in the adventure.

If you're a jackass to all the NPCs or gung hoe wade into it yeah you might struggle at level 1.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

So being a war game with asymmetric information and Fantasy Vietnam have different associations to me. To me Fantasy Vietnam implies that game is stacked against you in an unfair way and a referee who is not acting in a neutral manner.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> D&D wasn't D&D for me, if you liked what it offered great, I'm not going to argue against why you like it nor do you need to justify it.
> 
> You and TOny Vargas to deflect and deny and use very silly examples to try and deflect.
> I don't like 4E point blank its mostly the class design and things like healing surges and its magic item rules.
> ...



This was arguably the first balanced class design in the history of D&D so when we try to narrow down why people didnt like class design the answers are often hard to figure out the pattern Tony is focusing on.


Zardnaar said:


> I'm not denyiong any experiences you had with say AD&D but going by what is published its not fantasy Vietnam by any means.



The adversarial DMS found support in Gygax's writing and people had problems denying them as no "I am not being a jerk I am challenging the player.... " look at that horrible Monty Haul DM" lets all laugh at the guy who lets people get away with stuff ... you are supposed to be making sure they EARNED those stripes. Those low hit point low levels ensured the best option for success was basically cowardice and not being heroic at all.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, you'd be drifting topic again, as the issue isn't liking or disliking, but merely correlating something unique to 4e with the perception of that edition as NOT-D&D.
> 
> But, given that, you should expect one of 3 possible responses:
> 1) R did not exist in 4e (possibly because R doesn't exist at all).
> ...



For your first two responses, I refer you back to the the rest of the paragraph that you cut off in your quotation:


TheCosmicKid said:


> I can only imagine you'd come back with _"Reason R is nonsense because of X, Y, and Z"_, right? But then what? What would you have actually "refuted"? Are you claiming that the players who cite reason R are lying or mistaken about their own motives? Because what they say doesn't make sense to you? Really?



While I'm not completely immune to the satisfaction in being right about how you'd respond, I'm actually more interested in your answers to the questions starting with _"But then what?"_

As for your third... your heard-it-all, give-me-an-objection-so-I-can-refute it attitude so far has not exactly given me strong reason to expect this response in good faith. I can't help but notice that _even speaking in the hypothetical_, you are preemptively trivializing the alternative explanation that you had not thought of.



Tony Vargas said:


> Now, since I tend to be OK with arguing both sides of an issue...



My consistent criticism throughout this conversation has been that you're not doing a stellar job at entertaining perspectives other than your own. I'm just going to say that your attempt here has not altered that assessment, and move on.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> ts funny when you backwards project 3E stuff onto OSR stuff as well like magic being uber.



Magic at high levels made the fighter a side kick in 1e too maybe not as bad as 3e but I saw DMS giving 1e mages an entire levels worth of spells in 1 book as a treasure.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> This was arguably the first balanced class design in the history of D&D so when we try to narrow down why people didnt like class design the answers are often hard to figure out the pattern Tony is focusing on.
> 
> I'm not denyiong any experiences you had with say AD&D but going by what is published its not fantasy Vietnam by any means.



The adversarial DMS found support in Gygax's writing and people had problems denying them as no "I am not being a jerk I am challenging the player.... " look at that horrible Monty Haul DM" lets all laugh at the guy who lets people get away with stuff ... you are supposed to be making sure they EARNED those stripes. Those low hit point low levels ensured the best option for success was basically cowardice and not being heroic at all.
[/QUOTE]


 I've never run OSR games like that shrugs.

 I think the main problem you are experiencing is you don't comprehend most players don't actually care about balance at least in the way you do. They do care if the extremes get bad or if it makes the DMs life hell (3E). 

 4E balance is pointless if no one wants to play it or it creates new problems like to much healing leading to grinding combats and combats that take to long. You solve some problems and create new ones. You could cut 4E healing by 75% and cut the expected encounters down to say 2/day. 

 The other balanced D&D would be B/X, wasn't great at level 1 and you could smooth that out in a clone. B/X lacked a lot of the problem spells of AD&D though.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Magic at high levels made the fighter a side kick in 1e too maybe not as bad as 3e but I saw DMS giving 1e mages an entire levels worth of spells in 1 book as a treasure.




 SUre it happened but you also forget a wizard couldn't learn all those spells. High level fighters were also useful to have around due to things like MR/SR or if they went down to Dragonbreath or something. Magic armor even gave you a save bonus for dragon breath. 

 Most people would not see high level play in any edition (in 5E its 90% apparently, probably higher for OSR).

 if you're making a commercial product catering to the 90% is a better idea than the 10%? We can see that with the relative lack of adventures produced for high level play. 

 The amount of people who actually care about balance is probably very very small.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> like to much healing leading to grinding combats and combats that take to long.



That is an independent factor of being balanced I think the amount of healing was something inherited from or an extension of 3e.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> That is an independent factor of being balanced I think the amount of healing was something inherited from or an extension of 3e.




Maybe but 3E healing problem was really specifically wands of CLW, I saw groups of Pathfinder players as late as 2014 not using the wands and back in the day the only group I saw that did was ours. Most groups I saw played it more casually. I'm sure other people had different experiences especially in organised play. 

 The problem isn't actually the wand but buying magic items. 

Even then the main problem was letting PCs buy it for cheap, if the wands existed in AD&D or B/X no problem.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> SUre it happened but you also forget a wizard couldn't learn all those spells. High level fighters were also useful to have around due to things like MR/SR or if they went down to Dragonbreath or something.



I want more than a window of 5 levels that 1e might have given Tony says 5e atleast managed that (but somehow the fighter doesnt really have better skill advancement than i would expect in that tiny window)


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Even then the main problem was letting PCs buy it for cheap, if the wands existed in AD&D or B/X no problem.



I saw bags of holding full of them healing potions so it didnt begin in 3e... its actually easier to design encounters around consistent character ability and durability which being healed up


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I want more than a window of 5 levels that 1e might have given Tony says 5e atleast managed that (but somehow the fighter doesnt really have better skill advancement than i would expect in that tiny window)




1E predates the expectation of getting to level 20 which didn't actually show up until level 2E. Hell UA was required for several classes in 1E.

But yes if that is an issue for you its a perfectly valid criticism of 1E, that and OD&D were not designed for high level play more like 1-10. Square peg round hole. 

BECMI did move away form that but the adventures moved away from dungeon crawls as well exploration and politics and it had flatter math as well (level 20 fighter +13 to hit IIRC).

2E made the effort at least, so did 3E and 4E they didn't really do any better.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

@TheCosmicKid

I've been far more than patient with your personal attacks and absolute lack of substance 

Put up or shut up.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

I also like how the explicit roles instead of implicit ones encouraged team play. Characters with easy Novas like the aforementioned Paladin and 1e mages with sleep spells (at low levels) I found discourage it... "guard me during the night oh trusty sidekick while I get back the spell which trivializes the fight so we do not have to run so much. " with 5 minute day behavior become the adversarial dMs siren song because "you weren't supposed to let that happen" ask the DMG.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I also like how the explicit roles instead of implicit ones encouraged team play. Characters with easy Novas like the aforementioned Paladin and 1e mages with sleep spells (at low levels) I found discourage it... "guard me during the night oh trusty sidekick while I get back the spell which trivializes the fight so we do not have to run so much. " with 5 minute day behavior become the adversarial dMs siren song because "you weren't supposed to let that happen" ask the DMG.




 Once again your pushing 5MWD. It's not really standard although I don't see the 5E 6 to 8 encounter expectation working that well either.

 4E to me seemed like an attempt to stretch level 1 to 10 over 30 levels. It was a bad idea when BECMI tried it was a bad idea when 4E did it. 

 If 4E ended at level 15 and the tiers were half what they were in 4E you would have a better game.

 Level 1 to 20 is a big thing of D&D now though. It's a sacred cow I wouldn't touch.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> 1E predates the expectation of getting to level 20 which didn't actually show up until level 2E. Hell UA was required for several classes in 1E.
> 
> But yes if that is an issue for you its a perfectly valid criticism of 1E, that and OD&D were not designed for high level play more like 1-10. Square peg round hole.



AD&D definitely provided higher levels for Wizards  at least with real advancement at becoming more extraordinary...


Zardnaar said:


> BECMI did move away form that but the adventures moved away from dungeon crawls as well exploration and politics and it had flatter math as well (level 20 fighter +13 to hit IIRC).



Might have been interesting (no I did not get to play that one AD&D seemed dominant though I did play a short non-adventure in the old Blue book game where I got to die on a save or die in the first encounter )


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> AD&D definitely provided higher levels for Wizards  at least with real advancement at becoming more extraordinary...
> 
> Might have been interesting (no I did not get to play that one AD&D seemed dominant though I did play a short non-adventure in the old Blue book game where I got to die on a save or die in the first encounter )




B/X has aged a lot better. Most of the OSR clones are B/X or OD&D not 1E.

There's more B/X, 2E and 4E in 5E than 1E.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

The best feature of B/X from my perspective is the much flatter bonus progression. The crazy rewards for high ability scores in AD&D often led to some creative rolling and made characters with lower ability scores feel impotent.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> The best feature of B/X from my perspective is the much flatter bonus progression. The crazy rewards for high ability scores in AD&D often led to some creative rolling and made characters with lower ability scores feel impotent.




Yep 1st D&D with unified ability scores. 

 Bounded accuracy conceptually comes from B/X. Note 5E lacks +5 weapons as well.

 I like 1E it's not because of the mechanics.

 5E looks like 3E, presented like 1E concept ually 2E, 4E, B/X. They dumped the 4E playstyle kept a lot of the mechanics.

 If you wanted to clone 4E and fix it look at B/X aka simplify it and/or clean up the presentation.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Once again your pushing 5MWD. It's not really standard although I don't see the 5E 6 to 8 encounter expectation working that well either.



It happened but I only saw it when you were lucky enough to win the spell lotto
Spells being wildly useful and allowing a super climax like that Paladin my son played in 5e could have the same impact.  OK arguably did have that impact.

Why not find a rest or use those rest magic items when your biggest guns run out of ammo??? how is this not Gygaxian appropriate strategy



Zardnaar said:


> 4E to me seemed like an attempt to stretch level 1 to 10 over 30 levels. It was a bad idea when BECMI tried it was a bad idea when 4E did it.



No 4e level 1 is comparable to level 5 it means you have enemies less than you you can defeat nicely even at level 1 (those were minions)

In 5e termes the advancement is then stretched out levels 5 to 20 being 1 to 30 in 4e
and it actually works as a translation to other editions too kind of sort of.

I admit to liking and feel like 4e did its frist 20 better than epic... i give it excuses like no DMG was devoted to it but I think they needed to let the first 20 levels gell before putting out the Epic Players handbook. 



Zardnaar said:


> Level 1 to 20 is a big thing of D&D now though. It's a sacred cow I wouldn't touch.



hmmm shrug not a biggy to me.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> It happened but I only saw it when you were lucky enough to win the spell lotto
> Spells being wildly useful and allowing a super climax like that Paladin my son played in 5e could have the same impact.
> 
> No 4e level 1 is comparable to level 5 it means you have enemies less than you you can defeat nicely even at level 1 (those were minions)
> ...




 I think conceptually ,B/X and 13th age level 10 and 14 are a better end point.

 The essence of D&D level 1-20 though.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

It's funny. I actually discovered B/X through indie roleplaying games. Vincent Baker, the creator of Apocalypse World always talks about how well designed a game B/X was and how much he loves playing it, so I got but did not end up playing it for a couple years. I saw a video where John Harper, creator of Blades in Dark, raved over Stars Without Number, a space faring retro clone based on a combination of B/X and Traveler. We played a short game and ended up loving it, and then tried Moldvay and loved that too.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> It's funny. I actually discovered B/X through indie roleplaying games. Vincent Baker, the creator of Apocalypse World always talks about how well designed a game B/X was and how much he loves playing it, so I got but did not end up playing it for a couple years. I saw a video where John Harper, creator of Blades in Dark, raved over Stars Without Number, a space faring retro clone based on a combination of B/X and Traveler. We played a short game and ended up loving it, and then tried Moldvay and loved that too.




Yep it could be better but a few clone kinda fixed a few things like the thief and clerics not being able to cast at level 1. 

 That's what I meant it's aged better.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> .
> I don't like 4E point blank its mostly the class design and things like healing surges and its magic item rules.
> 
> That is my opinion.



 You're absolutely entitled to that opinion.

That it's perfectly consistent with my supposition about the Primacy of Magic notwithstanding.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> You're absolutely entitled to that opinion.
> 
> That it's perfectly consistent with my supposition about the Primacy of Magic notwithstanding.




 I think it's the scale of the primacy of magic.

 Cure light wounds better than non magical healing big whoop. 

 Cleric being able to buff and beat down the fighter 24/7 problem.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> So being a war game with asymmetric information and Fantasy Vietnam have different associations to me. To me Fantasy Vietnam implies that game is stacked against you in an unfair way and a referee who is not acting in a neutral manner.



The impression I've had of "Fantasy Vietnam" is of sudden death, grinding paranoia, and morality being, at best, ambiguous.

And, yeah, old-school D&D could certainly deliver some grinding paranoia.

But,  the style is probably accessible in nearly any RPG,  it's just up to the GM to go that dark.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 14, 2019)

@Tony Vargas


TheCosmicKid said:


> But then what? What would you have actually "refuted"? Are you claiming that the players who cite reason R are lying or mistaken about their own motives? Because what they say doesn't make sense to you? Really?



Third time I've asked these questions now. You might want to address them before telling me that I'm the one who has to put up.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> But,  the style is probably accessible in nearly any RPG,  it's just up to the GM to go that dark.



Some take more effort to do it than others....
Life is cheap (really easy to create characters)
And Fragile (die in one shot and death saves mean this never really ends statistics will do you in if you do not just avoid conflict - see also runequest crit hits)
speaking of which Stealing is good (gets way more experience and much safer)  whereas actually actively opposing evil  not so much.
Dm advice (no your job isnt entertaining or having fun it's challenging and rewarding "skilled play" and making sure they do not get away with anything.
Make sure giving too much treasure which might make play less dangerous for characters (like magic items) gets mocked really well - sure its more a culture thing but I think it has the game designers sig on it.
Add example modules showing its definitely the way the "real men play"  not for them pansies


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

You can die in one shot in a few RPGs, D&D might be the exception not the norm.

Death also isn't the end in 1E.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> You can die in one shot in a few RPGs, D&D might be the exception not the norm.



RuneQuest critical hits were intended to be mentioned there in...  D&D is a bit more split personality on the issue.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

@TheCosmicKid

If you have something of substance to share, I invite you, again, to do so.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> 1E predates the expectation of getting to level 20 which didn't actually show up until level 2E.



The 1e PH had tables that went /past/ level 20, and any class that didn't have a hard level cap could advance without limit.



> Level 1 to 20 is a big thing of D&D now though. It's a sacred cow I wouldn't touch.



 3e Epic Handbook broke it without undue consequence.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

For me personally it is far more about game play than game balance. I want the ability to make decisions that make an impact on whether we win or lose. I want to exercise my skill at playing the game. The Fighter could do 10.000 damage with each attack, but if it is boring to play I would not care. In my mind when it comes to combat the Fighter should be at leas as interesting to play as a spell caster. 

I do not think this needs to come from rationed abstract resources though. I am actually not really a fan of that. It's a legacy of 4th Edition design that 5th Edition retains that I broadly do not like. Games like Runequest and the new Legend of the Five Rings do a good job at making martial characters interesting to play without such features. It looks like Pathfinder 2 does the same. We're about to find out.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2019)

billd91 said:


> And your assertion that it does... by the same standards, doesn’t that deny *our* experiences that it really doesn’t?
> 
> Or is either statement really just a personal perspective that shouldn’t be seen as trampling over each other? This is the heart of the edition war - denying that either side had a point and belittling each other’s perspectives.




I'm going to disagree with that point.

The heart of the edition war was a small group of disaffected fans who were so personally insulted that 4e wasn't written with them in mind that they couldn't bear to think that anyone else might actually enjoy the game.  So, they embarked on a repeated assault in any way they could, never, ever letting up and never ever just walking away.

There's a reason you didn't see that sort of thing on, say, the Paizo boards.  Folks that didn't like Pathfinder just didn't bother with it.  They didn't spend hours and hours and hours writing lengthy treatises about why 4e was a steaming pile of crap.  I get the notion of wanting to say the edition warring was two sided, but, it really wasn't.  It was one group trying to enjoy their hobby while another group repeatedly piled scorn and insult and made sure that every one knew it.  

I mean, FFS, we're 5 YEARS into 5e and people are still repeating that "minatures wargame" meme garbage that is completely unsupportable but, still remains.  

Seriously, the only thing @Tony Vargas has said here is the thing that really differentiates 4e from other D&D's is  the primacy of magic in the system.  That doesn't make one system better than another, just that 4e is the outlier here.  The essence of D&D, as evidenced by every edition that is considered by all to be part of the D&D family is the primacy of magic in the game.  He's presented a pretty decent list of evidence to support his assertion.  In response, all we've seen is folks drag out every edition war talking point and rehash the same old pointless crap that we had to constantly listen to for years.  

So, no, the heart of the edition war really isn't about both sides denying the other had a point.  If folks who didn't like 4e had just done what most people do when they don't like something and move on, the edition wars wouldn't have happened at all.  But, they couldn't stand the fact that other people might enjoy a different kind of D&D and set out to very deliberately destroy 4e every chance they could.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> The 1e PH had tables that went /past/ level 20, and any class that didn't have a hard level cap could advance without limit.
> 
> 3e Epic Handbook broke it without undue consequence.




Core books, 2E had the high level campaigns. 

 1E depended on the class it was all over the place.  No adventure released was beyond level 12-14.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

We'll miss you, Hussar.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Core books, 2E had the high level campaigns.
> 
> 1E depended on the class it was all over the place.  No adventure released was beyond level 12-14.



 Adventures aren't core books.  By the 1e PH, most classes coukd reach - and exceed - 20th.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Adventures aren't core books.  By the 1e PH, most classes coukd reach - and exceed - 20th.




The tables didn't to that high and it varies by class. The monsters didn't really scale well for high level play.

I never claimed you couldn't get to level 20, UA was required for some classes, BECMI could go to 36 but 2E was the 1st to do it across the board. 

3Ecand Pathfinder and 5E kind of reinforce that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> The tables didn't to that high and it varies by class.



Some classes had hard caps, but the rest were open-ended.  The 1e PH MU spells/day table went past 20.

2e's change was implying a limit of 20 across the board, not opening up advancement /to/ 20.

While D&D's always had levels, what they meant and who/what got how many of them have been all over the map.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Some classes had hard caps, but the rest were open-ended.  The 1e PH MU spells/day table went past 20.
> 
> 2e's change was implying a limit of 20 across the board, not opening up advancement /to/ 20.
> 
> While D&D's always had levels, what they meant and who/what got how many of them have been all over the map.




I know my original statemeny was 2E made it lvl 1-20 first.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> They didnt have forums when they changed simultaneous resolution to turn taking



File this one under the heading "Changes that should never have been made".[/QUOTE]


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, I'm not sure how.
> 
> A 7th level 3e party should have about 16k worth of goodies/PC.  That's about a +1 weapon, +1 suit of armor, a +2 stat boost item, and a couple of odds and sods.  A 7th level AD&D PC, IME, was carrying at least twice, if not three times that.



However, you're in some ways comparing apples and oranges here; as 7th level in 1e does not really correlate with 7th level in 3e and even less so if the 1e game doesn't use xp-for-gp (which was and still is a common houserule).

7th level in 1e is starting to get up there.  The game's not likely to go past 9th or 10th, so conservatively you're 2/3 of the way through your career.

7th level in 3e is nicely underway, but the game goes to 20th meaning you're a tidge over 1/3 of the way through.

So, a 7th in 1e compares to more like a 13th in 3e.



> I look at the Dragonlance Pregens.  5th level PC's with +3 weapons.  :wow:  Now, that's certainly an outlier.  But, given the mountain of magical loot in AD&D modules, I find it hard to see how you could have similar numbers.  Unless your 3e characters were massively over wealth.



I'm not looking at wealth per level as a comparison, for a few reasons: one is noted above (a level in 1e is worth more than a level in 3e), and another is advancement speed (our 3e DM slowed the advance rate down to about 1e speed and in so doing essentially chucked the wealth-by-level guidelines out the window - this was intentional).

What I'm looking at, and finding a pretty close 1e-3e comparison, is _wealth per adventure_.  I ran Forge of Fury in my current game and played it in our 3e game and in both cases found its wealth pretty much on a par with a typical 1e module.

The difference with 3e is the rules allow (and even encourage) players to much more finely tailor that wealth into what best suits the PC.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> What no clearing two orcs out of a room like the oh so heroic 1e?



Think of it this way: you yourself - the real-world Garthanos - and a few halfway-skilled but not-street-wise buddies (the party) walk into a room and interrupt a couple of badass bikers (the orcs).  There's no-one else around for miles; you're on your own thus your options are to fight, flee or parlay.  Parlay ain't gonna get anywhere with these guys, and if you flee chances are they'll come after you and fight you anyway.

So you collectively fight them, and barely win.

Yeah, you and your crew are probably gonna feel pretty good about yourselves after that - maybe even a bit like heroes.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> So being a war game with asymmetric information and Fantasy Vietnam have different associations to me. To me Fantasy Vietnam implies that game is stacked against you in an unfair way and a referee who is not acting in a neutral manner.



Perhaps, though in all fairness FV can also imply the players just keep choosing the wrong adventures to take on e.g. in a sandbox campaign; or are consistently unlucky in their rolls/saves/etc.; or are playing for fun-and-chaos first and success second (this would be my crew!).

Put another way, the players can turn any game into FV.  The DM doesn't have to do a thing.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Adventures aren't core books.  By the 1e PH, most classes coukd reach - and exceed - 20th.



That they _could_ by no means says they _did_ in normal play.

Assassins cap out at 15th, Monks at 17th, Bards at 23rd (if memory serves).  All other classes are open-ended provided your PC is either Human or happens to slot into one of a few select race-class combinations for non-Humans.  But for most non-Humans in most classes the level limits are pretty harsh; and I suspect this had a lot to do with play usually only going to the 9th-11th range: players liked playing non-Human PCs.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> That they _could_ by no means says they _did_ in normal play.



 There was no normal.


> Assassins cap out at 15th, Monks at 17th, Bards at 23rd (if memory serves).



Which implies play is meant to progress beyond those levels, so those limits will be meaningful, No?


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Think of it this way: you yourself - the real-world Garthanos - and a few halfway-skilled but not-street-wise buddies (the party) walk into a room and interrupt a couple of badass bikers (the orcs).  There's no-one else around for miles; you're on your own thus your options are to fight, flee or parlay.  Parlay ain't gonna get anywhere with these guys, and if you flee chances are they'll come after you and fight you anyway.
> 
> So you collectively fight them, and barely win.
> 
> Yeah, you and your crew are probably gonna feel pretty good about yourselves after that - maybe even a bit like heroes.




Obviously when we talk about heroic or epic fantasy we are not talking about the same sort heroism as the heroism of everyday cops or soldiers. I like games about that stuff too, but that is not the experience I was looking for when I ran Fourth Edition. It definitely is not what I look for when I run Exalted 3rd Edition. I want grand conflicts, sweeping narrative, passionate heroes and even more passionate antagonists.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Obviously when we talk about heroic or epic fantasy we are not talking about the same sort heroism as the heroism of everyday cops or soldiers. I like games about that stuff too, but that is not the experience I was looking for when I ran Fourth Edition. It definitely is not what I look for when I run Exalted 3rd Edition. I want grand conflicts, sweeping narrative, passionate heroes and even more passionate antagonists.



I don't mind the grand sweeping stuff at all but I don't want to start with it, I'd rather take the time and slowly build up to it.  In part this is because the grand sweeping stuff can only be sustained and built up for so long until it eventually gets to 11, and where do you go after that?

I'm not one for starting new campaigns - each time I start one it's with the specific intent of it being open-ended enough to last for the rest of my life...which means the longer I can put off the grand sweeping things the better, as once they arise I know the campaign's end is in sight.

And all this talk about heroes.  Some of us don't do heroes, or at best rarely.  We do characters, warts and all, who may or may not stumble into doing something heroic but aren't at all likely to do it in any heroic way.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> There was no normal.



Actually, if you take all the anecdotes from all the players/DMs you'll find there is, if not a true 'normal', certainly a clear average as to where 1e campaigns got to.


> Which implies play is meant to progress beyond those levels, so those limits will be meaningful, No?



That might have been the designers' intention, sure, but all that high-level design largely ended up as rubber that never met the road.

Except to provide DMs with the mechanics needed to create high-level NPCs, mentors, and opponents.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Actually, if you take all the anecdotes from all the players/DMs you'll find there is, if not a true 'normal', certainly a clear average as to where 1e campaigns got to.
> That might have been the designers' intention, sure, but all that high-level design largely ended up as rubber that never met the road.
> 
> Except to provide DMs with the mechanics needed to create high-level NPCs, mentors, and opponents.




This a level 18 wizard was probably a villian.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> if you take all the anecdotes from all the players/DMs



If


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Think of it this way: you yourself - the real-world Garthanos



I have intimidated a bunch of minion class punks (backed off en mass about 4 to 6 with a step and and a look) it was interesting and also backed down a guy who was rode raging (he had a crow bar and machismo - I had confidence, high ground and a witness), Hello party bard here I was the football playing artist who loved ancient history and physics in high school  ... lol.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> And all this talk about heroes.  Some of us don't do heroes, or at best rarely.



D&D screamed with the potential for the Heroic (which is a scale and attitude not necessarily a behavior - look at some of the ick done by the Greek heros their title, in greek hero, meant defender, but not necessarily nice). It was something RuneQuest really kind of lacked was achieving. D&D concept of hit points for instance (it was in there somewhere)

But yes you do fantasy vietnam where players are subject to death after death after death where you celebrate the awesome of random chance  etc .. I keep saying serves me incredibly poorly and the people saying but that isnt the way it was intended I think are ignoring huge amounts of DM advice and the raw implications of the system. WHAT you don't have even from the people saying that wasn't intended is them telling you that you arent playing D&D.

Now Tony is very much right one can play any rpg with such a take on it. 4e had someone come out with a set of guidelines for doing something much like it called 4Core or 4thCore or similar (without changing the rules)   It was I think in part to demonstrate how versatile the game was.

Honestly my D&D delivered on Heroic fantasy and it was very much D&D it delivered on so many of the promises of earlier D&D.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> I don't mind the grand sweeping stuff at all but I don't want to start with it, I'd rather take the time and slowly build up to it.  In part this is because the grand sweeping stuff can only be sustained and built up for so long until it eventually gets to 11, and where do you go after that?



You don't seem to make it to 3 that fragility and easily death teaches you not to take risks to play like you are yourself meeting a thug in an ally.... further  you become the cautious sneak thief rewarded systematically more for gold than helping people and so on fearful non-heroic in the other sense is pushed on your character - its also small in attitude as that life is cheap is a wonderful lesson to learn too.  Ironic to become awesome you had best be a coward cause that is what the game rewarded UNLESS a DM fought against the system.

Of course the build up in 1e ended so soon it went down hill afterwards unless you were a caster.

I think I am unfollowing this thread. We got this teeny tiny club your game isnt D&D you arent "Really" in it...  Sorry @lowkey13


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> You don't seem to make it to 3 that fragility and easily death teaches you not to take risks to play like you are yourself meeting a thug in an ally.... further  you become the cautious sneak thief rewarded systematically more for gold than helping people and so on fearful non-heroic in the other sense is pushed on your character - its also small in attitude as that life is cheap is a wonderful lesson to learn too.



The lesson learned is very simple: adventuring is bloody dangerous!

Put another way: D&D is war, not sport. 



> Ironic to become awesome you had best be a coward cause that is what the game rewarded UNLESS a DM fought against the system.



Actually, and somewhat counterintuitively, I find the game doesn't reward cowards nearly as well as you might think, thanks to individual xp per encounter.  With group xp, then yes: cowardice is overly rewarded.



> Of course the build up in 1e ended so soon it went down hill afterwards unless you were a caster.



Heh - tell that to the Fighter from whom I get my name here.  Rolled up in early 1984 and still going* today.

* - or he would be, if he hadn't recently been Thanos-snapped into some far-realm plane; leading to an in-progress (though on hold) adventure to go rescue he and a whole lot of other people.



> I think I am unfollowing this thread. We got this teeny tiny club your game isnt D&D you arent "Really" in it...  Sorry @lowkey13



I think you have me confused with someone else.

My position isn't that 4e is not D&D.

My position is that 4e, despite some good-to-excellent individual ideas within its design, has enough bad ideas within its design to make it a version of D&D I wouldn't want to play or DM.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 14, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> @TheCosmicKid
> 
> If you have something of substance to share, I invite you, again, to do so.



My questions are substantial. I'm requesting you follow your chain of logic and notice the gap between how you're arguing and what you're trying to prove. You have now avoided addressing this problem three times. If you want to leave this conversation here, that's fine, but it won't have ended because _my_ case was lacking in substance.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> I think you have me confused with someone else.



It was a generic not you specifically.  The unfollow function is not very functional LOL


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> The lesson learned is very simple: adventuring is bloody dangerous!



Oh I only elaborated some icky ones I admit but there were others too like all that danger and death isnt permanent unless you want it to be because.... magic fixes every booboo == see magic supremacy it all can connect back in one way or another doesn't it? AND no I didnt even like the resurrection magic being so nigh mundane nor that it has gotten more so since. But fortunately deaths in my D&D now feel like they were "earned" and that ritual isn't even needed they are not so easily just a fluke plastic tumble.

1e started me itching basically and defined many things that seemed awesome or potentially awesome and others which even annoyed me ->  I have now integrated and actually like a lot -- but largely that iteration left me seriously un-scratched.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 15, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> My questions are substantial. I'm requesting you follow your chain of logic and notice the gap between how you're arguing and what you're trying to prove.



 I already answered your extremely hypothetical, loaded questions as best I could without your actually committing to any sort is substantive position.  If you wanted to advance your position, you woul have to take the infinitesimal risk of actually articulating it.

As to the point I made about the Essence of D&D likely being the Primacy of Magic,  I've supported extensively with reference to the actual content if the various incarnations of the game itself.

I do rest the supposition, in part on the acknowledgement of 4e as being Not-D&D, and of clones like PF1 as being D&D.

You seem to conflate this supposition with some other position you find intollerable.

I had previously invited you to offer some contribution of substance to the discussion.  I realize, now, that you have no such contributions to make, and that your defensiveness was provoked by my unfairly pressuring you to do so.  That was wrong of me.
You have my apologies.
I'll try not to unduly antagonize you like that again going forward.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Core books, 2E had the high level campaigns.
> 
> 1E depended on the class it was all over the place.  No adventure released was beyond level 12-14.



Isle of the Ape would like to have a word.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Isle of the Ape would like to have a word.




Missed one but there's not a lot?

 Dungeon magazine had some but I was meaning released modules.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 15, 2019)

Vancian magic.  Not neceesarily fantasy roleplaying.  But for me the essence of D&D is the Vancian magic system.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2019)

Bloodstone series comes to mind.  But, yes, there weren't many.  It's always been the perennial issue - is there no high level play because high level isn't supported or is it not supported because no one plays those levels.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 15, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Bloodstone series comes to mind.  But, yes, there weren't many.  It's always been the perennial issue - is there no high level play because high level isn't supported or is it not supported because no one plays those levels.



It has always been supported in the sense that there are rules provided for it.  They just havent often worked well.  

I suppose problematic at high level is also a commonality among all authentically-D&D versions, but shouldn't the game's Essence be at least evident at all levels?
....Ok, "has a mid-level sweet spot" could qualify....?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Bloodstone series comes to mind.  But, yes, there weren't many.  It's always been the perennial issue - is there no high level play because high level isn't supported or is it not supported because no one plays those levels.




More no one plays it. High level stuff has been made but doesn't sell well by most accounts.

5E has fast leveling, 90% of people still don't play.

I play sometimes but it's rare.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 15, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I already answered your extremely hypothetical, loaded questions as best I could without your actually committing to any sort is substantive position.



Could you point me to where specifically you did this? In post #251, you quote and respond to the sentences before the questions, and then you quote and respond to a sentence after them. In post #348, you say nothing about them. In post #366, you say nothing about them. And in this most recent post, you say nothing about them except that you have already responded to them, which is a claim that, as far as I can discern, is simply untrue.



Tony Vargas said:


> As to the point I made about the Essence of D&D likely being the Primacy of Magic,  I've supported extensively with reference to the actual content if the various incarnations of the game itself.
> 
> I do rest the supposition, in part on the acknowledgement of 4e as being Not-D&D, and of clones like PF1 as being D&D.



The problem is that the references you have made, however extensive, do not support the conclusions you want to draw. That's the substance of my position that you have, despite being told repeatedly, been unable to grasp. In formal terms: I am arguing the negative. When I ask _"But then what? What have you actually 'refuted'?"_, I'm not just being contrary. I'm trying to point out to you that you need to do more logical work to connect the dots from _"Reason R is nonsense because of X, Y, and Z"_ to Primacy of Magic being the Essence of D&D. After all, even false beliefs say a lot about what people perceive to be the essence of D&D. If people are saying that 4E is not D&D because, say, they think it doesn't use ability scores, then they're absolutely wrong for thinking that, but it's still strong evidence that ability scores are a part of the Essence of D&D in their eyes -- evidence which weighs against the Primacy of Magic hypothesis. So if you don't connect the dots here, you haven't proven your case.

Now, so much for the substance. The less said about the second half of your post, the better. Neither I nor anybody else here requires your invitation to speak our mind.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 15, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Could you point me to where specifically you did this? In post #251, you quote and respond to the sentences before the questions, and then you quote and respond to a sentence after them



I think that covered it, yes.

Obviously, I'm not going to respond, directly, to the loaded phrasing, even quoting it is pointless.  An insinuation with a "?" at the end is not a question, it's a personal attack.




> The problem is that the references you have made, however extensive, do not support the conclusions you want to draw.



 I think I've more than adequately illustrated that the system qualities I summed up as "The Primacy of Magic" were notable in all editions but the one perceived - by both detractors and even defenders - as somehow not _really_ D&D.

Of course, that just showed a correlation supporting the the idea that Primacy of Magic is the "Essence of D&D."

I think it's a strong contender, but, it's just a correlation.

Now if you want to dispute the validity of that Primacy, you can try.

If you want to offer additional candidates, I think it'd be interesting.

But if you want to re-fight the edition war with appeals to popularity, commercial success, anecdotes, misperceptions, factual errors, and subjective opinions, well, I'd had more than enough of that by 2014.



> . After all, even false beliefs say a lot about what people perceive to be the essence of D&D.



 I see even less value in hypothetical delusions than in specific subjective rants.

That's why I'm not even trying to "prove" some sort of direct, sole, causation - it's too fraught a subject. I'll stick to facts, about the game, itself.  They're easily verified.

So, I suppose I'm relatively "vulnerable" to the assertion that 4e Really Was D&D, since it's contrary status is by general acclaim, and gets into all that fraught edition war subjectivity and emotion.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Problem is you are trying to shut down all discussion, it's a tactic that used to work on the old WotC boards due to over zealous mods creating a self reinforcing bubble.

 Vancian I would rate fairly high up there in terms of essence if D&D.

 Same with level 1-9 spell slots (1-7 for priests pre 3E).

 There's a reason they brought them back for 5E removing them is a bad idea. If AEDU was the essence of D&D they would be using that. 

 Doesn't mean AEDU type stuff can't exist, 5E uses variations on it on some classes but you can't dump vancian spell slots for it.

 How one regains spell slots etc and how powerful the spells need to be is another discussion.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 15, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Vancian magic.  Not neceesarily fantasy roleplaying.  But for me the essence of D&D is the Vancian magic system.





Zardnaar said:


> Vancian I would rate fairly high up there in terms of essence if D&D.



 I agree, if you don't mean it in the conceptual sense seen in Vance's Dying Earth - "memorization" which has been gone for sometime - but expand it to include the spontaneous casting of 3.x & 5e.
It's a significant part of what gives D&D magic it's Primacy.


> Same with level 1-9 spell slots (1-7 for priests pre 3E).



 And 1-6 for Bards, at times, and other ranges for half-casters?
Not so much, specifically 1-9, perhaps spell levels not corresponding to the level they're gained? But that seems almost cosmetic, like inverted AC.


> There's a reason they brought them back for 5E removing them is a bad idea.



 4e actually had Vancian, in the sense of spell preparation like in 3.5, that is.


> Doesn't mean AEDU type stuff can't exist, 5E uses variations on it on some classes



 Yep. 5e Primary casters have at-wills (and kept rituals), short rest recharges apply to several classes, some even have all 3 (and there have always been utility spells)   AEDU wasn't NOT D&D, in itself - applying the same structure, qty & power of resources to martial as to magical classes was the difference.



> How one regains spell slots etc and how powerful the spells need to be is another discussion.



 There seems to have been some variation in the former: whether and how long to sleep or merely rest, regaining at a specific time of day, prep or memorize, time per spell level or flat.

But that spell list be very versatile, and include some particularly powerful spells seems important.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I agree, if you don't mean it in the conceptual sense seen in Vance's Dying Earth - "memorization" which has been gone for sometime - but expand it to include the spontaneous casting of 3.x & 5e.
> It's a significant part of what gives D&D magic it's Primacy.
> And 1-6 for Bards, at times, and other ranges for half-casters?
> Not so much, specifically 1-9, perhaps spell levels not corresponding to the level they're gained? But that seems almost cosmetic, like inverted AC.
> ...




I don't think level 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, or 1-6 on the classes is that important more spell slots. 

Most of the flak fired at 4E boils down to class structure/powers.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Most of the flak fired at 4E boils down to class structure/powers.



Which is how 4e balanced martial & magical - and thus undermined the Primacy of Magic, yes.

Now, if 5e martial classes got as many and powerful maneuvers as casters did spells, and was accepted as really D&D, then we could surely say it was just the structure, not how it was used.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Vancian I would rate fairly high up there in terms of essence if D&D.



Level gated daily resource single use casting is not 5e or 4e... 4e made some magics single use 5e made none so unless you lack additional slots of that level or higher. ... that makes in that sense 4e wizards have closer to the original vancian its dailies were select and use then next day select and use only once for one slot. Both editions have at-will spells. Ie neither is identical both have at will casting for low level usually - which is so neither maintain that.

specific level numbering on spells being "essential" to D&D? wow incredibly cosmetic lets but looking at more functional things

A basic difference 4e split out utility from otherwise you werent deciding whether to feather fall vs sleep spell in 4e and that is  a real difference but 5e isnt always making you choose either with at-wills. 4e and 5e both make you chose the specific attack spell kind but 5e lets you spam it if you have the slots 4e is closer to the origin but you can actually reuse encounter spells but limited to distinct encounters 5e doesn't restrict that... want to cast that feather fall 5 times today have at it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Level gated daily resource single use casting is not 5e or 4e... 4e made some magics single use 5e made none so unless you lack additional slots of that level or higher. ... that makes in that sense 4e wizards have closer to the original vancian its dailies were select and use then next day select and use only once for one slot. Both editions have at-will spells. Ie neither is identical both have at will casting for low level which is so neither maintain that.
> 
> specific level numbering on spells being "essential" to D&D? wow incredibly cosmetic lets but looking at more functional things
> 
> A basic difference 4e split out utility from otherwise you werent deciding whether to feather fall vs sleep spell in 4e and that is  a real difference but 5e isnt always making you choose either with at-wills. 4e and 5e both make you chose the specific attack spell kind but 5e lets you spam it if you have the slots 4e is closer to the origin but you can actually reuse encounter spells but limited to distinct encounters 5e doesnt restrict that... want to cast that feather falll 5 times today have at it.




 I specifically said spell slots, level 1 to 9 generally for wizards varies for the other classes by editions.

 A spellpattern, not AEDU. What they bolt onto that isn't to important IMHO or if they can regain a few spots on short rests etc.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I specifically said spell slots



4e has spell slots and picking what you put in them.... this is basic not bolt on ...levels 1 to 9 instead of 0 to 18 is what I meant is cosmetic.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 4e has spell slots and picking what you put in them.... this is basic not bolt on ...levels 1 to 9 instead of 0 to 18 is what I meant is cosmetic.




 Key spells need to be in certain levels. Fireball level 3, along with fly and lightning bolt, wish level 9 magic missile level 1 etc.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> What they bolt onto that isn't to important IMHO or if they can regain a few spots on short rests etc.



Being able to repeat a casting of ANY spell or use ANY slot for something else is huge dude you cannot do that in 1e through 4e... but damn straight you can in 5e


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Key spells need to be in certain levels. Fireball level 3, along with fly and lightning bolt, wish level 9 magic missile level 1 etc.



See we disagree that isnt an actual functional distinction its a cosmetic one... to me having them restricted to numbers of uses is very fundamental and actually affects player choices at the table.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

The difference is like what Font I use vs What words I type 

Or better whether I say One or 1...


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

And you still could be right the player base could be that cosmetic and shallow in its understanding of what makes something D&D


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Being able to repeat a casting or use a slot for something is huge dude you cannot do that in 1e through 4e... but damn straight you can in 5e




So your point? I don't like everything in 5E but overall it's decent. 

 I wouldn't care if they added an AEDU spellcaster to 5E or even a warlord. As long as they don't take away stuff I like. I would if they added certain things like at will attack granting to a core book or excessive martial healing. 

 If they did a Raven Queens Guide to Nerath I wouldn't care to much what was in it except maybe balance related. 

 I don't care about balance to the extent 4E doubled down on it but 3E was to far out of whack for example. 3Es down there with 4E in list of favorite D&D's.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> And you still could be right the player base could be that cosmetic and shallow in its understanding of what makes something D&D




It's for any franchise. If you make drastic changes to something and it blows up in your face it's fairly predictable. 

 Doesn't matter what franchise. Drastic change bad.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Doesn't matter what franchise.



 Its not franchises its product differences,.
A change less than blue paint vs red instead of actual performance differences is what you are talking about being more important than the car being able to now move sideways....  

If you want to jump to a different product line....


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

4e restricted wizard daily spell selection to part of them being utility spells other versions of the game did not restrict that.  However 5e allows you to select those and NEVER use them without any penalty? since you can still use their slot for other things. 4e does not let you do that 1e to 3e does not both are functional differences 

But neither is apparently as important as labelling things arbitrarily as level divided by 2 vs labelling them the level you get them at.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 4e restricted wizard daily spell selection to part of them being utility spells other versions of the game did not restrict that.  However 5e allows you to select those and NEVER use them without any penalty? since you can still use their slot for other things. 4e does not let you do that 1e to 3e does not both are functional differences
> 
> But neither is apparently as important as labelling things arbitrarily as level divided by 2 vs labelling them the level you get them at.




 That's why I have always said the real problem in layman's terms is specifically 4E classes as designed and the implementation of it. It didn't matter what else 4E done right there was enough. Powers, AEDU what that's it that's the problem right there. 

 Doesn't matter how you try to obfuscate it. 

 Boiled down most things about 4E are powers/class/AEDU related.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

As I said you could be right cosmetic changes may be one "change too many" but when one is not really wanting to change something AND the lawyers and business dudes say we need enough differences to be IP....


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> That's why I have always said the real problem in layman's terms is specifically 4E classes as designed



You are talking about as presented ... which is a different distinction.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> You are talking about as presented ... which is a different distinction.




Presentation didn't help it's the 4E playstyle. That playstyle is mostly class/power related along with them shoehorning it in. 

 That's why 5E killed it and carried some things forward.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 15, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> But if you want to re-fight the edition war with appeals to popularity, commercial success, anecdotes, misperceptions, factual errors, and subjective opinions, well, I'd had more than enough of that by 2014.



_"If there's a particular bit of outright nonsense you'd like to hitch your wagon too, though, I'd go ahead and refute it for the nth time. I'm a sucker that way."_
--- not me

_"Which is why I haven't enumerated it. Believe it or not I'm trying to avoid yet another edition war conversation."_
--- not you

You emphatically do not give the impression that you're done with the edition war. If you sincerely believe that you are, you need to reexamine how you present yourself. And if you sincerely believe that the guy who has done his damnedest not to make any concrete criticisms of 4E which would be irrelevant to his point (in spite of your constant demands for them) is the one looking to pick that fight... well, I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but you really need to stop trying to read other people's minds.



Tony Vargas said:


> That's why I'm not even trying to "prove" some sort of direct, sole, causation - it's too fraught a subject. I'll stick to facts, about the game, itself.  They're easily verified.
> 
> So, I suppose I'm relatively "vulnerable" to the assertion that 4e Really Was D&D, since it's contrary status is by general acclaim, and gets into all that fraught edition war subjectivity and emotion.



And lo, he was enlightened.

You want to argue facts, but this topic lies entirely in the domain of perceptions. Your refutations of people's negative opinions about 4E can be as well rehearsed and factually verifiable as a Broadway production by Wittgenstein, and they will still be pointless. When someone tells you that saving throws or whatever are what make 4E "not D&D", you can't say, _"That doesn't make sense because of the facts! It must be something else!"_ That's just throwing away important data. You have to take a second look and figure out how it _does_ make sense, _to them_.

Now, it may sound here like I am asking you to read other people's minds. Far from it. I know how well that's likely to turn out. I'm asking you to credit other people's _words_, which is precisely the opposite endeavor.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> That playstyle is mostly class/power related along with them shoehorning it in.



 I have as a fighter climactic daily abilities and that I can only use once a day is bad? 
(only look at 3e feats didnt some of the martial ones also had daily restriction). 

 4e could have increased the cosmetics by making those martial feats...


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I have as a fighter climactic daily abilities and that I can only use once a day is bad?
> (only look at 3e feats didnt some of the martial ones also had daily restriction).
> 
> 4e could have increased the cosmetics by making those martial feats...




Late 3E maybe, a lot if people probably didn't have the late 3E stuff and a lot if it was also junk, I striped buying most of it.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Presentation didn't help it's the 4E playstyle.



You need to bring up actuals about the play style ... the assumption that you arent a newbie apprentice at level 1 but rather a newbie hero.(5e equivalent level 5) They kept the cosmetic of being level 1 but changed the meaning

Is likely a play style difference ... not sure *(its your word use so)


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Cause labelling level 1 to 9 is definitely not playstyle


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Cause labelling level 1 to 9 is definitely not playstyle



Irrelevant people like it. It's D&D.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

They made unnecessary differences which were not even needed for the goals of game play (like the spell level labels) is a very good point


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> You need to bring up actuals about the play style ... the assumption that you arent a newbie apprentice at level 1 but rather a newbie hero.(5e equivalent level 5) They kept the cosmetic of being level 1 but changed the meaning
> 
> Is likely a play style difference ... not sure *(its your word use so)




The whole powers thing, heavy reliance on battlematts, powers, long combats, lots of conditions to keep track of, martial healing, Grindy combat etc.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Irrelevant people like it. It's D&D.



It matters because we are communicating dude and calling something what it isnt doesnt add to the conversion just obfuscates


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> They made unnecessary differences which were not even needed for the goals of game play (like the spell level labels) is a very good point




People like it. If they want strawberry don't try and sell them peppermint. 

 Pathfinder tagline 3.5 lives. People chose that over 4E seems clear what they wanted. A fixed 3.5 I suppose not that PF was a massive improvement there. Early Pathfinder was good before the bloat.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> The whole powers thing,



Vague you mean that martial types got enumerated abilities.,... or really that they made that stupid presentational error of them being "powers" instead of encounter abilities being feats which are tricks with cannot be repeated during this combat once revealed.

one at a time some of those are way not 4e specific.... 3e had way more conditions way way more from what I can tell so does pathfinder.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> People like it. If they want strawberry don't try and sell them peppermint.



dont sell them 2 4, 6 8 10 12 14... if they want 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 even if it provides more information at a glance because the specific example is that huge difference?  AND as i said they were trying to create new Intellectual Property to sell because their old stuff was given away.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Vague you mean that martial types got enumerated abilities.,... or really that they made that stupid presentational error of them being "powers" instead of encounter abilities being feats which are tricks with cannot be repeated during this combat once revealed.
> 
> one at a time some of those are way not 4e specific.
> 3e had way more conditions way way more from what I can tell so does pathfinder.




In splat maybe, core books not so much. 
 How can you claim 4Es better because it's so different and then claim it's not that different when people don't like it?

 3E not that different from 5E when casuals play it.  We played 3.0 like 2E initially.

 That wasn't even an option for 4E it was so rigid.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> dont sell them 2 4, 6 8 10 12 14... if they want 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 even if it provides more information at a glance because the specific example is that huge difference?  AND as i said they were trying to create new Intellectual Property to sell because their old stuff was given away.




I would argue people in 2008 wanted a fixed 3E or some evolution of it (core books not late 3E splat).

 Note I don't think 3E is very good either, I liked it at the time very little nostalgia though.


----------



## Azzy (Sep 15, 2019)

Playing pretend.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> How can you claim 4Es better because it's so different and then claim it's not that different when people don't like it?



Some parts were changed to make things better some really really were changed to make it new IP a blanket statement doesn't cut it (they even tried to make those parts work better like the spell level meaning the level you get the ability.

I am distinguishing parts that are different vs what could be presented as the same but werent  possibly due to the aforementioned ip difference. Encounter based tricks that could have been feats which acted as tricks once per combat... were put in the power system and that helped consistency but that isnt really hugely different.

Consistency in class structure people have identified that as samey it helped create balance and that was different... but it might not be the balance that is the issue but rather the presentation. 
4e martial types get to induce conditions and sometimes by pass enemy armor not just kill it with their swords... occasionally even just do some damage wearing down the enemy because they chose to do it. (could 3e martial types get some of that in feats maybe? so maybe i am wrong and its not martial being more versatile but how it was presented)
Level 1 was starting of as a beginner of heroic caliber not an apprentice that was different.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I would argue people in 2008 wanted a fixed 3E



Oh definitely looks that way... but the lawyers and red tape business guys didnt want to sell that they felt that would leave them without any new IP they could call their own.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Oh definitely looks that way... but the lawyers and red tape business guys didnt want to sell that they felt that would leave them without any new IP they could call their own.




 Art and Arcana covered it, there was an MNO influence they wanted subscribers a'la WoW. It wasn't really designed for tabletop play. 

 And before you jump up and down claiming edition warring that book was released by WotC last year iirc.

They didn't want to sell you D&D they wanted to sell you a subscription. 

 Mistake number 1.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Art and Arcana covered it, they wanted subscribers a'la WoW.



I am asserting many cosmetic changes and the willingness to make some minor changes with low impact was due to OGL and the need for a NEW IP ...  The idea that other things might influence doesnt change that.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I am asserting many cosmetic changes and the willingness to make some minor changes with low impact was due to OGL and the need for a NEW IP ...  The idea that other things might influence doesnt change that.




That's a stupid idea. Not what you're saying more WotC.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> And before you jump up and down claiming edition warring that book was released by WotC last year iirc



The edition war was lost and its now presented as NOT being designed for table top is told for the winners. hurray....


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> That's a stupid idea. Not what you're saying more WotC.



I get you I think it was stupid because it helped create more lack of continuity than was needed even for desired features.  Why the simplifications of alignments when it could have been left optional or similar. I think it likely many people like the bad psychology pseudo philosophy of alignment and if you have removed the teeth why change the flavor.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> The edition war was lost and its now presented as NOT being designed for table top is told for the winners. hurray....




I'll reread the exact part of the book but yeah DDI was a big part of the plan.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I get you I think it was stupid because it helped create more lack of continuity than was needed even for desired features.  Why the simplifications of alignments when it could have been left optional or similar. I think it likely many people like the bad psychology pseudo philosophy of alignment and if you have removed the teeth why change the flavor.




9 alignments since 1977 is a lot of inertia.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> 9 alignments since 1977 is a lot of inertia.



yup and its at some level more story inertia than the mechanics part of it I think


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I'll reread the exact part of the book but yeah DDI was a big part of the plan.



Wanting to have media that can be doled out via subscription is not exactly the same as not being designed for table top.

I like the offline character builder in specific I like that I can adjust it to have custom content. (that is something they nodded at but needed to follow through on in my opinion.)

And other Wow influence is just as much characterized as being influenced by the games that it influenced and incorporate the best of their ideas.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

I mean if I wanted it to play in an MMO I would make a game have simultaneous action resolution closer to an adjusted 1e in some ways

You know how long does the action take instead of being so turn based

They kept it more like 3e where you are given your turn and you move your piece ... like multiplayer chess game

That change is one of those which annoyed me quite a bit back when. I could declare I was running at the enemy  (and when the enemy was changing there position the DM adjusted both of us and decided where we met in the middle.) 
In other words it really was very different.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Wanting to have media that can be doled out via subscription is not exactly the same as not being designed for table top.
> 
> And wow influence is just as much characterizable as being influenced by the games that it influenced and incorporate the best of their ideas.




Art and Arcana

Page 353

"4E designed from ground up to run as tight tactical game, which let computers be part of it's core realization."

Goes on about Heinsoo, designer for DDM " assumed access to both miniatures and dungeon tiles"

 And "boldly transformed D&D to it's very core". 

 "other nods to MMO design included quick health and ability recovery" 

 It then goes on about rigid roles suited for ideal play in virtual tabletop. And how you had to keep track of things the old fashioned way.

 In regards to powers
"others required a cool down period before reuse a system familiar to MMO players".

Page 357


"Departed from the games heritage"

"emphasizing tactical miniatures combat"

"D&D has been reforged into a game system that MMO fans would find familiar"


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Goes on about Heinsoo, designer for DDM " assumed access to both miniatures and dungeon tiles"



That sounds like the designers very much assumed a table top environment


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> "emphasizing tactical miniatures combat"



That could have been called bringing its combat back to its roots and emphasizing tactical combat with miniatures....


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> That sounds like the designers very much assumed a table top environment




  Did you miss the quotes about MMO and how ideally it was for online play? 

 And you guys have also denied that minitures are required, it's hard without them anyway. 

 That slow combat especially grinding at higher level bit easier if the PC runs it for you.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

You just do not talk about miniatures and boards when talking about MMOs  or Turn Taking.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> That could have been called bringing its combat back to its roots and emphasizing tactical combat with miniatures....




 Miss the part about departing from the games heritage? 

 Other games use minis you don't claim 4E is that game. 1E specifically says minis optional. We used graph paper.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> And you guys have also denied that minitures are required, it's hard without them anyway.



They arent required... I rarely have played with them. I jot things down on paper.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> You just do not talk about miniatures and boards when talking about MMOs  or Turn Taking.




 I can't really write out the whole article but they we're aiming at online play, it's probably why 4E didn't work that well at the table or why people bailed.

 You would have to be hardcore to enjoy 1 to 3 hour fights.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> it's probably why 4E didn't work that well at the table




Works fine for some of us... How is that online play going to do skill challenges ie 2 thirds of encounters at many tables?


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

As I said if you are designing for an mmo you design closer to 1e with casting times and the like. You can have a run towards enemy button and the character adjusts their path dynamically.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Works fine for some of us... How is that online play going to do skill challenges ie 2 thirds of encounters at many tables?




 Never claimed you couldn't have fun, obviously some people enjoy 4E. We had a couple of sessions but a tactical skirmish game is never going to have the appeal of a more casual playstyle. 

 It's a lot if time, effort and money. Even 5E minis aren't that cheap.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

5e removed those pesky skill challenges it will work better in an MMO that way.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 5e removed those pesky skill challenges it will work better in an MMO that way.




Somewhat absurd statement. 

 It's not really what you and Tony say it's how you say it. For example if someone doesn't like 5E or AD&D or whatever I don't care. The game may not be for them. 

 People tell you point blank why they don't like something and provide quotes from sources and you counter with a selection or denial. 

 I'm blunt and offend people, I get it from my uncle. A spades a spade its not a manual earth moving device. 

 It's like when you claim magical supremacy there's a big difference between say 3E and B/X.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Never claimed you couldn't have fun, obviously some people enjoy 4E.



We were not talking about having fun but rather if it worked at a table... that is a divergence.
 I mean people obviously had fun with 1e  and I didnt use more minis in 4e than I did in 1e.  Carrying that graph paper around. I think that the must have larger numbers of players to be really playing the game it must not be not valid we play in the car with 2 players or three going down the road on vacation for instance.


Zardnaar said:


> It's a lot if time, effort and money. Even 5E minis aren't that cheap.



They are beautiful things which is the appeal to me now


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Somewhat absurd statement.



A skill challenge is a very very hands on DM adjudicated thing... putting it in a primarily online game would be absurd behavior.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> We were not talking about having fun but rather if it worked at a table... that is a divergence.
> I mean people obviously had fun with 1e  and I didnt use more minis in 4e than I did in 1e.  Carrying that graph paper around. I think that the must have larger numbers of players to be really playing the game it must not be not valid we play in the car with 2 players or three going down the road on vacation for instance.
> 
> They are beautiful things which is the appeal to me now




 They are beautiful just a bit pricey and I have boxes and boxes if the old 3.5 ones.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> and provide quotes from sources and you counter with a selection or denial.



Your source was inconsistent... it had things that explicitly called out things which were very much in D&D heritage and 4e features things new bold things which are bad as hell online.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

And those new things which would be impossible to implement on line ... those have been removed.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Your source was inconsistent... it had things that explicitly called out things which were very much in D&D heritage and 4e features things new bold things which are bad as hell online.




 I can't really copy and paste entire pages in a phone.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Never claimed you couldn't have fun, obviously some people enjoy 4E.



That wasnt fun exactly you said it couldnt work without X


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It's like when you claim magical supremacy there's a big difference between say 3E and B/X.



Its Tony's claim I think their is some support for it and some of it more subtle than others, but not universal.  (I basically do not know B/X )


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> That wasnt fun exactly you said it couldnt work without X




 It doesn't work well, it's one reason 4E combats are a grind. 

 It's to hard to run for most people even if they like the idea of tactical skirmish battles.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I can't really copy and paste entire pages in a phone.



I understand no biggie


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I understand no biggie




 The main problems if 4E on top of it being different.
1. You have to be into tactical skirmishing.
2. And you have to be willing to put in the work. 

 The average gamer won't care about balance unless it's really out if whack or it makes the game to hard to run. 

 Art and Arcana also said 3.5 failed to attract new players, afaik they didn't even keep all the 3.0 players. Each version of 3.X was better than the previous IMHO but less people played it.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It doesn't work well, it's one reason 4E combats are a grind.



Anecdotes I was saying not for me... you didnt just magically change that. But you did specify what you meant by doesnt work.
There are other things that can influence if you roleplay enemies who unless they are some zombie hitting bloodied becomes a cause to try and run or having half your allies go down having the same impact and chase scenes are a different form of excitement ..work wonderfully as skill challenges

 I would rather play 3 hours of interesting choices (not that I ever have that is insane than 1 of I hit it with my sword ho hum


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> The main problems if 4E on top of it being different.
> 1. You have to be into tactical skirmishing.



making interesting choices in combat


Zardnaar said:


> 2. And you have to be willing to put in the work.



4e certainly had less than 3e from all I have heard I saw DMs nosed buried in books and looking up crap constantly *although that is a low sample anecdote,  4e made things so much more modular. Sure seemed a breeze to me


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

Campbell said:


> It was really good at heroic fantasy. With strong scene framing and good handle on skill challenges it could be used to play out some really epic fantasy. This really plays out well with the thematic material attached to Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.




Yep! You saw this in eg @pemerton's discussing of his campaign. I saw it with small-e epic stuff like P2 Demon Queen's Enclave, which led to some great scenes.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 1e was good at being fantasy vietnam.... not much good at anything else.  See what that sounds like?




Not true though. _OD&D_ (and especially Holmes/BX/BE) was good at being Fantasy Vietnam.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Spell casters in 1e calculating the expansions of a fireball... yay for geometry at the game table now that was work.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Spell casters in 1e calculating the expansions of a fireball... yay for geometry at the game table now that was work.




 No one's claiming 1E is perfect, I use 2E fireball instead or B/X even. 

 Early D&D's good like that mix and match. 

 You won't find to many people defending 1E mechanics. I like 1E doesn't bother me if others don't. I prefer 2Evand B/X though.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Not true though. _OD&D_ (and especially Holmes/BX/BE) was good at being Fantasy Vietnam.



Hmmm they might be better...  you say this was my first D&D book


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> No one's claiming 1E is perfect, I use 2E fireball instead or B/X even.



It was work with no payback... and 4e was very little work with modularized mechanics each power being insular no looking things up like 3e and no advanced math nothing. The experience point encounter design system was easy. AND worked.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

All classes had pertinent choices in combat (is that the work... you are talking about) so roboting through combat to get to talking again was less easy. DMing 4e is trivial heck player pick one of those cards use the ability is not really so hard...


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Spell casters in 1e calculating the expansions of a fireball... yay for geometry at the game table now that was work.




I once had a Drow mage cast a 1e Fireball in a 10' x 10' tunnel and wipe out the Fighter PC's entire 120-strong army of followers!


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I once had a Drow mage cast a 1e Fireball in a 10' x 10' tunnel and wipe out the Fighter PC's entire 120-strong army of followers!



A pyramid room in one corner and a tubular egress in another... insanity on the math field Oh and them irregular splits in walll ...


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I once had a Drow mage cast a 1e Fireball in a 10' x 10' tunnel and wipe out the Fighter PC's entire 120-strong army of followers!




And yet you remember it perhaps fondly.

 Also you played a Drow. You deserved it (ducks).


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

lets stick with rooms shaped like squares so the game works better and a dungeon is a maze all linear connecting them.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> And yet you remember it perhaps fondly.



I remember the hour and a half of a DM doing geometry not really fondly


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

I remember having my first root canal very very well... it was necessary


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> lets stick with rooms shaped like squares so the game works better and a dungeon is a maze all linear connecting them.




That's an improvement over a few 4E adventures in Dungeon.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> lets stick with rooms shaped like squares so the game works better and a dungeon is a maze all linear connecting them.




Are you PWD?


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> That's an improvement over a few 4E adventures in Dungeon.



They certainly didnt start out highlighting how to use the system well did they but I am not much for modules regarless of edition (I might steal from one) - As I have said Dungeons were pretty much nonsense till we started doing outdoor and cityscape and similar adventures


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Are you PWD?



OCD?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> OCD?




OK!


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

PWD

*PWD Password
PWD Public Works Department
PWD Portuguese Water Dog (breed)
PWD Print Working Directory (Unix command)
PWD Pine Wilt Disease (agriculture)P and dry (skin assessment) *


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> PWD
> 
> *PWD Password
> PWD Public Works Department
> ...




You didn't click the link, eh?


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

S'mon said:


> You didn't click the link, eh?



nO ;P i could be much more relaxed if that were the case ... but its 5:35 am for me


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

Never mind just repeating myself my brain seems over heated .. going to see if sleep is doable.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 15, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Yep! You saw this in eg @pemerton's discussing of his campaign. I saw it with small-e epic stuff like P2 Demon Queen's Enclave, which led to some great scenes.



Thanks for the shout-out!

I read @Campbell's post that you quoted. I don't agree with him that 4e was "really bad at being Dungeons and Dragons " D&D is multiple things. It certaintly includes B/X and/or AD&D dungeon- and hex-crawling, and I agree that 4e is bad at that. But D&D has also, both in presentation and occasionally in the details of play, aspired to heroic fantasy. The Foreword to Moldvay Basic is a classic instance of this in terms of presentation; and an adventure like Speaker in Dreams (3E original series of modules) is an instance of an attempt at making heroic fantasy the heart of the play of the game.

There is a strand to D&D - monsters not just as HD-based challenges but as manifestations of a conflicted cosmos; PCs as heroes, sometimes super-heroes, who will save or transform that cosmos - which 4e was exemplary at.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 15, 2019)

pemerton said:


> Thanks for the shout-out!
> 
> I read @Campbell's post that you quoted. I don't agree with him that 4e was "really bad at being Dungeons and Dragons " D&D is multiple things. It certaintly includes B/X and/or AD&D dungeon- and hex-crawling, and I agree that 4e is bad at that. But D&D has also, both in presentation and occasionally in the details of play, aspired to heroic fantasy. The Foreword to Moldvay Basic is a classic instance of this in terms of presentation; and an adventure like Speaker in Dreams (3E original series of modules) is an instance of an attempt at making heroic fantasy the heart of the play of the game.
> 
> There is a strand to D&D - monsters not just as HD-based challenges but as manifestations of a conflicted cosmos; PCs as heroes, sometimes super-heroes, who will save or transform that cosmos - which 4e was exemplary at.




This!! And for me my D&D finally fulfilled on promises which earlier editions had made and in so doing allowed me as a player to play character types mentioned and evoked but never quite realized.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Irrelevant people like it. It's D&D.



I want to refute that, but I'm having trouble coming up with examples of relevant people who like D&D....



S'mon said:


> I once had a Drow mage cast a 1e Fireball in a 10' x 10' tunnel and wipe out the Fighter PC's entire 120-strong army of followers!



 Essence of D&D, right there.

;(

...


I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you, but I'm just going to skip the personal bits and stick to the topic:







TheCosmicKid said:


> ... this topic lies entirely in the domain of perceptions.



 Not entirely.  The perception in question is 4e being NOT D&D.

I'm just assuming that.  I don't think it needs to be argued.  The phenomenon of the Edition War needn't be re-examined in detail, it's mere existence stands as ample evidence of that perception.

Given that, it's a matter of looking at the commonalities of other eds and how 4e conformed with or deviated from them.

The Primacy of Magic not only fits the bill, it's a very prominent feature. 



Zardnaar said:


> A spellpattern, not AEDU. What they bolt onto that isn't to important IMHO or if they can regain a few spots on short rests etc.



 Imagine if martial classes got as many and powerful (albeit, with cosmetically different mechanics) maneuvers as casters did spells.  The spellpattern would be preserved, but the Primacy of Magic erased.
Think it'd be received as really D&D?



Garthanos said:


> Being able to repeat a casting of ANY spell or use ANY slot for something else is huge dude you cannot do that in 1e through 4e... but damn straight you can in 5e



What Vancian meant changed radically over time.  In 3e spontaneous casting was seen as an an alternative to Vancian (even though 3e Clerics & Druids could spontaneously use prepped slots to cast specific spell).  In 5e, neo-Vancian co-opted it.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 15, 2019)

I keep checking in this thread hoping it will have morphed back into an interesting discussion, but it looks like it's still just an ongoing flogging of a horse that's been dead for six years.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Essence of D&D, right there.
> 
> ;(
> 
> ...




It would depend on how it was implemented.

 I look more at the power level. A fighter shouldn't be able to log a fireball for example unless its MC or Eldritch Knight.

 I don't mind if they give fighters way to do supernatural things as long as there's an in game reason for it.  Say a fighter threw a boulder to the moon. It's silky but fine if said fighter is a demigod or something like that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It would depend on how it was implemented.



 Say, greatly expanded CS Dice & Manuevers.  The Fighter would have as many CS dice as casters' slots, and more powerful manuevers would only work with larger CS dice.



> I look more at the power level. A fighter shouldn't be able to log a fireball for example



 Same power level, but in no way supernatural (unrealistic/superhuman, perhaps).  So, no fireball, but cutting down a dozen orcs, no two more than 40' apart, like an anime swordsman, at 5th level, at the cost of your biggest CS die, sure.

Still D&D?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Say, greatly expanded CS Dice & Manuevers.  The Fighter would have as many CS dice as casters' slots, and more powerful manuevers would only work with larger CS dice.
> 
> Same power level, but in no way supernatural (unrealistic/superhuman, perhaps).  So, no fireball, but cutting down a dozen orcs, no two more than 40' apart, like an anime swordsman, at 5th level, at the cost of your biggest CS die, sure.




 Some sort of spring attack on steroids is probably fine but fighters get a form of this with action surge in 5E  although its encounter based but 3 of them probably equal a daily not fireball.

 As I said it would depend on implantation as fighters get other advantages over wizards lie better saves generally, d10 HD etc. I don't mind power creep if something is underpowered and I had fighters do something similar to this in 2E. 

 This still boils down to moar damage better though. Anything supernatural is probably going to draw comparisons to animie though.

 5E triedt to fix this I suppose with 1/3rd casters and that could easily be 1/3rd psionic or whatever.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Some sort of spring attack on steroids is probably fine but fighters get a form of this with action surge in 5E



 Assume stuff like action surge and any Style perks in excess of cantrip power moving to manuevers.


> as fighters get other advantages over wizards



 So do clerics & Druids, but get as many slots.



> Anything supernatural is probably going to draw comparisons to animie though.



 Heck, I drew the anime comparison, doesn't imply supernatural. So, again, explicitly, however powerful /not supernatural/.

That's critical, because, if it's supernatural, it's supporting the Primacy of Magic,  not defying it.

So, still D&D if a high level fighter can throw down a manuever to rival a 9th level spell?

I kinda doubt it.

(I mean, 4e got there by really reigning in spells, as well)


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Assume stuff like action surge and any Style perks in excess of cantrip power moving to manuevers.
> So do clerics & Druids, but get as many slots.
> 
> Heck, I drew the anime comparison, doesn't imply supernatural. So, again, explicitly, however powerful /not supernatural/.
> ...




 It would depend on the spell, a fighter could adopt a stance I suppose that could duplicate the level 9 foresight but probably have a shorter duration and be able to use it more frequnetly.

 If a fighter is doing supernatural things for no explanation just because its not really the essence of D&D more superheros or animie/wuxia genre IMHO.

 Things have to be internally consistent and if fighters can point a sword and fire a meteor swarm out of it or teleport a long distance and then attack everyone they better have ome reason for it vs "the wizard can do it".

 "Its magic" is all the explanation you really need. 

 If you go to far down this logic though you would need to buff wizard damage up so its at will stuff is close to a fighters, then you have to do AC as well to make it far, then you probably need to down power everything.

 Which is what 4E did and people daim things feel to samey or boring as everything is some amount of damage or some amount of damage+ some condition. 

 So buffing fighters in a variety of ways is fine, but what you're describing isnt the essence of D&D and its a different genre.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> /snip
> Imagine if martial classes got as many and powerful (albeit, with cosmetically different mechanics) maneuvers as casters did spells.  The spellpattern would be preserved, but the Primacy of Magic erased.
> Think it'd be received as really D&D?
> /snip






Zardnaar said:


> It would depend on how it was implemented.
> 
> I look more at the power level. A fighter shouldn't be able to log a fireball for example unless its MC or Eldritch Knight.
> 
> I don't mind if they give fighters way to do supernatural things as long as there's an in game reason for it.  Say a fighter threw a boulder to the moon. It's silky but fine if said fighter is a demigod or something like that.




But, therein lies the rub.  A 5e ranger, for example, gets an at will small area fireball at 11th level.  Attack every target within 10 feet of the original target (which, presuming a medium target gives us a circle with a 25 foot diameter).  But, the point being, it takes the ranger six levels just to get a lower powered fireball attack that the wizard got at 5th level.  An 11th level fighter with action surge could attack 6 times, but, still less effective than a fireball and now limited to about 2-3 times per day.  An 11th level wizard can cast fireball 2-3 times a day with no problem whatsoever.

Where you can really see the "Primacy of Magic" is outside combat though.  In all those recent threads about skill checks, it was shown quite clearly that a high level rogue couldn't possibly replicate falling significant distance without taking damage.  And everyone stroked their beards and said it was good.  Mostly because they didn't want the rogue stepping on the monk's toes.  Ok, fair enough.  But, a 1st level wizard or sorcerer can Feather Fall which is a HELL of a lot better than what a monk can do, and that's perfectly fine.  With 5e casting rules, you don't even have to have it "memorized" since that's a thing of the past.  Just has to be on your spells known list.  

There's virtually nothing a character with skills can do that a caster can't do either as easily or outright easier.  

Again, it's not a surprise that 5e simply made almost every character class a magic using class.  We'll accept flying barbarians with diamond skin, but, the notion of a fighter being as effective as a caster?  Hell no.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, therein lies the rub.  A 5e ranger, for example, gets an at will small area fireball at 11th level.  Attack every target within 10 feet of the original target (which, presuming a medium target gives us a circle with a 25 foot diameter).  But, the point being, it takes the ranger six levels just to get a lower powered fireball attack that the wizard got at 5th level.  An 11th level fighter with action surge could attack 6 times, but, still less effective than a fireball and now limited to about 2-3 times per day.  An 11th level wizard can cast fireball 2-3 times a day with no problem whatsoever.
> 
> Where you can really see the "Primacy of Magic" is outside combat though.  In all those recent threads about skill checks, it was shown quite clearly that a high level rogue couldn't possibly replicate falling significant distance without taking damage.  And everyone stroked their beards and said it was good.  Mostly because they didn't want the rogue stepping on the monk's toes.  Ok, fair enough.  But, a 1st level wizard or sorcerer can Feather Fall which is a HELL of a lot better than what a monk can do, and that's perfectly fine.  With 5e casting rules, you don't even have to have it "memorized" since that's a thing of the past.  Just has to be on your spells known list.
> 
> ...




If the wizard can cast the fireball at will you have a point.

 If a fighter can attack everyone in a 20' radius why play a damage dealing wizard?

 If you change that dynamic you have not D&D. 

 You could probably design a better system now everything is at will, no dailies for anyone, fighters deal a bit more damage wizards can ritual non combat spells but yeah that's not D&D.

It's only a problem if you have to play a fighter. Don't like it okay a different class. D&D doesn't do it for ya, play something else. 

 If everyone leaves then you have a problem.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It would depend on the spell, a fighter could adopt a stance I suppose that could duplicate the level 9 foresight but probably have a shorter duration and be able to use it more frequnetly.
> 
> If a fighter is doing supernatural things for no explanation just because its not really the essence of D&D more superheros or animie/wuxia genre IMHO.
> 
> ...




You realize that you're actually supporting @Tony Vargas' point right?  Non casters can never be equal to casters because "it's magic" is a valid reason.  And "it's magic" ALWAYS trumps everything in D&D because magic uber alles.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> If the wizard can cast the fireball at will you have a point.
> 
> If a fighter can attack everyone in a 20' radius why play a damage dealing wizard?
> 
> ...




So, again, you're agreeing with @Tony Vargas.  Primacy of Magic is the essence of D&D.  If you don't have that, then it's not D&D.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> You realize that you're actually supporting @Tony Vargas' point right?  Non casters can never be equal to casters because "it's magic" is a valid reason.  And "it's magic" ALWAYS trumps everything in D&D because magic uber alles.




You can Nerf magic to an extent, give the fighter magic (ie Eldritch Knight) or make the fighter better in other ways. A wish spell might be one thing, perhaps a fighter can take a feat or something that lets him invoke a deity for a similar effect. 

 Using the 3.5 fighter for example those feats could be spent in 4E type powers, outright magical powers or a mundane +1 to hit. 

 I have noticed in 5E an at will attack tends to deal about half a daily slot and a magical at will tends to deal less damage than a martial at will.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> So, again, you're agreeing with @Tony Vargas.  Primacy of Magic is the essence of D&D.  If you don't have that, then it's not D&D.




Magic should do magical things. Raising the dead for example. 

 How powerful it is relative to everything else is the actual problem hence the 5E fighter having various short rest abilities.

 In old D&D fighters were better at getting domains. It's something, makes them better in a different way.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

Really?  A 5th level at will is doing 2d6-2d10 damage with possible damage riders.

A single attack from a fighter won't be doing much more damage than that.  Now, the multiple attacks certainly will, fair enough.  But, by the time fighters are getting 3 attacks per round, the casters aren't using at-will spells too often anymore - they have enough slots to burn through actual spells every round.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Magic should do magical things. Raising the dead for example.
> 
> How powerful it is relative to everything else is the actual problem hence the 5E fighter having various short rest abilities.




And thus the Primacy of Magic  It's built right into what you are saying.  Magic should do magical things and everyone else who isn't using magic CAN'T do anything that magic can do.  Full stop.  Thus Magic is Prime.  That's the essence of D&D.

You're not actually disagreeing with me here.  I totally agree with what you are saying.  The essence of D&D is that anything outside the realm of what a real life human could do MUST be achieved by magic.  Only magic should do magical things, after all.  

I mean, good grief, we Raise the Dead in real life every day now with modern medical technologies.  Whose to say that our fantasy world doesn't have herbal medicines that, coated in a bit of chocolate, wouldn't do the same thing?  Maybe he's only mostly dead.  

But, in D&D, the answer is a flat no.  You can ONLY do this with magic.  It MUST be magic.  Thus, the essence of D&D is the Primacy of Magic.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Really?  A 5th level at will is doing 2d6-2d10 damage with possible damage riders.
> 
> A single attack from a fighter won't be doing much more damage than that.  Now, the multiple attacks certainly will, fair enough.  But, by the time fighters are getting 3 attacks per round, the casters aren't using at-will spells too often anymore - they have enough slots to burn through actual spells every round.




I include multiple attacks. A fighter at 5th level will deal 1d8+5 or 2d6+3 minimum.

 4d6+6 over two attacks is slightly more than half an 8d6 fireball.  Yes the fireball has a bigger Size but the fighter can action surge as well. 

 Throw in second wind, an extra feat etc the fighter is competitive in a different way although it's heavily focused on damage. 

 I'm not a big fan of the 5E champion as such my idea if a good fighter is more like one from the 2E phb. 

 Damage matters a lot in 5E though since the monsters are mostly buckets of hit points. I don't bother casting many damage dealing spells. My last PC was a healing focused celestial Warlock, before that a dual wielding halfling fighter and a fighter/rogue type 3pp class that wasn't very good.


----------



## Yardiff (Sep 16, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I keep checking in this thread hoping it will have morphed back into an interesting discussion, but it looks like it's still just an ongoing flogging of a horse that's been dead for six years.



Same here. Sad.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

The problem is, @Zardnaar, nothing you are saying is actually countering the main point.  Even if your great sword wielding fighter hits four times for 8d6+12 damage, he's still only doing that to one target.  The wizard is doing that to at least two.  You cannot compare the two really.  

Or, put it another way, if your wizard/sorcerer isn't the highest total damage dealer in your group, either the player chose to go a different direction or there is something seriously wrong.  There's no chance a fighter could even come close to total damage that a wizard or sorcerer can do.  And certainly not after about 7th level.

But, again, I'm not just talking about damage.  Think about what you said, the BEST your fighter can do 1/short rest is still half what a wizard can do twice a day by 5th level.  At best, you might, just maybe still be short by half if you get a two short rest day and get 3 action surges.  And, all it cost that 5th level wizard was 2 3rd level slots.  He's still got 7 more slots plus another on a short rest.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> Same here. Sad.




Actually, to be honest, I think this is one of the clearest examples of answering the question in the OP.  What is the "essence" of D&D?  Well, looking at the one edition that is considered to be "not D&D" is a pretty good place to start.  What about 4e makes it stand out from other editions?  And yeah, I'm really buying into the whole "primacy of magic" argument.  Because this is the one stand out difference from 4e to every other edition.  Virtually anything else you want to point at actually exists in other editions.  

So, while folks might not like the answer, the answer, to me, clearly is, "Magic is the greatest thing and everything else is secondary is the essence of D&D".


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The problem is, @Zardnaar, nothing you are saying is actually countering the main point.  Even if your great sword wielding fighter hits four times for 8d6+12 damage, he's still only doing that to one target.  The wizard is doing that to at least two.  You cannot compare the two really.
> 
> Or, put it another way, if your wizard/sorcerer isn't the highest total damage dealer in your group, either the player chose to go a different direction or there is something seriously wrong.  There's no chance a fighter could even come close to total damage that a wizard or sorcerer can do.  And certainly not after about 7th level.
> 
> But, again, I'm not just talking about damage.  Think about what you said, the BEST your fighter can do 1/short rest is still half what a wizard can do twice a day by 5th level.  At best, you might, just maybe still be short by half if you get a two short rest day and get 3 action surges.  And, all it cost that 5th level wizard was 2 3rd level slots.  He's still got 7 more slots plus another on a short rest.



So wizards don't have second wind, d10 hit dice, armor and martial weapons. Or weapon styles. Or extra ASIs. And fighters have better saves.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Actually, to be honest, I think this is one of the clearest examples of answering the question in the OP.  What is the "essence" of D&D?  Well, looking at the one edition that is considered to be "not D&D" is a pretty good place to start.  What about 4e makes it stand out from other editions?  And yeah, I'm really buying into the whole "primacy of magic" argument.  Because this is the one stand out difference from 4e to every other edition.  Virtually anything else you want to point at actually exists in other editions.
> 
> So, while folks might not like the answer, the answer, to me, clearly is, "Magic is the greatest thing and everything else is secondary is the essence of D&D".




It was specially 4E execution of it. 
 It wouldn't bother me to much if a level 18 fighter in 3.5 could spent a feat to gain access to a lot level 9 spellslots or whatever. 

 Maybe level 6 since the fighter retains other class abilities. 

 Whether you have magical fighters or every class has powers the effect is similar. 

 That's more a class design issue. Or look at a lot of AD&D spells they're a lot weaker than 5E ones. 

Class stuff is also going to relate to the edition it's designed. A high damage fighter in 5E is useful with high hitpoint critters.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It would depend on the spell, a fighter could adopt a stance I suppose that could duplicate the level 9 foresight but probably have a shorter duration and be able to use it more frequnetly.



 That sounds like a 'no.'


> If a fighter is doing supernatural things for no explanation just because its not really the essence of D&D



 I was very clear about the hypothetical manuevers NOT being supernatural.  


> ...what you're describing isnt the essence of D&D and its a different genre.



 So to be clear, you would judge a variation on 5e that retained the Vancian system and spellpattern, but included expanded manuevers comparable in power to spells, using  CS dice comparable in number and recovery to slots, to not really be D&D.  Even though it holds classic spells and spellcasters to the 5e Vancian model, resources & advancement. 

I agree,  of course.

Vancian & the spell/level pattern aren't sufficient to establish the Essence of D&D.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> That sounds like a 'no.'
> I was very clear about the hypothetical manuevers NOT being supernatural.
> So to be clear, you would judge a variation on 5e that retained the Vancian system and spellpattern, but included expanded manuevers comparable in power to spells, using  CS dice comparable in number and recovery to slots, to not really be D&D.  Even though it holds classic spells and spellcasters to the 5e Vancian model, resources & advancement.
> 
> ...




It's part of it though. 
 Your hypothetical fighter would depend on the execution and if it was one option like 5E or was the only fighter. 

 Making a new class doing such things would probably be a better option at least in the 5E context. 

 Much like you can't really have a 5E warlord on the fighter chasis. 

 Something like that might be better off in an ISR game make it as powerful as you like but crappy xp table. 
  My variant 5E fighter would probably shift some of the high level fighter abilities forward. More action surges, second winds, more saving throw proficiency etc earlier.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Actually, to be honest, I think this is one of the clearest examples of answering the question in the OP.  What is the "essence" of D&D?  Well, looking at the one edition that is considered to be "not D&D" is a pretty good place to start.  What about 4e makes it stand out from other editions?  And yeah, I'm really buying into the whole "primacy of magic" argument.  Because this is the one stand out difference from 4e to every other edition.  Virtually anything else you want to point at actually exists in other editions.
> 
> So, while folks might not like the answer, the answer, to me, clearly is, "Magic is the greatest thing and everything else is secondary is the essence of D&D".



When I think back to my first year with the hobby, I recall being really puzzled by Traveller and Top Secret, because there was no advancement equivalent to acquiring magic items, which seemed such a large & important part of D&D - Gamma World, OTOH, with artifacts to be unearthed, just fine.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It's part of it though.



 I suspect Vancian & the spellpattern could be - and has been, in some old-school variants - messed with or replaced without losing D&D-ness.  Spellpoint or 'mana' variants - which I was surprised to see 3e pass over in favor of the Sorcerer - were pretty common, and generally derided as broken, rather than "not D&D," for instance. 



> Your hypothetical fighter would depend on the execution and if it was one option like 5E or was the only fighter.



 I was thinking a few martial classes, but all using the manuever mechanics for the bulk of their options & effectiveness.

So no mere beatsticks or meat-shields.



> Making a new class doing such things would probably be a better option at least in the 5E context.



 Sure, its just a hypothetical.  It needn't be elegant or balanced - plenty of D&D hasn't been either - to be judged in accord with or contrary to the Essence of D&D.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I suspect Vancian & the spellpattern could be - and has been, in some old-school variants - messed with or replaced without losing D&D-ness.  Spellpoint or 'mana' variants - which I was surprised to see 3e pass over in favor of the Sorcerer - were pretty common, and generally derided as broken, rather than "not D&D," for instance.
> 
> I was thinking a few martial classes, but all using the manuever mechanics for the bulk of their options & effectiveness.
> 
> ...




I don't care to much about perfect balance. Only when it's very lopsided or obviously OP.

 If a new martial class is better than say fighter big whoop. If it's better than the Paladin it's also going to be better than Ranger, Barbarian etc so there's that PoV.

The execution is everything.

 It's like at will attack granting, worked in 4E, can work in OSR, not a good idea in 5E.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 16, 2019)

The essence of D&D is fun as a group. 

And needlessly pointless arguments.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Irrelevant people like it. It's D&D.




I love it!!!

Although I still 4E was a good game.  I like it more for Gamma World than D&D


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> The essence of D&D is fun as a group.
> 
> And needlessly pointless arguments.




I disagree.  That is roleplaying games in general or any game.  But that's my opinion.  I love Runequest.  I would not call it D&D.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> The execution is everything.



 The hypothetical execution of the hypothetical class(es) can be assumed flawless, hypothetically.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> *lowkey13
> Exterminate all rational thought*
> ...ugh.



Still too much rational thought?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> The hypothetical execution of the hypothetical class(es) can be assumed flawless, hypothetically.




 Eh probably not. Assuming you wanted to add such hypothetical classes to 5E you may have to design a new chasis than add uber maneuvers onto say the fighter. If you want a 5th level ability comparable to fireball, an uber spring attack or volley ability you're getting 1 attack a round.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

....


Zardnaar said:


> Eh probably not.



 Eh, probably not really D&D?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> /snip
> That's more a class design issue. Or look at a lot of AD&D spells they're a lot weaker than 5E ones.
> 
> Class stuff is also going to relate to the edition it's designed. A high damage fighter in 5E is useful with high hitpoint critters.




Huh?  How do you figure that AD&D spells are weaker than 5e ones?  

Sleep was an instant death spell for multiple targets under 4HD.  No save, and HP didn't matter.  5e is nowhere near that powerful.  Fireball had no upper limit - it was d6/wizard level.  Most AD&D spells were far, far more powerful than their 5e versions.   

But, in any case, nothing you've said has actually disagreed with the point that D&D=Primacy of Magic.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Spell casters in 1e calculating the expansions of a fireball... yay for geometry at the game table now that was work.



That's assuming they did the calculating and didn't just let 'er fly hoping for the best...


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Huh?  How do you figure that AD&D spells are weaker than 5e ones?
> 
> Sleep was an instant death spell for multiple targets under 4HD.  No save, and HP didn't matter.  5e is nowhere near that powerful.  Fireball had no upper limit - it was d6/wizard level.  Most AD&D spells were far, far more powerful than their 5e versions.
> 
> But, in any case, nothing you've said has actually disagreed with the point that D&D=Primacy of Magic.




Buff spells like bless, a lot of damage dealing spells, way saves scale. 2E has a few spells like stoneskin are better along with spell stacking.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

Again, still not the point - magic is still primary.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I remember the hour and a half of a DM doing geometry not really fondly



Lightning bolts need geometry, which is easy.  Fireballs just need the ability to figure out what 33 10x10x10 cubes* comes to, sometimes in an irregular space.  Neither has ever taken me longer than 5 minutes, and even that long was due to there being a PC or two right on the edge and so I had to work it out almost to the inch.

* - a fireball's volume is roughly equal to 33000 cu ft, or 33 10' cubes.  Trivially easy to count out in typical dungeon hallways, trickier (but still not hard) in odd-shaped rooms, and sometimes a bit of a pain in irregaular-shaped caverns.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I keep checking in this thread hoping it will have morphed back into an interesting discussion, but it looks like it's still just an ongoing flogging of a horse that's been dead for six years.



Not quite.  It died six years ago, sure, but that was only the first time; and since then it's made an impressive series of resurrection survival rolls each time it's been put in the grave.

Of course, its Con is now down to about 2.....


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Again, still not the point - magic is still primary.




So you can either gut magic and see what happens, give martials non magical abilities thatvdi the same thing which is silly orvhave different jobs in the game which is what 5E tried to do.

 Have an entire wizard party and see how it works out.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I disagree.  That is roleplaying games in general or any game.  But that's my opinion.  I love Runequest.  I would not call it D&D.



No other roleplaying game involves as much needlessly pointless arguing as D&D.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Huh?  How do you figure that AD&D spells are weaker than 5e ones?
> 
> Sleep was an instant death spell for multiple targets under 4HD.  No save, and HP didn't matter.  5e is nowhere near that powerful.  Fireball had no upper limit - it was d6/wizard level.  Most AD&D spells were far, far more powerful than their 5e versions.



AD&D spells were harder to cast, however, and you in general got fewer of them per day until high level.  There was often also some risk involved - your fireball could blow back and hit you, for example, if you misjudged the available space to put it in.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2019)

As for the idea that the 'Primacy of Magic' is the essence of D&D: so what?

I can see it as ONE essence of D&D among others, perhaps, but not as THE essence.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> As for the idea that the 'Primacy of Magic' is the essence of D&D: so what?
> 
> I can see it as ONE essence of D&D among others, perhaps, but not as THE essence.




5E nerfed magic relative to 3Evane buffed some classes. 

 You'll never get it perfect, even 4E messed up some of their stuff.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> So you can either gut magic and see what happens, give martials non magical abilities thatvdi the same thing which is silly orvhave different jobs in the game which is what 5E tried to do.
> 
> Have an entire wizard party and see how it works out.




Maybe not entire wizard party.  After all, an all fighter party would fare just as badly.  But, an all caster party?  That's a pretty solid party - Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Druid, Warlock, for example (assuming 5 PC party) would fare pretty darn well.  They'd have very few issues that they couldn't face down.

Far better than an all non-caster party anyway.

But, again, still not proving that the essence of D&D isn't primacy of magic.



Lanefan said:


> As for the idea that the 'Primacy of Magic' is the essence of D&D: so what?
> 
> I can see it as ONE essence of D&D among others, perhaps, but not as THE essence.




Well, there's the question isn't it?  What else is there?  What other essentially D&D thing is there other than the primacy of magic?  What can we find commonly in all versions of D&D that doesn't exist in 4e, since 4e is the version of D&D that isn't D&D.  6 stats isn't really valid since what the stats meant has changed over editions and the fact that all 6 appear in 4e means that it can't be that.  9 levels of magic?  Well, Basic and Expert D&D didn't have that, yet they are both considered D&D.  Did OD&D have 9 levels of magic (I actually am curious on that one, I honestly don't know).  So on and so forth.

No one has really put forth anything else that is so clearly delineated as the primacy of magic.  It's the one very clear difference between something folks insist WASN'T D&D, and what folks insist is D&D, despite differences between editions.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Maybe not entire wizard party.  After all, an all fighter party would fare just as badly.  But, an all caster party?  That's a pretty solid party - Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Druid, Warlock, for example (assuming 5 PC party) would fare pretty darn well.  They'd have very few issues that they couldn't face down.
> 
> Far better than an all non-caster party anyway.
> 
> ...




AEDU is fine IMHO, 4Es heavy handed across the board implementation of it was the real problem. 

 If you did a Raven Queens Guide to Nerath and it had AEDU classes that's fine IMHO. 

 You could also rewrite the 5E classes but that's a lot if work. Some sort of warlord and a tweaked rogue would probably fix that.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

And did I not pistva warord template based on the warlock for 5E. It got more supremacy dice than the BM fighter and some other bells and whistles.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Maybe not entire wizard party.  After all, an all fighter party would fare just as badly.  But, an all caster party?  That's a pretty solid party - Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Druid, Warlock, for example (assuming 5 PC party) would fare pretty darn well.  They'd have very few issues that they couldn't face down.
> 
> Far better than an all non-caster party anyway.
> 
> But, again, still not proving that the essence of D&D isn't primacy of magic.



An all-non-caster party could work just fine (in any edition) provided the players were willing to have things go at a much slower pace - give the sneaks and scouts time to sneak and scout, make combat the last resort instead of the first, be willing to spend lots of time resting up, and so on.



> Well, there's the question isn't it?  What else is there?  What other essentially D&D thing is there other than the primacy of magic?  What can we find commonly in all versions of D&D that doesn't exist in 4e, since 4e is the version of D&D that isn't D&D.  6 stats isn't really valid since what the stats meant has changed over editions and the fact that all 6 appear in 4e means that it can't be that.  9 levels of magic?  Well, Basic and Expert D&D didn't have that, yet they are both considered D&D.  Did OD&D have 9 levels of magic (I actually am curious on that one, I honestly don't know).  So on and so forth.



Er...why are you trying to exclude 4e?  Like it or not, it's as much D&D as the rest of 'em, and last I checked this thread's supposed to be about finding the essence of D&D...which means all D&D, not just the bits you want it to mean.

And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even like 4e...


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> An all-non-caster party could work just fine (in any edition) provided the players were willing to have things go at a much slower pace - give the sneaks and scouts time to sneak and scout, make combat the last resort instead of the first, be willing to spend lots of time resting up, and so on.
> 
> Er...why are you trying to exclude 4e?  Like it or not, it's as much D&D as the rest of 'em, and last I checked this thread's supposed to be about finding the essence of D&D...which means all D&D, not just the bits you want it to mean.
> 
> And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even like 4e...




Maybe it got lost in the scrum.

The basic argument, put forth by @Tony Vargas, is that 4e is the only edition where there is consistent  opinion that it isn't actually D&D.  That there is something about it that makes it so different from other editions that it isn't D&D anymore.  It's a fairly common criticism.  "It's a good game, but, it's just not D&D for me" is a fairly oft repeated refrain.

We're saying, Ok, fair enough.  If 4e isn't "D&D Enough" then what is it about 4e that makes it so? Given the pretty wide changes between different editions, to point point where you have a fairly large subset of fandom refuse to talk about TETSNBN, but all are still considered "D&D", it seems that 4e did _something_ to cause people to not call it D&D.

Which is where Tony V comes in.  He's arguing that 4e is the only edition of D&D where magic isn't primary.  Every other edition had magic being far more powerful and capable of doing far more things than non-magic.  Raise the Dead, Fly, Teleport, Feather Fall - all things that are far beyond what someone can do unless they invoke "it's magic".  Every edition, other than 4e, places magic at the forefront of capabilities.  If you want to do something and you want to be absolutely sure that you succeed, you use magic.  Nothing mundane can ever come close to the upper end of what magic can routinely do.  Even at the lower end of what magic can do is often far beyond what non-magic can accomplish (Feather Fall being a prime example).  

So, what else is essential to being D&D?  See, the problem is, folks here are seeing this as an edition war adjunct.  It's not.  It's simply a recognition of facts.  Every edition other than 4e, placed magic at the forefront.  What is being termed, the Primacy of Magic.  That's not a value judgement.  It's not good or bad, it just is and it's just a recognition of how the game is presented.  

Since 4e is often called out as "not D&D" and the biggest difference between 4e and other editions is the "Primacy of magic" it's not a really big leap to come to the conclusion that "Primacy of Magic" is the essence of D&D.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Trivially easy to count out in typical dungeon hallways, trickier (but still not hard) in odd-shaped rooms, and sometimes a bit of a pain in irregaular-shaped caverns.



So have you been in actual caves... I personally like caves and pyramids and utterly different shapes tubes and so on.  Watching that highschool guy who knew enoughmath to hang himself wasnt funny it was dumb.... its magic for flankings sake.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> make combat the last resort instead of the first, be willing to spend lots of time resting up, and so on.



Let the innocents die... and so on. Love the way that works out. Fantasy Vietnam or worse also the fun economic factor of picking through the bodies of the dead all the time because you know loot is not just how you advance and its damn practical very realistic.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> So have you been in actual caves... I personally like caves and pyramids and utterly different shapes tubes and so on.  Watching that highschool guy who knew enough to hang math to hang himself wasnt funny it was dumb.... its magic for flankings sake.




My 1st 1E session ever I remember one if the other guys asking two questions.

1. What if anything do you allow from UA
2. How do you deal with fireball. 

Answer 2 was more or less the 2E fireball. 

Bouncing lightning bolts were also a thing. Baited one PC casting one into a wall of force with a pillar behind him.

 Magic was a bit riskier and easier to interrupt.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Let the innocents die... and so on. Love the way that works out. Fantasy Vietnam or worse also the fun economic factor of picking through the bodies of the dead all the time because you know loot is not just how you advance and its damn practical very realistic.



Looting dead bodies is D&D.

 Kinda sounds terrible. It's D&D don't think about it.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Magic was a bit riskier and easier to interrupt.



Hardly ever saw it interrupted is that not terrible ... I assumed DMs thought it was being a jerk to interrupt a wizard who hardly had anything to do magical and at higher levels there always seemed to be enough defenses that it was an unlikely event itself.  But that is just guessing and its been years it may have just been the DMs I personally encountered.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Looting dead bodies is D&D.



When I DMd I had players who were justiciars (like knights with paladin streaks) and diplomats and elven emissaries and bodyguards and nature priests (and their guards) ... The default money motivator was way way down on the list.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

The innocents will be among the bodies available for looting  /just saying.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Hardly ever saw it interrupted is that not terrible ... I assumed DMs thought it was being a jerk to interrupt a wizard who hardly had anything to to magical and at higher levels there always seemed to be enough defenses that it was an unlikely event itself.  But that is just guessing and its been years it may have just been the DMs I personally encountered.




Wasn't a chronic thing but happened. I saw wizards resort to wands and staves so they don't get interupted. 

 Hit points were a lot lower, mates level 19 wizard died to a power word liquify. 

 Power words were a big pain casting time 1, hp based no save. Mr Fighter was usually safe except maybe pw stun.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> level 19 wizard died to a power word liquify.



Primacy of magic... it takes a mage to kill a mage.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Just pointing out you didnt say a fighter killed the mage in 1 stroke.... it was a spell.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> The innocents will be among the bodies available for looting  /just saying.




It's different I like the gold for xp thing when I play older D&D.  I don't play it for the awesome mechanics it's the playstyle.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Primacy of magic... it takes a mage to kill a mage.




I've seen fighters kill mages in 1 round.
I've seen one solo a marilith, mature dragon and lich one after the other in 3 rounds.

Can't do that in 4E.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I've seen fighters kill mages in 1 round.



I only recall pretty paltry damage from a fighter my 9th level fighter I think had 3 attacks in 2 rounds rounds 1d8+4 per?  He was I think a 17 strength with a +3 weapon.  Shrug i am struggling to remember the numbers after over 30 years so meh.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I only recall pretty paltry damage from a fighter my 9th level fighter I think had 3 attacks in 2 rounds rounds 1d8+4 per?  He was I think a 17 strength with a +3 weapon.  Shrug i am struggling to remember the numbers after over 30 years so meh.




This one was level 14 or so weapon specialist dual wielder, longswords, 7/2 base attacks. 18/00 strength, 2E frostbrand and some other blade I forget.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Any way fighters being not really being adequate in combat issues such as they were seem to have been mostly resolved in the here and now ( though from what I can 4th edition was the first to really do that.) 3e according to Tony if you optimized like hell and spent every advancement resource on it a fighter could be damn functional as a combat machine (if that is a fair characterization)


Zardnaar said:


> This one was level 14 or so weapon specialist dual wielder, longswords, 7/2 base attacks. 18/00 strength, 2E frostbrand and some other blade I forget.



1 in 21,600 strength (or magic the real way to be awesome this is D&D Ogre Power gauntlets by any other name would smell as sweet) what is weapon specialist? ah an unearthed arcana? I thought the highest end possible was 2 but I forgot dual wielding in other words add on rules and magic gear up to here... magic gear up to here. 

Now take it back a notch to the conversation at hand my 17 strength fighter bumped up to level 14 with no magic gear is still 2x(d8+1)+ d4+1 each round. 

If we are really talking about the subject of the supremacy of magic admit it the fighter was bloody lame without magic.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Any way fighters being not really being adequate in combat issues such as they were seem to have been mostly resolved in the here and now ( though from what I can 4th edition was the first to really do that.) 3e according to Tony if you optimized like hell and spent every advancement resource on it a fighter could be damn functional as a combat machine (if that is a fair characterization)
> 
> 1 in 21,600 strength (or magic the real way to be awesome this is D&D Ogre Power gauntlets by any other name would smell as sweet) what is weapon specialist? ah an unearthed arcana? I thought the highest end possible was 2 but I forgot dual wielding in other words add on rules and magic gear up to here... magic gear up to here.




Specialization was in the 2e PHB, but proficiencies were explicitly optional rules, so the DM had to be playing with those rules.  My personal experience was that every DM I played with used them, but I suppose some didn't.

Specialization was only available to the fighter class.  It gave +1 to hit and+2 to damage, and your attack rate was one category higher.  So you had 3/2 at levels 1-6, 2/1 at levels 7-12, and 5/2 at levels 13+


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Specialization was in the 2e PHB



Shrug doesn't do anything for that 1e fighter I mentioned but regardless take the numbers and compare with magic and without magic on the same fighter.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

If we are really talking about the subject of the supremacy of magic admit it the fighter was bloody lame without magic compared to himself with magic.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Shrug doesn't do anything for that 1e fighter I mentioned but regardless take the numbers and compare with magic and without magic on the same fighter.



Yeah, it was in the 1e UA, but those rules were very sketchy on being used and varied highly from table to table.  Even so, my memory is closer to yours.  Fighters were generally at a disadvantage against wizards of the same level, unless they could get the jump on an unprepared wizard, then the wizard was screwed.  If the wizard knew the fight was coming, things like stoneskin, invisibility and flight meant the fighter lost the fight.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Wouldn't it be so much better if, for example, someone who was a huge fan of 4e would discuss those parts of 4e that were essential to D&D, and, moreoever, help make "D&D" (5e) what it is today? That would be awesome. And fun.




Yup, it would be FANTASTIC if we could talk about that.  Unfortunately, any time that gets tried, we get told that nope, nothing from 4e helped make 5e what it is today.  Things like 2 step recovery, simplified skill systems, and a host of other elements that come from 4e aren't allowed to be talked about because we get shouted down every single time we try.

So, why not just agree with the critics?  They won after all.  4e isn't part of the D&D family and it's exclusion highlights what actually is the essence of D&D - the primacy of magic.

That folks might not like that conclusion is rather irrelevant.  It's not a value judgement to say that D&D has always placed magic ahead of everything else.  

Again, why do you think 33 out of 36 PHB classes have access to magic?  D&D has gone from seeing magic maybe one round in an encounter to seeing multiple spells being cast every round of every encounter.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 16, 2019)

The essence of this thread. At least the last few or so pages.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Looking at the history of this thread, it was going fairly well (occasional bump aside) until it was put forth that the essence of D&D was the primacy of magic, and 4e didn't have that, and that's why



 The reasoning started with, as Oofta pointed out in the post I quoted (and one before that), the recognition that 4e was not part of the continuity you posited, but was widely considered NOT-D&D.  The stand-out difference (among /many/) I could detect was that martial classes were not only better-balanced than in other eds, but had rough resource parity with casters.  The Primacy of Magic as Essence of D&D was a conclusion, inspired in part by 5e's rapt 'Wonders of Magic' section in the basic pdf.  I think it has a nice ring, and is consistent with the game's history, tradition, and presentation, including the failure of 4e to achieve accord with that tradition, and 5e's embrace thereof.

In other words, fantasy w/o the primacy of magic is, as Zard put it  a few posts (pages?) back in this same thread, a "different genre" from D&D.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I'm going to disagree with that point.
> 
> The heart of the edition war was a small group of disaffected fans who were so personally insulted that 4e wasn't written with them in mind that they couldn't bear to think that anyone else might actually enjoy the game.  So, they embarked on a repeated assault in any way they could, never, ever letting up and never ever just walking away.
> 
> ...



Missed this I wasn't able to respond to the one you are responding to here without bringing up "fine people" off topic references which wouldn't have been productive.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 16, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> The reasoning started with, as Oofta pointed out in the post I quoted (and one before that), the recognition that 4e was not part of the continuity you posited, but was widely considered NOT-D&D.  The stand-out difference (among /many/) I could detect was that martial classes were not only better-balanced than in other eds, but had rough resource parity with casters.  The Primacy of Magic as Essence of D&D was a conclusion, inspired in part by 5e's rapt 'Wonders of Magic' section in the basic pdf.  I think it has a nice ring, and is consistent with the game's history, tradition, and presentation, including the failure of 4e to achieve accord with that tradition, and 5e's embrace thereof.
> 
> In other words, fantasy w/o the primacy of magic is, as Zard put it  a few posts (pages?) back in this same thread, a "different genre" from D&D.




I'm curious about something.  I haven't yet...or ever...heard a single person say that the thing they didn't like about 4e was that martial/non-magical stuff was too powerful relative to magic.

I've heard them say that "martial healing" doesn't gibe with their sense of what HP and healing represent, or that AEDU martial powers are "dissociative" (an argument I find particularly lame, by the way.) . 

But I haven't heard anybody say, "I believe in the primacy of magic, and 4e didn't deliver on that."

It's only people who (as far as I can tell) preferred 4e, specifically _because_ martial powers were on par with magic powers, who support this theory.

I would think that if Primacy of Magic is really what all these people consider the "essence" of D&D, some of them would be saying that.

Do they just not realize what it is that they like about the other editions?

Are they looking for reasons to dislike 4e because they don't actually understand the source of their dislike?

Are they intentionally being disingenuous about their reasons so as to not admit you are right?

What's going on?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## jgsugden (Sep 16, 2019)

Core to D&D: 

There is a DM and several players.
Each player controls a PC which moves through a fantsy story/adventure designed by the DM.
The PCs and monsters have certain core descriptive features including HPs, AC, Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis and Chr.
Players argue about unimportant elements of the game.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> So have you been in actual caves... I personally like caves and pyramids and utterly different shapes tubes and so on.



So do I - not all the rooms in my adventures are square.   But figuring out fireball's AoE is still pretty simple.



> Watching that highschool guy who knew enoughmath to hang himself wasnt funny it was dumb.... its magic for flankings sake.



Er...not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Just because it's magic doesn't mean it always has to be perfect, or safe, or be able to tell friend from foe.



> Let the innocents die... and so on. Love the way that works out. Fantasy Vietnam or worse also the fun economic factor of picking through the bodies of the dead all the time because you know loot is not just how you advance and its damn practical very realistic.



Are you saying that in your game the PCs don't loot the dead?  Really??


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Hardly ever saw it interrupted is that not terrible ... I assumed DMs thought it was being a jerk to interrupt a wizard who hardly had anything to do magical



If the opponent has reason to believe that interrupting casters is a good idea then the DM's only doing her job if that's what she has those opponents do.



> and at higher levels there always seemed to be enough defenses that it was an unlikely event itself.  But that is just guessing and its been years it may have just been the DMs I personally encountered.



I suspect so; also there's things a caster can do to reduce interruption possibilities e.g. casting from cover, and IME some are much better at this than others.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I only recall pretty paltry damage from a fighter my 9th level fighter I think had 3 attacks in 2 rounds rounds 1d8+4 per?  He was I think a 17 strength with a +3 weapon.  Shrug i am struggling to remember the numbers after over 30 years so meh.



Those numbers would be correct if the Fighter wasn't weapon-spec'ed.  Weapon spec. from UA added considerably to these numbers, I don't remember the specifics offhand because we've used our own house variant for so long.

In our games that same Fighter, if weapon-spec'ed and (of course) if using that weapon, would be 2 attacks/round with spec. giving an extra +1 to hit and +2 to damage. (so net +5 to hit, +6 damage)

The extra +'s aren't much but the extra half-attack per round is big; and at 10th that Fighter would go to 5/2.  Zaardnar's example of a 14th-level being 7/2 follows this same progression.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I don't think there are many people, if any people, who would say, "You know what I hated about 4e? The idea of letting martial characters be as good as non-martial characters."



 "Magic just doesn't feel magical" and "fighters cast spells" and "dissociative mechanics" were /common/ complaints.  Resolving them invariable meant restoring the status quo 'primacy' of magic.  5e has done that, it's recognized as really D&D.

I don't see a problem, as far as fitting the available information goes.



> - it's a dangerous thing to tell people that the reason that they like (or dislike) something is incorrect, and that you know better than they do why they really like or dislike something.



 And I'm not doing that.  I'm pointing out factual correlations between a particular editions qualities as a system, and it's general perception as not D&D (by both people who hate it, and some who quite liked it).  

You don't have to dislike something to sort it into a different box from some other things you do like.  You just have to see the differences.  



> If I say I don't like butter pecan ice cream because I don't like pecans, and you keep saying, "No, it's just because you don't like primacy of cream in it," it's probably not going to be a fun conversation.



 Yeah, what if they also insist they love pecan pie?  And turtles (that's a caramel & pecan candy).  And, well, pecans.  

Because, well, that's what trying to untangle complaints about dissociative mechanics was like.



> 2. I am unclear on your purpose; given that this thread is (was) about celebrating the commonality in D&D



 That said commonality doesn't hold, because the edition war /did/ happen.  And, 5e's inclusive, 'big tent' goal has not been met.  

I'm afraid an insight to be gleaned from this thread is that it /can't/ be, because the D&D label has been put on something that wasn't D&D, and that can't ever be allowed back in the tent.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> That said commonality doesn't hold, because the edition war /did/ happen.  And, 5e's inclusive, 'big tent' goal has not been met.



There's no tent big enough to cover all the extremists, andnever will be; but if 5e play numbers and overall popularity are any guide I'd say they've otherwise met that goal and more.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> There's no tent big enough to cover all the extremists, and never will be; but if 5e play numbers and overall popularity are any guide I'd say they've otherwise met that goal and more.



The extremists are in the tent with you.  And, popularity as justification is, well, appeal to popularity. 

Inclusion is not about accommodating a majority, nor accommodating one minority that insists on excluding another - it's about /not/ excluding anyone.

And, yes, it's not always compatible with commercial success.



lowkey13 said:


> More importantly, it did include some aspects of 4e in it; 4e informed 5e, just like all prior editions did.



 Sure, the ones that could be made compatible with the Essence of D&D.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Er...not quite sure what you're getting at here.



It means its behavior doesn't have to follow physics of some sort aside from mystical kind like the earth cancels the fire... if it simply stops at the wall it stops at the wall. It doesn't have to push it out the other way. Fire met something it couldn't burn  and stopped is fine magically.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Sep 16, 2019)

To say that in a particular edition magic "doesn't feel magical" is, one the one hand, very accurate for the individual making the observation, but, on the other, not terribly useful as a comparative or analytical tool because it's oh so very subjective. I suspect that if we drilled down we would find a range of commonalities between what various people mean when they say that, but even then I think there would be some pretty significant differences between even those more granular objections.

I'd also agree that no tent is big enough to include all the liminal spaces of what D&D 'is' or 'means' to the full range of players. Personally, I think 5E does a pretty good job covering a lot of opinions and ideas pulled from previous editions. I also think that 5E is a easy enough engine to work with that a lot of the liminal wants can be layered on without too much rules hacking. Mostly that feels like a win to me, even though I have issues with some of the RAW mechanics present in the system.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Given the great lengths that 5e, especially, has gone to be more inclusive and tolerant in terms of promoting gaming for once-marginalized communities, I think that your last sentence is more than a little over-the-top and obnoxious.



I can assure that however _once_-marginalized certain communities may seem to _you_, they're _still_ marginalized.  That doesn't end the moment it's acknowledged.  

And you brought up "danger," but I can see how it could be misinterpreted.



> "not being welcoming to self-marginalized gamers who prefer the prior edition."



 "We're being inclusive, and anyone we didn't include just marginalized themselves?"  That sure makes inclusiveness easy.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

Fenris-77 said:


> To say that in a particular edition magic "doesn't feel magical" is, one the one hand, very accurate for the individual making the observation, but, on the other, not terribly useful as a comparative or analytical tool because it's oh so very subjective.



 Nod. Which is why it's more helpful to look at the actual qualities of what they're talking about.

Magic doesn't 'feel magical' in one edition, but does in all others.  OK.  What's different about that edition?  It's a question that can be answered objectively, because they're all in print, and you can compared & contrast.

But, yeah, deep-diving into what people say, and what they mean, subjectively?  Quite an undertaking.  
Then again, WotC already undertook it, and 5e restored the Primacy of Magic.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 16, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> "We're being inclusive, and anyone we didn't include just marginalized themselves?"  That sure makes inclusiveness easy.




Don't you play 5e?  If so how are you not in the tent?  And if you aren't speaking for yourself what group was left out of it?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Fenris-77 said:


> To say that in a particular edition magic "doesn't feel magical" is, one the one hand, very accurate for the individual making the observation, but, on the other, not terribly useful as a comparative or analytical tool because it's oh so very subjective. I suspect that if we drilled down we would find a range of commonalities between what various people mean when they say that, but even then I think there would be some pretty significant differences between even those more granular objections.



4e was considered too magical... the fighters were all spell casters haven't you heard they just didnt get the cool pointy hats with stars on them.  They got big climactic exploits... oh wait powers... oh wait I mean spells yeh that's the ticket


----------



## Imaro (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 4e was considered too magical... the fighters were all spell casters haven't you heard they just didnt get the cool pointy hats with stars on them.  They got big climactic exploits... oh wait powers... oh wait I mean spells yeh that's the ticket




Just like Exalted's charms... right?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

Imaro said:


> Don't you play 5e?  If so how are you not in the tent?  And if you aren't speaking for yourself what group was left out of it?



 I ran 5e a lot more than played it, and wasn't in good enough health to do much of anything hobby-wise for about a year.  Now I'm back to gaming, but not 5e, specifically, atm.  

Make of that what you will.



lowkey13 said:


> inclusivity based on the characteristics of the people playing it (games that are welcome to all genders, races, colors, creeds, sexual orientations, ages, etc.).
> I find your co-mingling of these two concepts ... distasteful and offensive.



You brought it up:


lowkey13 said:


> Given the great lengths that 5e, especially, has gone to be more inclusive and tolerant in terms of promoting gaming for once-marginalized communities,



Frankly, I did not appreciate the "once-marginalized" phrasing.  It's dismissive of ongoing struggle. 

And that is all /really/ far afield from the 'Essence' of a /game/.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 16, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I ran 5e a lot more than played it, and wasn't in good enough health to do much of anything hobby-wise for about a year.  Now I'm back to gaming, but not 5e, specifically, atm.




So you found the game acceptable enough to run multiple times and even play (though not as often)... I'd assume that means you were in the tent, so I'll ask again who are you claiming was marginalized?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

Imaro said:


> Just like Exalted's charms... right?



Not on my list actually... but my fighter that can standing broad jump 30 feet once an encounter now wants a pointy hat.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 16, 2019)

like this perhaps


----------



## Imaro (Sep 16, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> like this perhapsView attachment 114107



Uhmmm... ok.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> 1. No, I didn't. I stated that in direct response to you, when you were again complaining about your lack of "inclusion" and how people were "excluding" you as the "minority" and concerns about "personal safety."



Not my personal safety, as should be clear from the context, following 'commercial success.' 

And minority in the literal, statistical, not political sense:  a /small/ segment of the fanbase.  Neither h4ter nor 4venger were a majority nor even plurality - WotC's own polling showed most fans were fans of the line, not a specific edition.  So, they were, indeed, two minorities, both wishing to be included, but one insisting that the inclusion of the other would exclude them.  



> Comparing your travails over the lack of a warlord in 5e to people that are truly discriminated against is offensive to me. I do not appreciate that parallel language, but that's me.



It's interesting how fast this shifted from being about the topic and the supposition I put forth, to being about me, personally.  

During the playtest WotC used 'inclusiveness' when talking about that goal, and 4e fans being a 'tiny minority' has come up a lot.  So I don't think I was saying anything that prone to misinterpretation.  But, no, to be clear /I/ was not comparing my travails as a minority voice in the D&D community, to my travails as a minority in the demographic sense.  

And, no, we should /not/ proceed to comparing our places in the kyriarchy.   It's not relevant to the Essence of D&D, is it?  Really, /nothing/ about me, as a person, is.  



> 2. I don't appreciate you trying to, again, be flippant about this given the context. But to be clear, 5e has, in an official capacity, made great strides in trying to be as inclusive as possible, in terms of communities that were previously marginalized by TSR/WOTC. Thanks.



 Which should not have been relevant in this discussion, really.  I get it, WotC didn't carry through with one of many overly ambitious Next goals, 5 years into 5e.  "Oh, but they did this much more important and socially relevant thing"  Yes.  They did.  It's   They're just two separate things.  Parallel language notwithstanding.

But what was that to do with the "Essence of D&D?"


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 16, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> They were some complaints.



 Very droll summation of the edition war. 



> So, listen to people. What they say, not what you want to hear.



 How 'bout neither?  How 'bout, since the whole '4e wasn't D&D' thing is not much in dispute, we instead compare the content of the editions that did not have that issue to it's content.  Then we avoid all the subjectivity and coding/decoding issues.



> Very well then, if you don't believe 4e is D&D, then I assume you don't have much positive to contribute to the conversation?
> And if you do, maybe accentuate that.
> Good? Good, because this is a really, really boring debate.



 It seems clear that 4e lacks whatever "Essence of D&D" may exist, or it would not have provoked the ire of the edition war.  While trying to understand that may seem negative, I don't think ignoring it is positive, either.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 16, 2019)

So what was the group that was left out of 5e's big tent again??


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Here's some of the more common complaints about 4E

1. It's an "MMO".
This is most likely about recharging powers and is outright stated in Art and Arcana as a conscious design goal.  Boil it down it's about the AEDU powers

2.  "It's disassociateive,"
Boil it down it's about powers specifically a few like come and get it or martial healing type stuff.  Powers and playstyle.

3. "It doesn't feel like D&D"
Bit harder but probably it doesn't play right so it's probably about playstyle.

Now if you mention 1 to 3 people will claim you are edition warring but I think that overlooks what people are trying to say.

It's about the 4E playstyle and execution of powers IMHO. 5E has more 4E DNA in it but it's not a tactical skirmish game in design (Art and Arcana).

Beyond 4E it draws more on B/X and 2E conceptually although the formatting of the classes in the phb looks a bit like 3E. Not much 1E or 3E in it.

It's a soft reboot and ended the OD&D-4E evolution of the game.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Looking at the history of this thread, it was going fairly well (occasional bump aside) until it was put forth that the essence of D&D was the primacy of magic, and 4e didn't have that, and that's why other people hated 4e. Pretty much the opposite of the purpose of this thread.
> 
> _shrug_
> 
> Almost like someone was spoiling for a fight. But as I said, I am not the boss of this thread, and you are welcome to continue fighting.




I'm not seeing the value judgement that you are.  It's not even about "hating 4e".  It's the criticism that 4e isn't D&D.  It was an oft repeated criticism.  And, if you ask why, you get fifteen different answers.  The only commonality seems to be the primacy of magic.

Again, this isn't a value judgement.  It's not good or bad.  It just is.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I'm not seeing the value judgement that you are.  It's not even about "hating 4e".  It's the criticism that 4e isn't D&D.  It was an oft repeated criticism.  And, if you ask why, you get fifteen different answers.  The only commonality seems to be the primacy of magic.
> 
> Again, this isn't a value judgement.  It's not good or bad.  It just is.




I think a big part art of D&D is finding magic items and gold.

4E made boring magic items and let you buy them which is kind of a part of the exploration pillar and buying them removes part of that. 3E let you buy them but the classics from 2E were there.

I don't think it's a primary reason though which is more tactical skirmish and AEDU.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2019)

"It's dissociative" - the problem is solved in 5e by making virtually all the classes expressly magic using.  Funny that.

AEDU?  Still exists in the classes.  Just written differently.  And, that's something I've oft repeated - what makes something D&D is VERY MUCH in how it's presented.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> "It's dissociative" - the problem is solved in 5e by making virtually all the classes expressly magic using.  Funny that.
> 
> AEDU?  Still exists in the classes.  Just written differently.  And, that's something I've oft repeated - what makes something D&D is VERY MUCH in how it's presented.




Parts of AEDU exist on some classes, the warlock being the main one probably. 

 Something like come and get it doesn't really work logically. Is every enemy an idiot? Even if you had a non magical version of it it should probably have a saving throw.

  That powers the poster child for it but I think that's where people are coming from. 

 I suspect it's one reason so many classes have magic in 5E, it gives you an in game explaination that works.

 A fighter running up a wall non magically is kind of a super hero genre or maybe a race that can do it. 

 In a magical world magic existing is all you need to know.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

Imaro said:


> So what was the group that was left out of 5e's big tent again??




People who don’t like 5e.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong?



Frequently. 

I have been wrong about a series of rather dramatic things when it comes to D&D editions.  I'm quite used to it.  Hopefully I'm not wrong about 5e continuing to do well and going 'evergreen.'   But it'll be the first time I've been right with such a prediction, this millennium.



> You keep confusing cause and effect



I've been careful to call it a correlation. 



> ; all editions have detractors, all editions have people that don't like them for reasons (good and bad).



 Yep.  And all games get criticized.  
I have a very inconvenient compulsion to defend games I like when I feel they've been unduly criticized.  I've defended virtually edition of D&D I've played, that way, from 1e (chatting outside the hobby shop), to 2e (even when I'd lost interest in it, I kept defending it on UseNet), to 3e on Gleemax, and 4e here, right through 5e.  
I have a rep as a 4venger because 4e was attacked /so much more than any/every edition/ put together and multiplied by the square of the velocity of light.  (OK, not that last bit, but there sure was a lot of energy involved.)

It was a phenom.  



> But the main thing is it would be nice if you wouldn't spam all conversations with more edition warring (?!?!).



 I'm more disappointed than surprised that my idea was a lightning rod.  But, I'm not going to never speak of 4e again and let it be *Damnatio memoriae. *No edition deserves that.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I am going to put this another way; every time I see you post about 4e, I feel the dread, Tony. Because I know it's going to be more edition warring. More "Everyone hated 4e, and I hate them for hating it, ad infinitum."



 Wow.



> Do you know what would be awesome? Hearing the positives.



Y'know, maybe you just blink and miss those, they get shouted down so fast.



Zardnaar said:


> Here's some of the more common complaints about 4E
> 1. It's an "MMO".
> This is most likely about recharging powers ...  Boil it down it's about the AEDU powers
> 2.  "It's disassociateive,"
> ...



 Playstyle was barely a word in 2007.  ::

Thing is, all those feed back into the Primacy of Magic and it's restoration.  AEDU was the structure that put caster and non-caster into rough resource parity so they could be balanced.  Only martial powers were ever tagged 'dissociative.'  And, yes, the underpinning of the whole issue, as a result:  it's Not Really D&D.



> 5E has more 4E DNA in it



It does, indeed, including things that were distressingly 'dissociative' (martial healing) and 'didn't feel like D&D' (XOMG! fighters cast spells!)  and made it an 'MMO' (at-will & 'cool-down'/short-rest powers) when they were in 4e, but, now, they're fine.  Why?  Because the Primacy of Magic has been restored, magic items and spells are wonderous, D&D is allowed to be D&D again.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Wow.
> 
> Y'know, maybe you just blink and miss those, they get shouted down so fast.
> 
> ...




D&D has expectations absolutely especially among veterans. 
Casuals won't care though they won't know or care about a lot of online terms.  5MWD they won't understand the term.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Will you guys be taking this discussion into a positive direction or not.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Why?  Because the Primacy of Magic has been restored, magic items and spells are wonderous, D&D is allowed to be D&D again.



Or corresponding resources between martial and magical were removed --> The only significant loss <---  and a major tool for establishing balance was burned at the stake and there was much rejoicing, RIP ever figuring out how much utility ought to occur due to skill use the DM should just bloody guess in the everyone is a spell caster except a small minority world.  BUT certainly more than in 4e since even some of the basic spells are upgraded - so best of luck translating those Skill powers to 5e.

Magic items could have been made more awesome in 4e btw and it would not have affected actual game balance (just a bit of philosophy about man and tools ) I think


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> Will you guys be taking this discussion into a positive direction or not.




oops... ?


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> oops... ?



I call it white noise but sometimes it is not easy to tune out.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Or corresponding resources between martial and magical were removed --> The only significant loss <---  and a major tool for establishing balance was burned at the stake and there was much rejoicing, rip ever figuring out how much utility ought to occur due to skill use the DM should just bloody guess in the everyone is a spell caster except a small minority world.



That'd be a bad assumption - the Fighter, the most relatable, familiar heroic-fantasy archetype has stayed the most popular class throughout D&D's long history.  When it was the 'fighting man,' when it was all about the % STR, when it was the weapon specialist, when it was the Feat-meister, when it was the martial defender, and now.
The Rogue/Thief as one of the Big 4, and easily the common/relatable/runner-up archetype, also pretty common.

And that's important, because without the mundane, actually in the party with the casters, for contrast, magic doesn't feel _as_ magical.



> Magic items could have been made more awesome in 4e btw and it would not have affected actual game balance (just a bit of philosophy about man and tools ) I think



 Even though martial-magical class balance is at the heart of what ruined the Primacy of Magic in 4e, it needn't be, classes could be imbalanced, just not consistently enough in favor of the magical ones, for instance.  Magic items being more significant whether as build resources or rewards wouldn't necessarily have imbalanced anything, as long as they were fairly equitably distributed - except the game when a DM decided to go low-magic, of course.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> That'd be a bad assumption



What would be a bad assumption?.... that they killed (RIP) the only method established to actually worked for determining/creating parity between the utility of casters and that of the non-casters?  I was saying that this removal was perhaps the only significant one and it undermined the ability of even a DM who wants that balance to elegantly provide it.


Tony Vargas said:


> And that's important, because without the mundane, actually in the party with the casters, for contrast, magic doesn't feel _as_ magical.



Oh non-casters will definitely go on...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> What would be a bad assumption?....



That you wouldn't still have skill-users - fighters & rogues & c - in the party, try'n to do stuff.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> That you wouldn't still have skill-users - fighters & rogues & c - in the party, try'n to do stuff.



Oh you mean my small minority reference is probably not actually a small minority of characters ... I meant small minority of classes.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Come to think of it Skill Challenges were another tool which did that. All be it indirectly and mostly behind the DMs screen in some sense. (they too could interact with common resources like action points and healing surges and money)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> Will you guys be taking this discussion into a positive direction or not.




How is "Primacy of Magic" is the essence of D&D a negative direction?  This is the point that I'm still struggling with.  There is no value judgement there.  It's the one thing that all versions of D&D have except 4e, and 4e is often considered "not really D&D".  Again, there is no value judgement there.  People did not consider 4e to be really D&D.  That's not a value judgement, that's just fact.  It was repeatedly stated and is still repeatedly stated.

So, in what way is "Primacy of Magic" is the essence of D&D a negative?  To me, it's simply a recognition of one of the main threads that connects every edition of D&D.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> How is "Primacy of Magic" is the essence of D&D a negative direction?  This is the point that I'm still struggling with.  There is no value judgement there.  It's the one thing that all versions of D&D have except 4e, and 4e is often considered "not really D&D".  Again, there is no value judgement there.  People did not consider 4e to be really D&D.  That's not a value judgement, that's just fact.  It was repeatedly stated and is still repeatedly stated.
> 
> So, in what way is "Primacy of Magic" is the essence of D&D a negative?  To me, it's simply a recognition of one of the main threads that connects every edition of D&D.



I am talking about the tone of the substance of the discussion.

In general this is by far and again something I have encountered. Sure say your piece and opinions. By devolving an argument into snide and sniping remarks just means the argument presented is a poor one and relies on the crutch of attacking behavior. It heavily skews an argument into a completely meaningless and irrelevant direction. It makes the argument presented pointless and needless.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> The reasoning started with, as Oofta pointed out in the post I quoted (and one before that), the recognition that 4e was not part of the continuity you posited, but was widely considered NOT-D&D.  The stand-out difference (among /many/) I could detect was that martial classes were not only better-balanced than in other eds, but had rough resource parity with casters.  The Primacy of Magic as Essence of D&D was a conclusion, inspired in part by 5e's rapt 'Wonders of Magic' section in the basic pdf.  I think it has a nice ring, and is consistent with the game's history, tradition, and presentation, including the failure of 4e to achieve accord with that tradition, and 5e's embrace thereof.
> 
> In other words, fantasy w/o the primacy of magic is, as Zard put it  a few posts (pages?) back in this same thread, a "different genre" from D&D.



4e did have primacy of magic.  It explicitly called out martial exploits as "not magic* in the tradition sense,*" which means that it was magic in an untraditional sense.  It had to, because it accomplished things that were essentially supernatural in ability.  4e basically had two types of magic.  Magic magic and martial magic.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> I am talking about the tone of the substance of the discussion.
> 
> In general this is by far and again something I have encountered. Sure say your piece and opinions. By devolving an argument into snide and sniping remarks just means the argument presented is a poor one and relies on the crutch of attacking behavior. It heavily skews an argument into a completely meaningless and irrelevant direction. It makes the argument presented pointless and needless.




I get what you're saying, so, let's ignore that.  Let's ignore the comparisons between editions and how this or that edition does this or that.  IOW, let's cut out the cruft and look at what's actually the point here.

Let's lay it out:

P1  Only one edition of D&D is routinely described by fans as being "not really D&D".  Typically it isn't even a knock on the game really.  It's often phrased, "It's a good game, it's just not D&D to me."  Fair enough.  That's the perception.

P2.  4e shares a great deal of mechanics and flavor with other editions.  Someone coming out of 3e having been using things like Book of 9 Swords and Tome of Magic probably didn't see a huge shift in mechanics.  And, moving from 4e to 5e, there are a number of elements shared.  So, if the element is shared, then it's not essential to D&D since 4e is the "not D&D" edition.  Lots of games share elements with D&D but are not considered D&D.  No one calls Rolemaster D&D, despite Rolemaster and 3e sharing a great number of mechanics.

P3.  4e is the only edition to achieve parity between casters and non-casters.  The parity isn't perfect, but, it's far closer than in any other edition.

P4.  We have yet to see other elements that appear in 4e that don't appear in other editions to explain why 4e is set aside as "not D&D".

Conclusion:  It is the primacy of magic in every edition of D&D that is essential to the D&D experience.  Remove the primacy of magic, make magic equal to or weaker than mundane, and it is "boring" and "not D&D".  

------

Now, that all being said, none of that is a judgement of any of the games.  Nor is it a judgement of those who play the games.  Liking magic to be magical is not a bad thing.  Liking mundane to remain in the realm of real worldish physics is not a bad thing.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Obviously.  since we have about 40 years of D&D doing exactly that and people liking it.  Remove that element - making magic equal to or weaker than the mundane - and you get an experience that people label as "not D&D".  

Is that a fair summation?


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> 4e did have primacy of magic.  It explicitly called out martial exploits as "not magic* in the tradition sense,*" which means that it was magic in an untraditional sense.  It had to, because it accomplished things that were essentially supernatural in ability.



I would say it left things open for more things walking over that edge than it ever implemented on ...  some are very much classic monk martial arts I have entered into a trance where I am able to bring my pulse to a stand still and make it appear near perfectly that I am dead.

There are huge numbers of exploits alongside that which are simply and obviously just battlefield tricks


----------



## not-so-newguy (Sep 17, 2019)

I liked this thread better when it was about cheesy Conan quotes and Dark Crystal YouTube videos. At least throw in some lolcatz in the middle of your arguments to make it interesting for the rest us mouthbreathers. I mean geez guys.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I get what you're saying, so, let's ignore that.  Let's ignore the comparisons between editions and how this or that edition does this or that.  IOW, let's cut out the cruft and look at what's actually the point here.
> 
> Let's lay it out:
> 
> ...



This is a good argument because it is fair and balanced and does not devolve into irrelevant commentary and sniping.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Something like come and get it doesn't really work logically. Is every enemy an idiot?



They look like you have a massive opening for a melee attack and are already a huge tremendous nonsensical raging 10 feet away ... perhaps an enemy is an idiot to ignore that apparent opening plus you know they only fully fell for that opening if you get the attack in if you went no wait that isn't real he is faking me out you stop short.  How a power works can depend on the situation but really arrogance is exploitable too. In Kendo there is a stance which is basically one where you expose your belly and dare the enemy to take the stroke.  I saw a boxer staggering back word pulling in his opponent before they were ready he ended it by pulling a haymaker up from the ground (ie where your fist almost hits the ground behind you before you unleash it). It looked very much like a 1 enemy come and get it.  Thing is that boxer did that same trick every single fight and one using it all the time.  If it didnt work he couldn't get the attack off even though yeh they took the bait up to a point. 

Additionally the thing I see about  powers is the player gets to choose when a bunch of situational elements come together so it may work... ie it wouldn't have worked two rounds later or two rounds before but it does now this is more true of the daily powers than others but can be true of


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> They look like you have a massive opening for a melee attack and are already a huge tremendous nonsensical raging 10 feet away ... perhaps an enemy is an idiot to ignore that apparent opening plus you know they only fully fell for that opening if you get the attack in if you went no wait that isn't real he is faking me out you stop short.  How a power works can depend on the situation but really arrogance is exploitable too. In Kendo there is a stance which is basically one where you expose your belly and dare the enemy to take the stroke.  I saw a boxer staggering back word pulling in his opponent before they were ready he ended it by pulling a haymaker up from the ground (ie where your fist almost hits the ground behind you before you unleash it). It looked very much like a 1 enemy come and get it.  Thing is that boxer did that same trick every single fight and one using it all the time.  If it didnt work he couldn't get the attack off even though yeh they took the bait up to a point.
> 
> Additionally the thing I see about  powers is the player gets to choose when a bunch of situational elements come together so it may work... ie it wouldn't have worked two rounds later or two rounds before but it does now this is more true of the daily powers than others but can be true of




 The problem is it works every time regardless of the situation. I can buy into it working some of the time but a feint to me is something like advantage to hit. 

 I suppose you could have enemies immune to it but in that case it should have something like mind influencing so it doesn't work on certain enemies.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> The problem is it works every time regardless of the situation.



If you didnt hit every enemy it didnt work every time. it only started to work and they resisted.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

This is a massive example of how things must be simplistic or it isnt martial... and tricks must be chancy and unlikely unless they are magic. AND how the fighter is actually noticing its time that the trick will work.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

But that means the player is given the choice... player agency


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Oh Its not a feint its more of a false opening conceptually different... one induces an enemy to attack when they shouldn't because you are ready for it.  (it creates an opportunity for you that you didnt have at all instead of improving one you have)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

[


Xenonnonex said:


> . By devolving an argument into snide and sniping remarks just means the argument presented is a poor one and relies on the crutch of attacking behavior.



I'm used to the personal attacks in response to reasonable ideas, supported with factual evidence.

It's just the internet, really.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> I am talking about the tone of the substance of the discussion.
> 
> In general this is by far and again something I have encountered. Sure say your piece and opinions. By devolving an argument into snide and sniping remarks just means the argument presented is a poor one and relies on the crutch of attacking behavior. It heavily skews an argument into a completely meaningless and irrelevant direction. It makes the argument presented pointless and needless.



Just to clarify I am talking about this in general.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> The problem is it works every time regardless of the situation. I can buy into it working some of the time



 It does only work some of the time: at most, 1/encounter, if you hit their WILL.



> I suppose you could have enemies immune to it but in that case it should have something like mind influencing so it doesn't work on certain enemies.



 The charm keyword was added in a later update.   It's manipulation, not mind control, but I guess they figured the abstraction was close enough.

Really, though, at bottom, it's transparently an action-movie-reality power.
D20, in general, especially modern, could do with more abilities so on the money as C&GI.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2019)

@Tony Vargas it's right here...

"Martial: Martial powers are *not magic in the traditional sense*, although some* martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals*. Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies. *Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers *to grant fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords, among others, their power."

It's very clear that martial is an atypical kind of magic in 4e.  Had it been non-magical, they wouldn't have deliberately gone out of their way to use the above language.  Instead, they would have said, "Martial powers are not magic."


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2019)

Laugh all you like.  Quotes and facts beat feelings.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Seriously, Max, look up metaphor or figurative.  

It is funny, though.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Seriously, Max, look up metaphor or figurative.




It's not written figuratively or as a metaphor, though.  The way it's written is as an explanation of how martial powers work.  Remember, martial isn't a source of skill or ability, it's specifically a POWER source.  It needs to be a type of magic to be a power source.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> It's not written figuratively or as a metaphor, though.  The way it's written is as an explanation of how martial powers work.



 Its a flavor explanation, sure, not written in jargon. And, yes, it uses magic in the familiar, figurative sense of exceptional, or incredible.



> Remember, martial isn't a source of skill or ability, it's specifically a POWER source.  It needs to be a type of magic to be a power source.



  Let me get this straight: your assertion is that Strength, Willpower, Dedication and Training yielding Power can only be magic?

Seriously?  

Venus Williams's serve is magic?

Pavarotti's voice is magic?

Seal Team Six took out Bin Laden with magic?



Maxperson said:


> Laugh all you like.  Quotes and facts beat feelings.



Fine.

Cast Dispel Magic on a fighter in Reaper's Stance and stand next to him, see how that goes.  Now try it on flaming sphere.

Just because two powers accomplish similar things - in this case auto damage for standing in the wrong place - doesn't mean they're both magic.

The unwillingness to accept that martial ability can rival magic is evidence that, at least for you, the Primacy of Magic theory is quite consistent.  

You're just one self-selected respondent though.  

But, y'know, thanks for your support.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Fine.
> 
> Cast Dispel Magic on a fighter in Reapers Stance and stand next to him, see how that goes.  Now try it on flaming sphere.




This proves nothing other than it's not a traditional type of magic.  The section on power sources specifically says it's an energy source, not a method of being really skillful.  Skill isn't an energy type. Martial is. It needs to be an atypical form of magic for it to A) be an energy type, and B) allow martial characters to do what would otherwise be supernatural things as martial characters and not magical ones.



> The unwillingness to accept that martial ability can rival magic is evidence that, at least for you, the Primacy of Magic theory is quite consistent.




Go out and see if through training, you can do everything a fighter can through level 30.  I'll even give you a few years to practice.  My unwillingness is to accept that mundane(not the same as martial) can rival magic, since magic by definition can do supernatural things.  This also does not equate to magical primacy.  Magic can color objects through prestidigitation, yet no amount of training will allow a martial character to do such a nearly useless thing. 

I do accept that martial can rival magic, since martial is an atypical form of magic that allows the user to access energy to accomplish things that would ordinarily take traditional magic.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2019)

double post


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I do accept that martial can rival magic, since martial is an atypical form of magic that allows the user to access energy to accomplish things that would ordinarily take traditional magic.



 Anecdotes are not evidence, and a sample size of one proves nothing, but, wow, you are so on the nose. 

I want to assure everyone that Max & I are not colluding.  I have not suborned or coached him in any way.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2019)

See, while I'm not really interested in rehashing edition war garbage, I'd point something out.

Come and Get It.  It was the poster boy for 4e critics.  The power that couldn't be explained.  It was everything bad about 4e.  

So, you'd think that CaGI type powers would be all over the game right?  After all, if it was such a HUGE issue, then it should be something that comes up all over the place.  Funny thing is, it doesn't.  If you look at the 4e PHB, between the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Warlord, the 4 specifically non-magical classes, you have, across 30 levels, about 240 different powers total.  

How many of those do you think fit in the CaGI mould?  50?  100?  

Nope.

Six.

There were a grand total of 6 powers out of 240 that worked like Come and Get It where you couldn't just chalk up the maneuver to training or other non-magical sources.  

Six.

That's all it took.

Six.

Six powers out of the over TWO HUNDRED in the PHB for people to freak out about how unrealistic martial characters in 4e were and how they were doing magic stuff without casting spells.  

Six powers.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Really, though, at bottom, it's transparently an action-movie-reality power.
> D20, in general, especially modern, could do with more abilities so on the money as C&GI.



Actually its probably less functional than movie bits (has more in common with that boxers move I mentioned earlier (or the  Kenjutsu or Kendo ones) in that regards because basically you are already pretty much in range 10 ft? pshah the movie shots often have far more range 3x that wouldn't be bad at all .. and works against the arrogant  and high ego types just as much or more than the more lesser foes.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> There were a grand total of 6 powers out of 240 that worked like Come and Get It where you couldn't just chalk up the maneuver to training or other non-magical sources.



They needed more willingness actually push the edges needed to remember monks were part of the martial fold and probably inspiration for the whole damn thing in some sense ie people who dig deep into discipline and do the incredible. (not psionic techno babble )


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Come and Get it is too mundane... Not even as good as what the movie characters do all the time LOL or more clearly not all the time just once in a while because you know the opportunity to make it work just isnt necessarily too frequent


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Come and Get It.  It was the poster boy for 4e critics.  The power that couldn't be explained.



Couldn't be explained only by those who assert martial types cannot have reliable tricks otherwise its damn near realistic.

I define a trick as something that can only be used once per group of enemies (per conflict) as it generally relies on deception and the principle of fool me once applies. Element two they can have different variations but you probably still likely cannot convince someone to bite (in similar way) immediately after your bait bit back so to speak... so it needs to be dramatically different trick.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Hardly ever saw it interrupted is that not terrible ... I assumed DMs thought it was being a jerk to interrupt a wizard who hardly had anything to do magical and at higher levels there always seemed to be enough defenses that it was an unlikely event itself.  But that is just guessing and its been years it may have just been the DMs I personally encountered.



I played 2E through its entire run and still do. I see 2E spells interrupted all the time.  And the higher level the spell the higher the penalty to initiative.   2E was not magic supremacy. High level monsters had good saves to pass the saves. And most of them had magic resistance on top of that at high levels. You really needed your fighters to keep the critters off you or you were toast.  And there is no short rest. If u r not playing with alot of magic items and healing potions things can get scary. A long rest only gave 1 hp back at camp and up to 3 with good bed rest. The material components and spell requirements could also be a little tougher. Monsters had alot more immunities too.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> A long rest only gave 1 hp back at camp and up to 3 with good bed rest.



For those mysterious cleric free parties.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> If u r not playing with alot of magic items and healing potions things can get scary.



I did manage to see someone who claimed a bag of holding full of the damn things SMH... monty haul was a real thing (did not want to play with that one)


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> For those mysterious cleric free parties.




Well yes. But they rarely had enough healing spells to heal us up to anything close to max. Cure spells did not scale and normally the cleric wanted to have other spells ready too. There isnt spontaneous casting in 2E.  (Not saying you don’t know that, but some of the later edition players may not)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> And the higher level the spell the higher the penalty to initiative.



That's not really true.  Power Words, for example, had a casting time of 1.  And even Fireball or Lightning Bolt are still a casting time of 3, which is 2 better than a longsword.  I've always wondered about these groups that constantly have spells interrupted.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's something I never saw.

Considering Large monsters had +6 to their initiative, and anything bigger than that went all the way up to +12, I've always been rather surprised at how often people claim that spells got interrupted.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> For those mysterious cleric free parties.




We had cleric free parties.

Played it like WW1 sorta. Combat was terrifying, you might have 1-2 battles and lots of rest.

You don't do dungeonhacks.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> That's not really true.  Power Words, for example, had a casting time of 1.  And even Fireball or Lightning Bolt are still a casting time of 3, which is 2 better than a longsword.  I've always wondered about these groups that constantly have spells interrupted.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's something I never saw.
> 
> Considering Large monsters had +6 to their initiative, and anything bigger than that went all the way up to +12, I've always been rather surprised at how often people claim that spells got interrupted.




Wizard spells tended to be casting time 1 per level, cleric spells 3+level.

Fireball being level 3 had a casting time if 3. Vs wizards darts and daggers came out speed factor 2. Magic weapons also reduced the weapon speed so a plus 3 longswords had speed two vs fireball speed of 3.

Power words were an exception so yeah they were good for casting times but they were high risk due to spell turning.

High level 2E fighters were really good, MR was static number and saves were HD based.

Something like a T Rex vs hold minster makes it's save 75% of the time, in 5E it fails 75% of the time although it gets a save each round.
 Mind flayers 90%MR.......


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2019)

Note, MR was not a static number.  It was adjusted for the level of the caster.  Or was that only in 1e?  Did they change that in 2e?

But, again, why would you bother using Hold Monster on a T-Rex?  Tap it with a Charm monster and you had a pet FOREVER.   

But, again, this is just fluff and distraction from the actual point.  Which is talking about the primacy of magic.  

Who really cares about the minutia of casting in 2e?  It's so pointless.  Of course, blathering on with pointless garbage is easier than actually engaging with the point.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Note, MR was not a static number.  It was adjusted for the level of the caster.  Or was that only in 1e?  Did they change that in 2e?
> 
> But, again, why would you bother using Hold Monster on a T-Rex?  Tap it with a Charm monster and you had a pet FOREVER.
> 
> ...




It was static they changed it from 1E.

There's more than one way to tame magic, 2E I like a lot in that regard.

Our fighters used the phb, some got to high levels and they were very useful to have around with saving throws rarelybfsiked, enough hp to soak a power word.

The power level on a lot if spells was a lot lower, at higher level save or suck was very unreliable and buffing the fighter was often a better idea, even a simple strength spell could ramp up a fighters strength to 18/00.

Essence of D&D team based game. Fighters deal more damage, smart fighter protects the wizard, smart wizard buffs fighter.

It's only a problem when that dynamic breaks down (hello 3E). Magic was a lot weaker in B/X and 2E vs 1E and 3E and the Dynamics were different. The C part of BECMI transitioned to political and domain type stuff.

 Even 3E wasn't that bad at a casual level, didn't see to many Druids most groups didn't use wands of clw.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> We had cleric free parties.



Never seen one till 4e..  and no that didnt mean there had to be a leader in 4e in general it meant each role had a similar impact on party survival a full party of strikers cut down enemy enough faster the party took significantly less damage that things were quite doable.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Never seen one till 4e..  and no that didnt mean there had to be a leader in 4e in general it meant each role had a similar impact on party survival a full party of strikers cut down enemy enough faster the party took significantly less damage that things were quite doable.



I saw them in 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e.  I didn't play 4e more than a handful of times, so I don't count that edition.  Now, they were rare in 1e-3e, but I saw them.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

The extreme difference of play and increase in difficulty of play without a cleric is an example of primacy of magic. *Higher impact* because you have *magic*


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> The extreme difference of play and increase in difficulty of play without a cleric is an example of primacy of magic. *Higher impact* because you have *magic*



Ok.  So what.  A lot of people like that sort of thing.  Just look at how many dislike full overnight non=magical healing.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Now, they were rare in 1e-3e, but I saw them.



That rarity wasnt because people really wanted to play a celibate bible banger


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

The primacy of magic is a descriptive argument it isnt about what a few people dislike remember that argument from popularity 5e is extremely popular and has the over night healing. So its not really on the table


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

You know, I just typed a pretty long explanation of why I don't buy this "primacy of magic" argument, but I realized there's no point.

However, I would suggest that seething in toxic resentment about the conspiracy, imagined or otherwise, to Keep the Fighter Down, will do nothing to influence WotC, and only hurts those who harbor it.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Mmmm.
> 
> Anyway, as a reminder:
> 
> ...




Just for the record, none of that influenced me.  I ignored 4e largely because I flipped through the books and there was (what seemed like) endless crunch and options and stat blocks and a whole bunch of terminology I didn't even recognize. Paragon paths and feat tiers and daily vs. encounter vs. at will and...etc. etc. etc.  

"Primacy of the Build" is not what I love about RPGs.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> It's the same with D&D. Too much new design, too quickly, and risk alienating some of the people that love you.



I think that a lot of the willingness to do that risky new design was directly tied to wanting a new IP around which to sell.. D20 had lost them that.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Sep 17, 2019)

I've skipped a few pages ... and sorry if I helped start the whole "4E was bad" tangent.

I'm not saying 4E was a bad game (although I admit I burned out on it, especially high level play), but to me it didn't feel like D&D.  I don't think that has anything to do with magic vs martial, it was the basic structure that changed.  I understand why they did it, they were trying to have better balance between classes.

For me and several other people who played other editions there was just something missing.  These are just my personal observations, and observations of others that I played with.

All the classes kind of played the same.  I'd argue that everyone became "supernatural" or maybe anime/cartoon like.  My fighter cast spells by another name.  He no longer felt like a mundane fighter.
It was not as genre flexible.  You were kind of locked in to a certain type and style of play, there wasn't really much room to customize without a _lot_ of work.
They tried to codify too much.  Yes, the rules were more airtight but because of that there was a lack of spontaneity and freedom that seemed to always creep in.  I think in part we never felt like we could improvise actions that could be represented by powers.*
Too many ongoing effects and conditions.
Too much overhead.  Daily powers, encounter powers, at-will powers.  There was always that "have I played this card yet" feel to the game.
It always put the game mechanics front and center.  Encounters became "Magic D&D the Gathering" with cards powers being countered and your "deck" being your build.  
None of these things made it necessarily a bad game.  I'm not taking Essentials into account because by the time that came out it was too late.

Compare that to other versions

There is a very different feel to different classes.  Personally I'd like a few more mundane options, but a Champion fighter is going to play differently than a wizard.
Much more flexibility to make really minor tweaks to the game that give it a different feel.
In my experience the "loose" rules foster more creative solutions.
Fewer ongoing conditions and effects.  It's rare that you ever have more than one ongoing condition on an individual creature for most games.
Less overhead unless you really want it.  Yes, I still need to track some stuff but now it's just "have I used my second wind yet" or "how many 3rd level sell slots do I have left" not "have I used that daily?  What about that minor action encounter."
Game mechanics stay out of the way of my story telling and support it when needed.  Usually.

Obviously 5E inherited bits and pieces from 4E and all previous editions.  No game is perfect, but to me it feels like an upgraded version of older editions not a different game with the cosmetic trappings of D&D.
_
*honestly I was never able to quite put my finger on why we felt creativity was stifled in 4E, it was just a common complaint_


----------



## Imaro (Sep 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I'm not seeing the value judgement that you are.  It's not even about "hating 4e".  It's the criticism that 4e isn't D&D.  It was an oft repeated criticism.  And, if you ask why, you get fifteen different answers.  The only commonality seems to be the primacy of magic.
> 
> Again, this isn't a value judgement.  It's not good or bad.  It just is.



Eh its playstyle, which heavily favored a few set piece battles vs. more numerous attrition battles was also a commonality... often expressed (when running 4e in an attrition style) as combat being a slog or taking to long... as well as combat being boardgamey


Hussar said:


> See, while I'm not really interested in rehashing edition war garbage, I'd point something out.
> 
> Come and Get It.  It was the poster boy for 4e critics.  The power that couldn't be explained.  It was everything bad about 4e.
> 
> ...




Your problem is you keep looking for one singular reason people didn't like 4e... but I doubt it worked like that for most people. 

For most people it was probably a culmination of things or singularly different things.  For example combat in 4e and the fact that it did attrition based encounters poorly to not at all due to combat length was a big difference between it and every other edition of D&D... but that alone wasn't what made me dislike and eventually stop playing (though it was a strong factor). 

 You add the above types of non-magical magical powers, the heavy emphasis on grid based play (where the board-game feel argument seems to originate), the changes in lore, AEDU for everyone (where the MMO cooldown powers feel argument comes from) and so on and I found myself playing a game that rubbed me the wrong way not because of one singular thing (which I probably could have and would have ignored) but at numerous points.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Sep 17, 2019)




----------



## Imaro (Sep 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> @Tony Vargas it's right here...
> 
> "Martial: Martial powers are *not magic in the traditional sense*, although some* martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals*. Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies. *Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers *to grant fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords, among others, their power."
> 
> It's very clear that martial is an atypical kind of magic in 4e.  Had it been non-magical, they wouldn't have deliberately gone out of their way to use the above language.  Instead, they would have said, "Martial powers are not magic."




For the record I agree with you here (I actually made this same argument a while ago) and it's why I brought up Exalted where the martial characters accomplish extraordinary to impossible feats through magic though not specifically spells... which for the purposes of the primacy of magic argument seems to be the only thing considered "magic"...


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> There is a very different feel to different classes.  Personally I'd like a few more mundane options, but a Champion fighter is going to play differently than a wizard.



If you think a Sword and Board fighter in 4e plays at all like a wizard I just do not know what to say. No really.
Vast difference... there is similarity you get a choice of doing something big bold and climactic once in a while.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> I've skipped a few pages ... and sorry if I helped start the whole "4E was bad" tangent.



Actually I think its supposed to be keying off  4E wasnt D&D... ie lacked the essence.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Mmmm.
> 
> Anyway, as a reminder:
> 
> 1. 4e had a botched rollout at GenCon in August 2007, leaving many people to (mistakenly) believe that a computer was required to play; numerous misconceptions about 4e started then that WoTC never properly cleared up.



There are many reasons that things were botched as you put it and contributed to economic short life including that crashing economy but I think that is tangential to why some considered it NOT D&D.

I think they really can be separated out .... but maybe not


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> The recession certainly didnt help.
> 
> If you think a Sword and Board fighter in 4e plays at all like a wizard I just do not know what to say. No really.
> Vast difference... there is similarity you get a choice of doing something big bold and climactic once in a while.



I played several different classes. Wizards generally had longer range, but everyone had the same basic mix of daily awesome, encounter good and at will if you ran out of the others.  Style just depended on role (control vs defender vs striker, etc) and options.

Anyway, I don't really want to hash out a dead edition.  I just posted to expand on what I an several others experienced.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> To the extent that you wish to consider that, you have to pay attention to what people are saying; you see it here.



It doesnt do attrition combat well... is attrition combat the essence of D&D? Where as Heroic center piece battles are definitely not since a spell caster could one shot an encounter or simply decide we win In many editions  (paladins even seem able to in 5e) ARE you sure that doesn't relate to primacy of magic? If you take away the trivializing of otherwise big battles....


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> I played several different classes. Wizards generally had longer range, but everyone had the same basic mix of daily awesome, encounter good and at will if you ran out of the others.



Yup similar frequency to contribute but not at all contributing the same things nor accomplishing the same effects. Fighters cannot have big climactic things.... it steps on the toes of casters by any other name would smell well the same.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> I'm not saying 4E was a bad game (although I admit I burned out on it, especially high level play), but to me it didn't feel like D&D.  I don't think that has anything to do with magic vs martial, it was the basic structure that changed.  I understand why they did it, they were trying to have better balance between classes.




It's easy to see how some people would react to that by saying, "Yeah, they're balanced, which is good, but the cost of doing that is that the classes that used to feel weak don't feel the same.  I liked the old way, maybe just because it's what I'm used to, even if it was imbalanced."

And others would respond, "You obviously just think those weak classes should stay weak!"


----------



## Oofta (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Yup similar frequency to contribute but not at all contributing the same things nor accomplishing the same effects. Fighters cannot have big climactic things.... it steps on the toes of casters by any other name would smell well the same.



Really? Because I remember differently.

Anyway, have a good one.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Fighters cannot have big climactic things.... it steps on the toes of casters by any other name would smell well the same.




I....I....I just can't do this anymore.  The stress is tearing me apart.

You and Tony are right.  For years now the rest of us...almost everybody except the two of you, really...have been secretly meeting and plotting how to keep those lowly fighters in their places.  "Nothing but a basic attack roll every round.  No cool abilities.  Nothing that might steal the limelight from the wizards, who are really the Essence of D&D."

Mearles pushed back at first, but...well, even though I'm coming clean there are something things I can't expose.  I have a family, after all.

I've carried this weight for too long, and just can't carry it any longer.  I'm sorry.

Oh, the shame.  The shame.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Also, like the Apple Newton, the problem wasn't the primacy of magic.




Any sufficiently immature technology is indistinguishable from cheap parlor tricks.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 17, 2019)

My tastes have changed and Fourth Edition is no longer the game for me. However, I will say this: it is not just the case that some people disliked the game, but that it become socially unacceptable to like the game to the point where I was personally subjected to harassment at game stores for trying to buy Fourth Edition books. It was almost enough to get me to leave the hobby. After Essentials hit I moved further into indie games in part to escape that climate.

It's also the case that in completely unrelated topics many people continue to slam a game that has not been culturally relevant for years. I do not think this shows a good face for our hobby. It honestly makes it difficult for me to engage in this community.

I respect those who do not like the game for whatever reason. It's the continued insistence by some parts of the community that liking or having liked the game means there is something wrong with you and you are not a real part of the community that I find distasteful.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> No, what I'm saying is that there is a subset of people that, inter alia, really liked the way that 4e handled martial powers. Which is great! But that doesn't mean that everyone who didn't like it, didn't like it for the reason that these people like it.



Oh the argument is again not even that everyone who didnt like it did so because it lacked primacy of magic just sort of a subset of that which says primacy of magic is the deciding feature for the "Not D&D" where as your it just generally had too many changes many of which I argue would have taken different form or not have been done (even with balanced classes as the dominant goal) IF not for the need to establish a new IP base because of the OGL is actually probably a more well rounded argument.  Primacy of magic may have been a big one even if others existed.  AND the number of the elements in 5e from 4e as was pointed out which still manage to still be D&D is support for the argument that primacy of magic is one that may have been a huge one. (even if you are right its not the only)


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Also does someone not like "that a problem was solved because it was a feature" or "how it was solved" - it often ends up looking the same.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Also does someone not like "that a problem was solved because it was a feature" or "how it was solved" - it often ends up looking the same.




This makes no sense.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Imaro said:


> This makes no sense.



Does it not parse right? I do not like feature X.  Some times means "I do not like that X changed Y" ... but sometimes it means "I would like changing Y but not by using X."
??


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

Imaro said:


> This makes no sense.




I _think_ what he was saying was that people may not necessarily want the primacy of magic, but that primacy of magic is the necessary solution to what they do want.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I _think_ what he was saying was that people may not necessarily want the primacy of magic, but that primacy of magic is the necessary solution to what they do want.



Or the opposite how one might want less primacy of magic but do not like taming its potency down ( perhaps because they cannot come up with non-magic other things which do the trick. )


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> That's not really true.  Power Words, for example, had a casting time of 1.  And even Fireball or Lightning Bolt are still a casting time of 3, which is 2 better than a longsword.  I've always wondered about these groups that constantly have spells interrupted.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's something I never saw.
> 
> Considering Large monsters had +6 to their initiative, and anything bigger than that went all the way up to +12, I've always been rather surprised at how often people claim that spells got interrupted.



We never used the optional rule of speed factor.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

You are basically right. And there are in the 2E PHB 3 different optimal rules for initiative. And no official rule for initiative. I guarantee you 90% of the rules in the book are optional. Personally I like that about 2E. I don’t like the straight jacket of other systems as well for me.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> there is a subset of people that, inter alia, really liked the way that 4e handled martial powers. Which is great! But that doesn't mean that everyone who didn't like it, didn't like it for the reason that these people like it.



 5e design failed, at points, to catch onto the reverse of that.  Just look at the 'tactical combat' module.  "There you go 4e fans: square counting and complexity, we even gave you back _facing!_ y'all love facing, right?"  Or the Battlemaster "you wanted a complex fighter right?" & PDK "shouty healing! What more do you want?"



lowkey13 said:


> I have seen many, many people comment that 4e didn't really make sense or come into its own until Essentials in terms of appealing to a mass market and being understandable to the casual player; however, others (such as @Tony Vargas ) repeatedly complain that Essentials is a betrayal of 4e.



Overstating it a bit, there.  Though there were folks that felt that way - 'betrayal' being a by-word of the edition war for how some 3.x fans felt about the premature end of that ed's run - or at least knowingly recycled the word.  
Essentials was a clear reversal of direction from the original 4e, and was very much pointed at long-time & returning players (Red Box campaign, massive update to bring thing back into line with the classic game).  New players were even /more/ confused by the 10 essentials products, only a couple of which they even theoretically needed to play, and none labeled anything as intuitive as 'Player's Handbook,' then they had been by the shelf-collidascope of everything-is-core. 

I know I have a 4venger rep, but the fact is, I've defended every ed of D&D from 1e through 5e - when they were unfairly attacked.  4e was just attacked a lot more. 



> So moving into the instant question, it's a pure category error to ascribe one's pet cause (I LOVE MARTIALS!) to the failure of a particular edition of D&D (to the extent it was a failure).



Not about the commercial failure, which, as you point out, had a veritable 'perfect storm' of contributing factors.  The loss of the Primacy of Magic in 4e, and it's restoration in 5e (and 'too little/too late' movement in that direction in Essentials) corresponds with that failure, just as it does the edition war, but blaming one of those for either or both of the others is ignoring a lot of other factors.  It's the correlation of the loss of Primacy with the sense of the ed "not really being D&D," something noted even by those who liked and adopted it, as well as hammered pretty hard by those who hated/feared/rejected and 'warred' against it.



> First, as I described in the OP, I view D&D as a conversation between players over time, and 4e has contributed to that conversation, and is part of the DNA of the new edition.



 It might have contributed to a conversation, if the Edition War shouting match hadn't been so loud.  

I do find your idea of continuity an emotionally appealing one, and, had 5e come through with certain of it's goals more successfully, there might be more of a reason to indulge it.  But, the Edition War stands as a dreadful discontinuity, and, though 'healed' in the sense that no one is so offended (or 'betrayed') by 5e as to war against it like they did 4e, it is not erased from history.



> on  something that Tony has said several times; the idea that if someone had kept up with the hobby, had kept up with 3e, had read Book of 9 Swords and Tome of Magic and incorporated them into their play ... maybe paid attention to more modern TTRPG theory ... maybe they didn't think it was a big change!



I believe that was Hussar. 



> But not everyone is like that. A lot of gamers are lapsed gamers, or occasional gamers, and to the extent that you want a renaissance in playing, you need to attract those people too- the ones that need something which is mostly familiar.



That, OTOH, sounds like me.



> It's not about the primacy of magic; 4e is plenty magical however you want to define it.



 You may have seen Maxperson repeating the edition war zinger about "non-traditional magic!"  (And going so far as to repeat it /in context/ - something 4vengers usually had to type out.  That really was pretty cool of you, Max.)  It actually illustrates a good point:  whether you remove the gap in power & importance between Magic & mundane by reducing magic in power and balancing it with non-magical alternatives - or, by literally removing or willfully-misinterpreting-as-magic those alternatives, the result is the same.  Magic ceases to be special and of prime importance in play.  While 4e balanced magic with martial in the realm of classes, it is that ubiquitous fungibility that it inflicted on magic items that eroded the Primacy of Magic on that end.

5e, of course, restored both the superiority of casters /and/ the rare/wonderous impact of magic items.



> 4e was a bold attempt at a different direction that didn't work, but parts of 4e remain relevant to both how people DM and have been incorporated into 5e's rules, making 4e one of the most interesting parts of the grand tapestry that is D&D.



 There's a difference between 'didn't work' and 'didn't succeed commercially.'  The 4e approach was mechanically sound - more so than any other edition, really - and succeeded admirably to a number of objective measure as a game.  In doing so, it lost that sense of really being D&D, though. 

My supposition is that the loss of the Primacy of Magic was the key thing that it lost - making said Primacy a very viable candidate for the Essence of D&D.


I guess, for this last post, that it's not really that supposition which has so disrupted the intent of your thread, as the foundation it rests on:  that the Edition War, both in it's rhetoric, but mainly just in it's existence, represents a gap in the continuity of D&D's history & conversation.   It's an ugly thing, I agree, but it's an ugly truth.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> That's not really true.  Power Words, for example, had a casting time of 1.  And even Fireball or Lightning Bolt are still a casting time of 3, which is 2 better than a longsword.  I've always wondered about these groups that constantly have spells interrupted.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's something I never saw.
> 
> Considering Large monsters had +6 to their initiative, and anything bigger than that went all the way up to +12, I've always been rather surprised at how often people claim that spells got interrupted.




One of my favorite memories from a campaign in the early '80s was the group (between 5th - 7th levels) did something that triggered a roll on the astral/ethereal wandering encounter chart and got a high-level M-U result.  When it became obvious the situation was going to end badly, the group freaked out and absolutely nailed the M-U with every fast-acting attack they could pull out in an effort to keep him neutralised.  The party M-U reverted to using just magic missiles for the first 3 rounds because it had the lowest segment count available.  The fighter types went for their daggers.

The enemy M-U was interrupted casting 2 times before he went down. The first would have obliterated the group.  The second would have had him escape. 

His bodyguards on the other hand, nearly took the group on their own.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> I've skipped a few pages ... and sorry if I helped start the whole "4E was bad" tangent.



 Taken the right way - Hussar has an excellent summation, above - it's not about good or bad, just different.

People, like you, who didn't like 4e, people who hated it enough to actively war against it, people who reflexively defended it, and people who genuinely liked it best of all editions - at least some from each category - could 'agree' (in various, grudging, differently-spun ways) that was /different/ from other editions.  "Not D&D," in some sense.  

Thus lacking the Essence of D&D the OP was looking for.



> I'm not saying 4E was a bad game (although I admit I burned out on it, especially high level play), but to me it *didn't feel like D&D*.  I don't think that has anything to do with magic vs martial, it was the basic structure that changed.  I understand why they did it, they were trying to have better balance between classes.



 And the imbalances between classes were very much between Tier 1 & 2 full casters and Tier 4 & 5 non-magical ones.  So, yes, class balance had everything to do with magic vs martial.

Not so much to do with magic /items/ (though, they were no so longer needed as a crutch to balance martial classes)



> For me and several other people who played other editions there was just something missing.  These are just my personal observations, and observations of others that I played with.
> 
> 1.All the classes kind of played the same.  I'd argue that everyone became "supernatural" or maybe anime/cartoon like.  My fighter cast spells by another name.  He no longer felt like a mundane fighter.



 So, on the one hand I feel compelled to point out that this is flatly false, the classes - if you actually played them - played /very/ differently, fighters were nothing like wizards were nothing like rogues were nothing like Paladins, etc...  The similarity was in structure, resource parity, and balance.

But, I have to remind myself, 'feel' is /very/ subjective.  So while the similarity was only in resource management, if you focused only on that similarity, and didn't care about the differences between an exploit using a weapon vs a spell using an implement, vs a controller interdicting the enemy and a striker murdering them one at a time, then, yeah, it's a 'feel.' 

In either case, though, the complaint speaks /directly/ to the Primacy of Magic, as it requires magic be /better/ - more significant, more powerful, more critical or important - and it can't plausibly /be/ that if it's on the same resource schedule as, and remotely balanced with martial.



> 2,. It was not as genre flexible.  You were kind of locked in to a certain type and style of play, there wasn't really much room to customize without a lot of work.



 Two different things, here.  Genre flexibility, without radicaly re-working the rules, is something D&D has always lacked - but, since so many of use were happy to radically re-work the rules, it often got credit for it, just the same.  4e, with it's embrace of readily re-skinning powers (as well as gear as 3e had), could shift genre without any change to mechanics.   And, because it had abandoned the Primacy of Magic, it could easily shift to a genre that didn't include magic, at all. 
/Style/ of play, OTOH, not much to do with genre.  Balanced games, like 4e aspired to be, naturally work with a wider range of play styles, while imbalanced ones can tend to force (over-reward) or punish specific styles.  We heard the 'doesn't support X style' (like CaW, for instance), a lot.  It would be more acturate, IMHO, to say it didn't /force/ those styles.


> 3.They tried to codify too much.  Yes, the rules were more airtight but because of that there was a lack of spontaneity and freedom that seemed to always creep in.  I think in part we never felt like we could improvise actions that could be represented by powers



 The whole codification thing started a lot earlier, with the Thief, and continued with attempts at skill systems.  Ironically, while "improvising" in most editions was just an appeal to the DM to make an arbitrary ruling, in 4e even /that/ was codified - well, had guidelines - p42.  You've made this complaint before, the fact that the game gave you license to do exactly what you said you couldn't is known to you. 

But, again, it's still a fair observation on another level:  if you could just 'improvise' the equivalent magic missle with an arcana check or twin strike any time you swung two weapons, you'd be undermining the uniqueness of the classes.   It's just more an observation about class systems, in general.



> Too many ongoing effects and conditions.



4e had far fewer ongoing effects than pre-buff-celebrating 3e (and fewer different duration formulae to track for them), and fewer named bonuses and named conditions, as well.  So that could hardly have been not-D&D for that reason.  



> Too much overhead.  Daily powers, encounter powers, at-will powers.  There was always that "have I played this card yet" feel to the game.



Compared to playing a caster in the classic game, that was a bit of a simplification, really.  The "have I played this card yet" feel was very much a feature of Vancian in all other editions, in balancing martial v magical, and thus loosing the Primacy of Magic, 4e just extended it - in a consistent, easier to learn, understand & manage way - to all classes.



> It always put the game mechanics front and center.  Encounters became "Magic D&D the Gathering" with cards powers being countered and your "deck" being your build.



 Again, a valid superficial observation, but whether you wanted mechanics first or fiction first, 4e was readily adaptable to the style without changing mechanics.  The power structure separated fluff & crunch, thus the 'fiction' was easily customizable by the player, you could play the character you wanted, doing the things you wanted, the way you wanted to describe them, so if you had an impulse to put the fiction front-and-center, you could, and could do so with more authority and greater freedom of choice.  If, OTOH, you /were/ interested in mechanics and play for it's own sake, that was readily doable, too.  It's another case of allowing different styles rather than forcing specific ones.  



> Obviously 5E inherited bits and pieces from 4E and all previous editions.  No game is perfect, but to me it feels like an upgraded version of older editions not a different game with the cosmetic trappings of D&D.
> _*honestly I was never able to quite put my finger on why we felt creativity was stifled in 4E, it was just a common complaint_



 It's because the wonder of magic was lost:  without the Primacy of Magic, magic was just another tool.  Without the profound disadvantage of lacking magic, there was no impetus to improvise desperate tricks in combat to contribute, something/anything, to the combat where your few codified mundane abilities were useless.  

And that's not mocking or putting words in your mouth.  Playing the underdog is legit style, and it's not uncommon in fiction for an underdog to turn things around with some harebrained desperate trick on the spur of the moment.  4e was /designed/ to let you do that - with p42 improvisation, guidelines that let the DM design encounters that could be very hard, but probably not fatal to too many PC with some dependability, and re-skinning - but it didn't make it /necessary/.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> But then again, so is 3e AFAIC.




To be fair to 4e, I had a similar adverse reaction to 3e.  Although at least with 3e the basic structure and terminology seemed more familiar.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 17, 2019)

Just to throw 4E a bone, I do miss a couple of PCs I played in 4E.

I liked how I could have a striker cleric that could dish out decent damage and heal at the same time.  Sooo many D12s at high levels.  

I also liked my avenger.  Vengeance paladins are similar in feel/fluff I guess.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

In essence ,this thread reminds me of the "big tent" threads like this one The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome) and this one Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux") which attempted to identify those bits that make D&D feel like D&D.

Not that the discussion can't be amusing, but it seems the experience of D&D is diverse enough no consensus beyond the most superficial can be reached.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> But for you to keep saying that continues to elevate your own opinions over what people tell you; you are ignoring the evidence.



I'd love to keep /opinion/ out of it. 

My opinion, which doesn't matter in the least, is that 4e was absolutely D&D, that though the changes it made were extensive, they were directly evolutionary from 3e, and generally (except for the abandonment of modular multiclassing) improvements.  If I were arguing my opinion, I'd say that 4e being "NOT D&D" is a bunch of hyperbole.  I can see why it /feels/ that way, and acknowledge that, but it's not how /I/ feel.  It's also just not that important an opinion to me.  I'm fine with stipulating that 4e was Not D&D, in some essential sense, since it's clearly an overwhelming perception, and, I can even empathize on some level, since I did experience moments of disequilibrium when there was no freak'n spells/day chart for the magic-user.  (OTOH, having each class's powers organized by level right after the class, was comfortingly 1e- like.  So, y'know, feelings, they're subjective.)

4e stood out as different, though, whether it crossed a line for you personally, or not.  And, objectively, if often only cosmetically, it was /different/.  As a game, strictly mechanically, it was significantly less broken.  As a nostalgic experience of old-school D&D, it did not flow naturally - I could, and did, evoke nostalgia in 4e, but it was 'bits' and it was still with a very different mechanical spin.  My group explored the Temple of the Frog as an extended skill challenge and faced Stephen the Rock all in a single, long session - it'd've taken months of play in old-school dungeon-crawl mode.

But that's all feelz and opinions and retreating into subjectivity so no one has to be right or wrong or experience any sort of disequilibrium or re-examine their positions.



> I can tell you, definitively, that my reaction was the same as @Elfcrusher when it came to 4e. I tried 3e (didn't like it at all!), and then I went to go check out 4e, and it was ... too much. I had no idea of the on-line debates, or the war, or anything, but it was bizarre and unappealing to me. Too much "crunch" and it was too foreign to me given my background, my desires, and my time constraints. But then again, so is 3e AFAIC.



Then an excess of crunch can hardly be pointed to as a reason 4e is "not D&D," in your case, can it?  3e was even crunchier and more 'bloated' (had more awesome options!) than 4e.

I mean, was it even "not D&D" in your estimation?  Was 3e also "not D&D" for you?



> And I repeatedly say that my biggest issue with 5e is that it has too much magic; this is something that other people agree with (and others, disagree with), but it's certainly a debate.



 Mostly around cantrips being at-will, as I've heard it. 

But it's not nearly enough to make 5e 'not D&D,' while 'Fighters Casting Spells' (magic & martial balanced on the same resource schedule) was.



> In the end, D&D has always had a "fighter" and always will; many people who play will always gravitate toward martial options, and I don't think it's accurate to characterize "primacy of magic" as the salient feature of D&D; in order to do so, you have to actively discount both what people say, and their revealed preferences (the number of options for doing "gritty" campaigns).



 Nothing about gritty campaigns nor the popularity of the fighter - which, spanned all editions, 4e included - undercuts the Primacy of Magic as the Essence of really-D&D edition of the game.  In fact, it's absolutely necessary to have alternatives to magic, in use, in play, to highlight that Primacy.  Without the Fighter, there's no one who would have died but for that healing magic.  Without the 5e fighter, able to Action Surge and dispatch /4/ orcs in one round if he hits and rolls good damage all 4 times at 5th level, the power of the 5th-level wizards new Fireball to dispatch a dozen whether they save or not simply isn't as awesome.  

As for discounting what people say:  when there's a cacophony of different opinions about underlying facts, the underlying facts are subject to examination and analysis, the cacophony is not.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Sep 17, 2019)

A note about genres because I think this is one of the strongest parts do D&D.

I can run a game in genres from stone age to Renaissance with little change.  Stone age I have to limit weapons and armor a bit along with higher level magic and I'm done.  Renaissance, include optional firearms.

I haven't done anything more modern yet, but I could easily see near modern or steam punk (refluff some spells and be done).  Or pick up the Eberron rules.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 17, 2019)

Honestly @Tony Vargas you are doing the same sort of thing here that some people do when I lament that Wizards did not put the things that made 4th Edition a great experience for me into 5th Edition. They point out all the things that were carried over. I then have to explain those things are not things I care about and in some cases actively dislike. Wrong half!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Campbell said:


> My tastes have changed and Fourth Edition is no longer the game for me. However, I will say this: it is not just the case that some people disliked the game, but that it become socially unacceptable to like the game to the point where I was personally subjected to harassment at game stores for trying to buy Fourth Edition books. It was almost enough to get me to leave the hobby. After Essentials hit I moved further into indie games in part to escape that climate.



I wish I could say that was an un-heard-of event.
The first year 4e was out, I had the bizarre experience of watching a player sit down at a 4e table, declare he was trying it for the very first time, choose a rogue, complain bitterly about being 'forced' to use a dagger, and just generally dragged the whole thing down.  Twice.  In two separate games, on two different days.

Guess I don't look too distinctive at a convention, or he might've recognized me and moderated his behavior, or at least changed up his initial spiel.

And, yeah, famously, books were burned.

The edition war went beyond a torrent of on-line nerd-rage.  It was a toxic culture.  Like any other form of bigotry, but all the more uncompromising because the subject was so trivial.

Some of it also became visible only in retrospect.  A convention I used to go to was very cold to the idea when, in 2008, I submitted a proposal to run a short introductory game of the new edition - 4 players, 4 hours - as a gimmick.  Too short. They'd never allow 4-hr games.   I shelved the idea, but improv'd it in open gaming because there was interest, anyway (5 min prep, including re-skinning a monster because there were no water elementals the right level).
2014, I get an email from the same con - run a half-session (4 hr) game to introduce 5e and get the same credit as running a full session.  Mind you, I was enthused about 5e and ran a bunch of them - converting In Search of the Unknown, Village of Homlet, Sunless Citadel, the first chapter of Council of Thieves, KotSf (shudder), and Twisting Halls, each to boiled-down, 4-hr 5e adventures.  It was a blast.  I was in an altered state of consciousness by Monday morning. 

2008, little disappointed, still ran a great game; 2014, excited, exhausted, had a great time  … but, y'know, in retrospect, that was quite the change in attitude.



> It's also the case that in completely unrelated topics many people continue to slam a game that has not been culturally relevant for years. I do not think this shows a good face for our hobby. It honestly makes it difficult for me to engage in this community.
> I respect those who do not like the game for whatever reason. It's the continued insistence by some parts of the community that liking or having liked the game means there is something wrong with you and you are not a real part of the community that I find distasteful.




I'm not sure which is worse, the digs at 4e in passing, or pretending it never happened?



Campbell said:


> Honestly @Tony Vargas you are doing the same sort of thing here that some people do when I lament that Wizards did not put the things that made 4th Edition a great experience for me into 5th Edition. They point out all the things that were carried over. I then have to explain those things are not things I care about and in some cases actively dislike. Wrong half!



 I'm not sure I follow.  Hussar & I have both pointed out that a lot of little things "DNA" made it from 4e to 5e.  They're not things that made 4e 'great' (good at what it was good at - balanced, playable, genre emulation - I'm sure you can throw out a few Forge labels I'd rather not use), at least, not in the form they made it into 5e, but among them are many supposedly-intolerable concepts that, in the context of 5e (with The Primacy of Magic restored!), are now fine.

Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean:   Yes, yes I am.   I did the same thing to grognards grousing about 3.0, too.  You get a complaint that the new edition sux because it lacks X, you point out that X is, in fact, right there, they get mad at you.  I'm glad you have the patience to explain the synergies and emergent characteristics based on the subtle differences in how (or greater degrees to which) X (& Q & Y & Z) are /implemented/ in the old edition, don't arise in the new (again, if I'm getting the allusion).

I've just had to do it a /lot/ more since 2008, rarely with anyone showing the same kind of patience & expansion upon their issues as you're up for.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

I am of the opinion that 4E was not d&d. It was in my opinion a completely different game with the d&d logo placed on it. However, anyone that started playing at that time will definitely view it as d&d, as well as just many people that love the AEDU system. It’s just not something i see that I want in a d&d game. It’s antithetical to the d&d experience for me. Now there are many people that will feel the opposite. The good thing about playing any previous edition is you have closed canon and can play what you want. 

I never really understood people that need support for a product after it is published anyway. You have the book, play it.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, the original good-natured genesis of the thread was that I was thinking about how people bring in all these different experiences from different tables, and different editions, when the sit down and play D&D.
> 
> So I might be running a fast & loose old-school style 5e with TOTM and simplified mechanics;
> 
> ...




I'm  abit of an outlier in that when I decide to run something, I pick from a large pool of games.  I pick the system that best supports the game experience I want from the new game in term of campaign feel, length, genre, and power level.  D&D is one of my go-to games for some subset of game types I want to run.

I pick D&D when:

I want a game where PC progression goes from "one of the crowd" to "nearly superheroic"
I want a game where the player focus is on material reward
I want a game where PC growth is both internal (levels and skills) and external (magic items, spells learned, faction admittance, hangers-on)
I want a game with where higher-level challenges can only be successfully attempted by higher-level abilities.  i.e. higher level adventures require access to environmental protections, transportation methods, and divinatory abilities to progress
I want a kitchen-sink fantasy base to start from
I want a in-game social system to allow for powerful individuals/groups acting alone
I want a game world that is effectively post-apocalyptic -- where the best things need to be recovered, not constructed.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I want a game world that is effectively post-apocalyptic -- where the best things need to be recovered, not constructed.




That's the most interesting thing said in this thread in many pages.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Eh, I used to play all sorts of games, so I can certainly understand (AND ENVY!) your diversity of games! Alas, given my age and my time constraints, I prefer to just run variations on what I already know.
> 
> Sad, but true.
> 
> (I am considering getting the new WFRPG to try out for a spin ....)




My days of running multiple campaigns a week in different systems appears to be generally over as well.  But D&D would have been a terrible choice for the X-Files style modern day DHS agents game I've been running for seven! years now.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Here is what bothers me "4e is not D&D"... reads to me very much like  "You are not welcome in our community" and "We will shout your opinions down" whenever we feel like it because we are the majority (and D&D is making huge money the way it is)  and "We will call posts about Warlords abominations in threads featuring people wanting them". AND so on and so forth.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Yeah, I have to admit I missed that on first glance!
> 
> @Nagol are you referring to the "finding loot" aspect of D&D? It's an interesting way of looking at it.




I was even just thinking more generally that worlds in which nobody in the present can replicate the mysterious (magical?) achievements of the past...are appealing to me.  Whether that's the Third Age of Middle Earth, or post-Roman Britain in Bernard Cornwell's novels, or the lost glory of the Jedi order.

But, yes, one of the great things (to me) about found magic items...as opposed to bought or crafted ones...is that it evokes this feeling.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> A note about genres because I think this is one of the strongest parts do D&D.
> 
> I can run a game in genres from stone age to Renaissance with little change.  Stone age I have to limit weapons and armor a bit along with higher level magic and I'm done.  Renaissance, include optional firearms.



That's what you mean by a range of genres?  Same game, same classes, different weapons & armors (Ok, and social structures)?  
That's eminently do-able from 3e on, little more than re-skinning gear is required.  Mail becomes mammoth hide, broadsword becomes macuahuitl, wizard's spell book becomes cave paintings...  OK, notched sticks & bones and bits of crystal for his traveling spellbook.



> I haven't done anything more modern yet, but I could easily see near modern or steam punk (refluff some spells and be done).  Or pick up the Eberron rules.



 Steampunk's surprisingly easy if you're up for re-writing spells as technology (Myrlund famously did that back in the day, no?), easier the more amenable to re-skinning the system gets. You can go sci-fi be crossing over with gamma world with little issue.

But edition /barely/ matters in that.  You had Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Six-guns & Sorcery back in the day.  All the WotC eds (I'm pretty certain 5e didn't change this) let you re-skin /gear/, which is all you need to shift technology so long as you can make a case for the weapons/armor arms-race keeping pace (which is an oversimplification when you get to modern firearms, but could be fine for steampunk & sci-fi).


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Yeah, I have to admit I missed that on first glance!
> 
> @Nagol are you referring to the "finding loot" aspect of D&D? It's an interesting way of looking at it.




Yeah.  It's one of the areas where 3.5 had me pulling my hair out.  It was driven home to me when the PCs found a _really_ nice magic item (Mirror of Mental Prowess) -- and promptly sold it and split the cash so they could fill out their "must-have" items instead.

For me, D&D is best when the players are anticipating what's in the next room, next treasure pile, spending time and money chasing leads for previous expeditions / rumoured items, and generally being forced to go out and engage the environment.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Yeah, I have to admit I missed that on first glance!
> 
> @Nagol are you referring to the "finding loot" aspect of D&D? It's an interesting way of looking at it.



 May be referring to the earlier takes on settings, and on the nature of items?  I'm not sure when - it already seemed to be happening a lot when I started - we got this idea that today's magic-users need to be able to make any magic item, when, in genre, the distant past was often a pinnacle of magical power or a golden age.  The genre's full of stuff like that:  Tolkien's Ring and named glowing swords and Palantirs are essentially artifacts of the ancients.  Artifacts/Relics were always part of the game.  Greyhawk had empires destroyed by war or disaster in the past.  Heck, even PoL fits that kind of theme, right up to (to my personal annoyance) the domains of the gods.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I completely agree, although I was also thinking it in reference to three things:
> 
> 1. Magic Shoppes. I know, I know, I just never liked them!
> 
> ...




Artefacts, crazy bits of extradimensional sections of dungeons, ancient huts with chicken legs that run around the forest, and magic items that potentially can be recreated, but are frankly easier to find (even if finding them requires  extraordinary ability).

In older editions of D&D, the treasure tables combined with the item creation rules really brings home that much of the permanent items PCs can find were made long ago probably through processes that have been lost.  And that's before you get into the artifact/relic craziness.  

Reliance of found items accomplishes a bunch of things in general:

it gives a great reason for everyone to keep adventuring and not just sit down and make some stuff for half a year
it allows the introduction of class-leveling through the skewing of found treasure (so non-magic users can gain environmental protections, divinatory, and transport abilities mainly)
It makes PC advancement more unique -- sure there are 3 8th level fighters, but only I have the Hammer of Thunderbolts!
It provides some uncertainty in encounter design and gives the players a goal for investigation -- IF we are taking on Dim, the notorious anti-palaladin then finding out that his armour makes him invulnerable to fire would be... helpful in our planning and disastrous  to discover in the field.


----------



## Mort (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> 2. Artifacts; I still remember the first time reading the DMG (1e) section on artifacts, and how it sent a chill up my spine. Much as you note, the idea of these powerful things that we cannot match today.




Interestingly, while I found 4e magic items bland and uninspiring (hardly a unique opinion - and seemingly almost intended), 4e's treatment of Artifacts was really good.

I particularly liked how if an artifact's user drifted to far from the goals of the artifact, it would just disappear (or in the case of the Eye of Vecna, tear itself out of the user's eye socket and depart). 

If/when I introduce an artifact or 2 into my current 5e (Greyhawk) campaign, I'm stealing many of the elements straight from there.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> May be referring to the earlier takes on settings, and on the nature of items?  I'm not sure when - it already seemed to be happening a lot when I started - we got this idea that today's magic-users need to be able to make any magic item, when, in genre, the distant past was often a pinnacle of magical power or a golden age.  The genre's full of stuff like that:  Tolkien's Ring and named glowing swords and Palantirs are essentially artifacts of the ancients.  Artifacts/Relics were always part of the game.  Greyhawk had empires destroyed by war or disaster in the past.  Heck, even PoL fits that kind of theme, right up to (to my personal annoyance) the domains of the gods.




3.0 really was the first edition which went out of its way to give item creation into the hands of the players. 2e was actually harder to make items than 1e.

I understand the urge.  Tales of incredibly stingy DMs where nth level groups might have a few potions or scrolls between them were common even if those campaigns weren't.  Allowing PCs to construct items short circuits the DM bottleneck.  I find it undercuts one of my favoured aspects at the same time though.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

Nagol said:


> \
> 
> It makes PC advancement more unique -- sure there are 3 8th level fighters, but only I have the Hammer of Thunderbolts!




I was just thinking about this exact thing.  And I want it to extend beyond magic items in as many ways as possible. I don't want my character differing from another character of level X and class Y solely because of the choices I made at each level, I want my character to be a unique result of the adventures he/she had along the way. 

During my time away from D&D I played a lot of WoW, and the homogenization of that game, in a similar way to what happened in D&D, eventually spoiled it for me.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Allowing PCs to construct items short circuits the DM bottleneck.




Interesting.  And anathema, as far as I'm concerned.  The DM should have as much authority over the appearance of magic items, or really ANY items ("sorry, no rapiers in this world!"), as he/she does over what NPCs appear.

Maybe that's another facet that has ebbed and flowed over editions: the extent to which the rules are intended to relatively empower players over the DM.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Story is what makes items awesome to me. The hover disks that they find in my game world have a story so do the Drakes they might bond with to have flying mounts.  I had players who loved to create items all the way back in 1e and no guidelines for doing so. I also like the empowerment of being able to create ones more interesting than the game presents  by using the existing ones as components really but to some DMs maybe that is just work?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I understand the urge.  Tales of incredibly stingy DMs where nth level groups might have a few potions or scrolls between them were common even if those campaigns weren't.  Allowing PCs to construct items short circuits the DM bottleneck.  I find it undercuts one of my favoured aspects at the same time though.



 Yeah, 3e & 4e built the assumption of magic items into the game, in part, I suppose, so you could get CR and EL guidelines that remotely worked (4e also really reduced the /impact/ of items), that included a make/buy economy, which completely undercut the otherwise very genre-appropriate idea of the greatest magics being from the past (except for artifacts, of course).  I mean, the assumption had always been there, but in 1e  it was the random tables were weighted for some sort of Gygaxian balance target.  You could toss all that and turn on inherent bonuses (I'm sure the idea was floated sometime in 3e, but I could never find the reference), of course, and have only a very few, found items, to get back to that kind of sub-genre.
5e OTOH, goes straight there, again.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> So, on the one hand I feel compelled to point out that this is flatly false, the classes - if you actually played them - played /very/ differently, fighters were nothing like wizards were nothing like rogues were nothing like Paladins, etc...  The similarity was in structure, resource parity, and balance.
> 
> But, I have to remind myself, 'feel' is /very/ subjective.  So while the similarity was only in resource management, if you focused only on that similarity, and didn't care about the differences between an exploit using a weapon vs a spell using an implement, vs a controller interdicting the enemy and a striker murdering them one at a time, then, yeah, it's a 'feel.'
> 
> In either case, though, the complaint speaks /directly/ to the Primacy of Magic, as it requires magic be /better/ - more significant, more powerful, more critical or important - and it can't plausibly /be/ that if it's on the same resource schedule as, and remotely balanced with martial.



I think it doesnt  /directly/ speak to the Primacy of Magic it speaks to the /MUST BE DIFFERENT/ and classically "separate but equal" has just not worked... I know same language as more sensitive subjects (sorry @lowkey13) Now if you don't consider that resource structure better than whatever alternative is granted the non-caster classes? It could even be magic is secondary. The assumption however of empowerment by limited frequency means unless you have a structure for non-magic heroic exertion  or tricks of limited frequency you get weaker less climactic non-casters.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

I really think the charop mentality has pushed me to COC alot lately. I live rolling 3d6 in order, choosing an occupation, distributing skills, and seeing what happens. I almost wish they could find a way to have your starting skills distributed in a random manner also.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's what you mean by a range of genres?  Same game, same classes, different weapons & armors (Ok, and social structures)?
> That's eminently do-able from 3e on, little more than re-skinning gear is required.  Mail becomes mammoth hide, broadsword becomes macuahuitl, wizard's spell book becomes cave paintings...  OK, notched sticks & bones and bits of crystal for his traveling spellbook.
> 
> Steampunk's surprisingly easy if you're up for re-writing spells as technology (Myrlund famously did that back in the day, no?), easier the more amenable to re-skinning the system gets. You can go sci-fi be crossing over with gamma world with little issue.
> ...



Era but also mystery vs dungeon crawl vs exploration.  High magic vs low, pseudo medieval vs steam punk and so on.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 17, 2019)

Campbell said:


> My tastes have changed and Fourth Edition is no longer the game for me. However, I will say this: it is not just the case that some people disliked the game, but that it become socially unacceptable to like the game to the point where I was personally subjected to harassment at game stores for trying to buy Fourth Edition books. It was almost enough to get me to leave the hobby. After Essentials hit I moved further into indie games in part to escape that climate.
> 
> It's also the case that in completely unrelated topics many people continue to slam a game that has not been culturally relevant for years. I do not think this shows a good face for our hobby. It honestly makes it difficult for me to engage in this community.
> 
> I respect those who do not like the game for whatever reason. It's the continued insistence by some parts of the community that liking or having liked the game means there is something wrong with you and you are not a real part of the community that I find distasteful.




I just wanted to chime in that this 100% mirrored my own experiences, as well. As a 4E customer, I was repeatedly harassed or proselytized to at multiple different gaming stores as well as a Barnes & Noble whenever I tried to purchase a 4E product or, in one instance, even talk about the game with my own players while in earshot of one of the Essence of D&D gatekeepers.

Things are "better now", as @lowkey13 put it, only in the sense that the gatekeepers succeeded in stamping out the edition prematurely and scaring away many people who enjoyed it. You'll notice many of the people who used to be big 4E aficianados don't post here anymore. There's a reason for that. I myself rarely post here for much the same reason.

Like you, @Campbell , it bounced me off D&D hard and I explored indie games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark. I've recently returned to running 4E with a renewed sense of aporeciation coming from that perspective.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> There are many reasons that things were botched as you put it and contributed to economic short life including that crashing economy but I think that is tangential to why some considered it NOT D&D.
> 
> I think they really can be separated out .... but maybe not




I don't buy the crashing economy excuse as Pathfinder launched in the same conditions.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't buy the crashing economy excuse as Pathfinder launched in the same conditions.



Sure but there is more to it.
1 success for pathfinder is on a different scale than D&D (and all they needed was old players not a massive demand like was actually called for by the Bureaucrats on the back of D&D)
2 someone grabbing pathfinder very possibly had literally huge amounts of already usable material no real cost or available used pretty cheap.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't buy the crashing economy excuse as Pathfinder launched in the same conditions.



 It'd seem reasonable to expect RPGs to be downright counter-cyclical. 
It's also irrelevant to D&D-ness.  D&D, between the fad years of the 80s and today's tabletop renaissance, had not been much of a commercial success for it's IP holders.  4e could've been commercially successful and still not felt like it was Really D&D.



Oofta said:


> Era but also mystery vs dungeon crawl vs exploration.  High magic vs low, pseudo medieval vs steam punk and so on.



 Sounds like the 'pillars' :  Mystery = Social, dungeon crawl = Exploration + Combat, Exploration = Exploration.  
'Mystery,' at least, is a recognizable genre in it's own right.  (Picturing Brother Cadfael casting Speak With Dead to identify the murderer and Hold Person to apprehend him.)  Steampunk we've already mentioned, and D&D starts out quasi-medieval.

High Magic vs Low is always a thorny topic.  There's high- or low- magic setting, with standard-issue PCs.  There's settings with super-abundant or vanishingly rare magic /items/ ( back in the day, "low magic" usually seemed to mean very few items).  There's genres (most genres, really) with far less magic in the hands of the protagonists than D&D PCs tend to have on tap.

There's also genres where the nature or rationale or 'laws' of magic are quite different from D&D.  Science-fantasy can have fantasy trappings, but the magic is replaced by psionics, for instance (Athas partially does that, for instance - psionics has varied so much over the editions, in some, psionics as the only supernatural power would be wildly OP, or inadequate to keep the party going, others just fine. 5e, obviously, isn't ready for that one yet.)   Or all magic can come from the gods, or from spirits, or from Pacts with demons or something.  Or  'magic' might be found only in items.
It's quite a range.  A much broader range than Vancian.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I wish I could say that was an un-heard-of event.
> The first year 4e was out, I had the bizarre experience of watching a player sit down at a 4e table, declare he was trying it for the very first time, choose a rogue, complain bitterly about being 'forced' to use a dagger, and just generally dragged the whole thing down.  Twice.  In two separate games, on two different days.
> 
> Guess I don't look too distinctive at a convention, or he might've recognized me and moderated his behavior, or at least changed up his initial spiel.
> ...



 Grogs liked 4E it was good at getting new players. On Dragonsfoot back then it was very common "ex 4E player burnt out on 3E".

  Alot if clones popped up in 4E era but the process started in 3E. OSR was a reaction to 3E, 4E made it relatively popular.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Alot if clones popped up in 4E era but the process started in 3E. OSR was a reaction to 3E, 4E made it relatively popular.



 I suspect OSR may just have been the leading edge of the comeback cycle, but sure, those observations are entirely consistent with the whole "Not Really D&D" narrative.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

heretic888 said:


> I just wanted to chime in that this 100% mirrored my own experiences, as well. As a 4E customer, I was repeatedly harassed or proselytized to at multiple different gaming stores as well as a Barnes & Noble whenever I tried to purchase a 4E product or, in one instance, even talk about the game with my own players while in earshot of one of the Essence of D&D gatekeepers.
> 
> Things are "better now", as @lowkey13 put it, only in the sense that the gatekeepers succeeded in stamping out the edition prematurely and scaring away many people who enjoyed it. You'll notice many of the people who used to be big 4E aficianados don't post here anymore. There's a reason for that. I myself rarely post here for much the same reason.
> 
> Like you, @Campbell , it bounced me off D&D hard and I explored indie games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark. I've recently returned to running 4E with a renewed sense of aporeciation coming from that perspective.



That is one kind of better I suppose  I have met with some of it IRL but I am kind of brassy myself when it happens.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> *GREAT!*
> 
> Can you talk about that?



I'm afraid it would be edition warring.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 17, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> True, another 90' wave in the perfect storm was a minimum revenue goal double that of the entire industry combined.



That basically forcing too fast of production cycle and possibly the release rush too.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

The financial or popular success or failure of 4e is orthogonal to the point that is being made though.

The basic premise is that one of the elements that differentiates 4e from other editions is the lack of primacy of magic.  Magic items are massively toned down in power and the classes are far more on par with each other.  Martial classes are given abilities that equal (or even exceed) what magic can do.

That's not edition warring or complaining.  That's just true.  It's demonstrably true.  A 4e rogue is capable of reliably performing feats that any other edition rogue couldn't possibly replicate.  Such as "Cloud Jump" a 22nd level utility that lets the rogue chain two jump checks together without landing in between.  IOW, it's a low powered fly spell, that, by that level, would likely allow the rogue to "jump" about 60 feet or more as a single move.

In any other edition, doing this would be impossible for a rogue.  It would REQUIRE magic to replicate.  There is just no way for a rogue, without magic, to do this.

Again, folks keep adding in value judgements here that do not exist.  It's not that 4e is good, bad or indifferent.  It's not.  It's just DIFFERENT.

And that difference is a big difference.  So many of the criticisms of 4e can be boiled down to the lack of "magical ness" in magic.  The fact that 4e characters and the 4e system, makes magic far less "magical".  

Other criticisms, like "reliance on the battle grid" apply to other editions and can be safely ignored.  3e was nearly as dependent on the grid as 4e.  It was certainly expected in 3e that you would play on a grid (you don't have several pages of forced movement and Attacks of Opportunity rules for nothing).  Did 4e take it further?  Sure.  Of course it did.  It flat out presumed that the battle map would be used and leveraged that use in the rules.  But, it's not like 3e presumed theater of the mind combat.  Or 1e for that matter which has a large chunk of rules (mostly ignored to be fair) that relied on using a battle map, including things like space/reach and facing rules.   

So, using a battle map isn't essential to the game, since Basic/Expert, 2e and 5e aren't really focused on needing a battle map, but 1e, 3e and 4e all do.  

That's why the argument keeps getting brought up that most of the elements of 4e that people complain about DO exist in other editions.  Maybe not to the same degree, but, they are there.  OTOH, the one distinct element of 4e that differentiates it from all other editions is the degree to which magic plays a role in the game.

When trying to pin down the essential element of D&D, looking at the exceptions seems to be the logical route to take.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 18, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The financial or popular success or failure of 4e is orthogonal to the point that is being made though.
> 
> The basic premise is that one of the elements that differentiates 4e from other editions is the lack of primacy of magic.  Magic items are massively toned down in power and the classes are far more on par with each other.  Martial classes are given abilities that equal (or even exceed) what magic can do.
> 
> ...




If you have Rogue double jumping 60 feet without an explaination it's getting into a different genre. That's superhero or wuxia.

 If you can't see how that's not D&D as most people would understand it there's not a lot of hope. Doesn't have to be a magical explaination but low gravity would explain it. 

 That's different genre stuff.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, the one distinct element of 4e that differentiates it from all other editions is the degree to which magic plays a role in the game.




Being based around set piece battles vs. numerous smaller battles of attrition seems pretty distinct to me.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The financial or popular success or failure of 4e is orthogonal to the point that is being made though.
> 
> The basic premise is that one of the elements that differentiates 4e from other editions is the lack of primacy of magic.  Magic items are massively toned down in power and the classes are far more on par with each other.  Martial classes are given abilities that equal (or even exceed) what magic can do.
> 
> ...




I really don't understand why this is seen as such a controversial idea, or why people are getting offended by it.  People may like or dislike a game for certain reasons, but that's not what's being discussed here.  It's specifically the "Doesn't feel like D&D" statement (didn't Oofta just repeat it above?) that is being examined.  The game made a shift to rely less on magic; it's a defining feature of it that -isn't- found in other editions.  It's right there in the game and not really debatable.

Hussar is right, this is just the logical route to take.  It's not about like/dislike.  The visceral responses to something so evident are really perplexing...


----------



## Eric V (Sep 18, 2019)

Double post.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Counterpoint:
> 
> 1. No. It's not.
> 
> ...




Huh, really?  Because, here's the response right under yours.



Zardnaar said:


> If you have Rogue double jumping 60 feet without an explaination it's getting into a different genre. That's superhero or wuxia.
> 
> If you can't see how that's not D&D as most people would understand it there's not a lot of hope. Doesn't have to be a magical explaination but low gravity would explain it.
> 
> That's different genre stuff.




Seems like it's EXACTLY what people are saying.  We're got @Zardnaar, right here, saying that 4e isn't D&D.  Do I need more examples @lowkey13?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Imaro said:


> Being based around set piece battles vs. numerous smaller battles of attrition seems pretty distinct to me.




This is a bit problematic.

1.  The notion that 4e is based around set piece battles isn't true.  The live plays that Chris Perkins did during 4e's run showed this not to be true.  Particularly when he would run multiple encounters, as in 5 or 6 encounters, in a 2 or 3 hour session.  Some were set piece, but, not all.

2.  Set piece encounters are found in every edition of D&D.  Going back to every single module ever published, you'll find set piece encounters routinely detailed.  Whether it's the Hall of the Giants, or whatever, set piece encounters are part and parcel to adventure design in every edition.  

So, as far as set piece vs numerous smaller battles goes, that's largely in the eye of the beholder.  I can find examples of both within and without every edition of D&D.  

To be fair, 4e tended to follow the 3e route of balancing on the encounter, rather than over the course of the day.  3e achieved this through cheap magic items like wands of cure light wounds and scrolls.  I could see if you played 3e without healing wands, it might seem like a bigger difference.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 18, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> If you have Rogue double jumping 60 feet without an explaination it's getting into a different genre. That's superhero or wuxia.
> 
> If you can't see how that's not D&D as most people would understand it there's not a lot of hope. Doesn't have to be a magical explaination but low gravity would explain it.
> 
> That's different genre stuff.




You mean like 1E oriental adventures. That was very wuxia. I still play with that product. Although 90 percent of the time I don’t want wuxia in my ad&d there is a rare time when the ninja bug hits me. 

There was also a 2E ninja handbook. 
There is a monk class in the 1E phb. And RC has the mystic class that was just the monk with a different name. 

And the monk first premiered with all its wuxia in the 1975 blackmoor supplement.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> You mean like 1E oriental adventures. That was very wuxia. I still play with that product. Although 90 percent of the time I don’t want wuxia in my ad&d there is a rare time when the ninja bug hits me.
> 
> There was also a 2E ninja handbook.
> There is a monk class in the 1E phb. And RC has the mystic class that was just the monk with a different name.
> ...




Monks semi magical and OA is a wuxia type splat book. Generally I don't care what goes in splats. Raven Queens Guide to Nerath big whoop. 5E OA who cares. 5E Book if Nine Swords knock yourself out.

 I don't care what they add to D&D I do care how/where they do it especially if they remove stuff. I don't like Ravenloft but it's opt in so I don't care if it exists. It's not for me and to make it appeal to me it would alienate fans of RL and I don't expect that.

Also like 2E no Monks.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> If you have Rogue double jumping 60 feet without an explaination it's getting into a different genre. That's superhero or wuxia.
> 
> If you can't see how that's not D&D as most people would understand it there's not a lot of hope. Doesn't have to be a magical explaination but low gravity would explain it.
> 
> That's different genre stuff.




I was kind of startled that the example of this super-jump was used as an example.  So 4e reduced this imaginary "Primacy of Magic" by...giving rogues magical powers?  WTF?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> K? THXBYE!




See you in the post-apocalyptic thread....


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I was kind of startled that the example of this super-jump was used as an example.  So 4e reduced this imaginary "Primacy of Magic" by...giving rogues magical powers?  WTF?



But it's not magic!!! Makes no sense either but nvrmind.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I was kind of startled that the example of this super-jump was used as an example.  So 4e reduced this imaginary "Primacy of Magic" by...giving rogues magical powers?  WTF?




Also an edition where anyone can cast magic by taking Ritual Caster.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> That rarity wasnt because people really wanted to play a celibate bible banger



Correct.  The rarity was because people panicked and incorrectly believed that they always needed a dedicated healer and/or lacked faith in the DM to know that there wasn't the maximum amount of healing when he designed encounters.

And people also didn't really want to play a mundane and humdrum game.  The player of the fighter wasn't thrilled about his +3 plate and ring of regeneration because of the primacy of magic.  He was thrilled because magic is just plain cool.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Remember when rings if regeneration were the bee's knees?


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Remember when rings if regeneration were the bee's knees?



Oh god yes.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Oh god yes.




spoilers spoiler spoilers







































And I found mine inside the T-Rex (I think that was the dinosaur) in the original isle of Dread. I felt like a kid on Christmas morning. Everyone cheered for several minutes and the game came to a stop for a while. That’s why I prefer the finding of magic items over the just craft it or buy it type of games.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Personally I always felt by level 22 there is genre bending implied by the adversaries you meet this is where I bring up the nonsense of a normal man killing a house sized brilliant monster armored like a tank with his itty bitty sword ....  and utterly human levels of ability (I can find people on youtube making the same attack rate with a bow as the highest level fighter... it isnt even vaguely heroic let alone... super heroic.)


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Oh god yes.




It's something I almost never handed out. In AD&D 2E there was a grand total of 2 holy avengers handed out.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> spoilers spoiler spoilers
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's D&D right there. 

 It's something I noticed playing 2E with modern players. 

 They found finding magic items more fun. 
 Might also be power level as well since 3E+ gated magic items behind levels. Finding a holy avenger level 6 to 8 wouldn't be unheard of. 

 In modern D&D a lot if the high end stuff you don't get to use.  In AD&D they do so there's that aspect as well.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It's something I almost never handed out. In AD&D 2E there was a grand total of 2 holy avengers handed out.




That’s kind of the way it should be to me for the games I like to play. If every paladin gets a holy avenger it’s not exciting. If every wizard gets a staff of the magi it’s not exciting. I think players should be surprised by magic items and how they will work in the game. And maybe they will find something cool like the modron crucible or the wand of wizardry.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Correct.  The rarity was because people panicked



Poppy poo the DM holding players hands all over again... sheesh. No. People werent imagining the need for that healer. The system made it damn nigh obligatory.

Everybody else is wrong doesn't seem to work for anyone defending 4e ...

Or maybe people didnt want Fantasy Vietnam and the cleric was a patch to try and fix that just a bit


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Might also be power level as well since 3E+ gated magic items behind levels. Finding a holy avenger level 6 to 8 wouldn't be unheard of.



Monty Haul grins looking over your shoulder...


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Monty Haul grins looking over your shoulder...




 Maybe but the game wasn't really expected to go high level. 

In 3E you still had holy avengers but you could buy them and there were better blades for cheaper so it watered it down.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

Mort said:


> Interestingly, while I found 4e magic items bland and uninspiring (hardly a unique opinion - and seemingly almost intended), 4e's treatment of Artifacts was really good.
> 
> I particularly liked how if an artifact's user drifted to far from the goals of the artifact, it would just disappear (or in the case of the Eye of Vecna, tear itself out of the user's eye socket and depart).
> 
> If/when I introduce an artifact or 2 into my current 5e (Greyhawk) campaign, I'm stealing many of the elements straight from there.



Yeah.  I remember really liking how 4e handled artifacts.  I disliked 4e overall, but really enjoyed some aspects of it.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Poppy poo the DM holding players hands all over again... sheesh. No. People werent imagining the need for that healer. The system made it damn nigh obligatory.
> 
> Everybody else is wrong doesn't seem to work for anyone defending 4e ...
> 
> Or maybe people didnt want Fantasy Vietnam and the cleric was a patch to try and fix that just a bit



Er, not one thing I said involved the DM holding any hands.  The DMs job is to provide a fun challenge to the players.  Period.  Full stop.  If the party has no healers, it's a bad DM who just throws things they can't handle at them and the PC's die.  It's not hand holding to provide challenging encounters to the group, regardless of PC composition.  

Your view here is why the problem of "everyone needs a cleric" exists.   You created your problem and now you want others to fix it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I was kind of startled that the example of this super-jump was used as an example.  So 4e reduced this "Primacy of Magic" by...giving rogues magical powers?  WTF?



 Either way you slice it, yes.

If you look at limited-use martial maneuvers that have power rivaling that of same-level, same-recharge magical spells as meaning the martial power must be magical, regardless of what any fluff text says, then, well, there's /nothing but magic/.  How can something meaningfully rank First in a list of one?   

If you don't go there, if you accept that martial powers aren't magical, even though they're extraordinary, and rival the power of magic, then, well, magic isn't top of the list, either, is it?  

Either way, it wont "feel magical" anymore, because it's not "just better." 

There needs to be a gap between the two, to bestow Primacy on the correct one.   It can cut both ways:  it can notionally 'balance' by making powerful/critically-important magic limited in meaningful, but manageable ways, so that it can be used when it'll have the most impact, but, not just all the time.  Vancian does that.  Anti-magic is another layer of it.  Spell interruption used to be a component of it, that concentration echoes however feebly, etc.  

Every other edition of D&D gives you magic that's very powerful, limited (less so with each successive ed, but still) in manageable ways, juxtaposed with non-magical options that are less varied, less potent, but limited only by the need to be alive and conscious to keep using them.  That supports the Primacy of Magic.

(And that's not even getting into magic /items/ which 1e & 5e, in particular, do a really good job of making feel particularly magical - and 4e demoted to glorified fashion accessories.)



lowkey13 said:


> And I also don't like people highjacking threads for their personal wars, even if they start their latest edition wars by saying, AKTUALLY, IM NOT HERE FOR AN EDITION WAR, BUT IM GONNA THROW SOME LOGS ON THE FIRE!





Oofta said:


> I try to avoid edition wars.  Just because I burned out on 4E doesn't mean that it was a bad game, it just wasn't for me at least not when it got above the initial tier of play.
> 
> But I know a lot of people that felt that the edition just didn't "feel" like D&D.  It had a lot of things in common with D&D.  The basic structure was there, so why did it feel different?
> 
> ...


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

As someone who has grown apart from 4th Edition I can say that I am definitely not a fan of the primacy of magic, but have found other games that address it better without elements like abstract martial resources, bloated monster hit points, or abilities that do not correspond to something your character is doing in the narrative. I do not like the stuff like this in Fifth Edition either and it is all over the place.

Also while Fourth Edition addressed this pretty well in combat, it never really addressed the noncombat prowess of a fighter or rogue in a meaningful way. Casters still very much had an advantage here due to the power and versatility of Ritual Casting, particularly because without daily limits casters could almost do more outside of combat. Classes like Fighters also had a real dearth of skills.

I find with the way this works in practice that Fifth Edition feels pretty close to Fourth Edition. In combat there is pretty good parity between our Fighter, My Barbarian and the casters in the party (Sorcerer, Cleric/Druid, Warlock), but outside of combat they have significant advantages that the rest of us lack. A large part of this is that the martial characters just are not broadly skilled enough to represent competent adventurers. The other issue is that skills lack the same sort of defined niche that spells have. Also spells (and rituals in practice due to the way skills worked in Fourth Edition) are basically automatic.

My own experience tells me the way to really do this is to define a clear conceptual space for each caster so they are as specialized as anyone else, make spells less certain, and define a clear conceptual space for martial skill and be fine with letting at will things be awesome. My experience also tells me that many Dungeons and Dragons players would not like that.

This is pretty much what RuneQuest and Legend of the Five Rings do. It's also basically what Pathfinder 2 does.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Campbell said:


> As someone who has grown apart from 4th Edition I can say that I am definitely not a fan of the primacy of magic, but have found other games that address it better without elements like abstract martial resources,



 "separate but equal" -- not convinced.  The assumption of power due to the price of limited resources is not going away any time soon.  



Campbell said:


> Also while Fourth Edition addressed this pretty well in combat, it never really addressed the noncombat prowess of a fighter or rogue in a meaningful way. Casters still very much had an advantage here due to the power and versatility of Ritual Casting, particularly because without daily limits casters could almost do more outside of combat. Classes like Fighters also had a real dearth of skills.



I will generally say I kind of agree but the divergence was smaller than it might be because skills were allowed to be potentially very powerful this was a system assumption and it was implied with skill powers and other things too.  And martial practices I have put some decent amount of homebrew development in response to this - arguably someone said I am bit fiddling on the balance because I can.  And a few martial type classes fighter and barbarian did to be more skill enabled because they were the core of skill challenge which brought to the table the idea that rituals only ever solve a sub part of a significant problem somebody using the history skill in a library might accomplish similar to speak to the dead was a direct assumption.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Your view here is why the problem of "everyone needs a cleric" exists.



When most people play the game they seem to rely on resources the game provides like all those not designed for any party random encounter tables and no real guidelines about what might be level appropriate.  The fact was the cleric having super huge impact on play was exactly the primacy of magic FULL stop.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> When most people play the game they seem to rely on resources the game provides like all those not designed for any party random encounter tables and no real guidelines about what might be level appropriate.  The fact was the cleric having super huge impact on play was exactly the primacy of magic FULL stop.



I never felt compelled to have a cleric, or a wizard, or any other particular class in the party.  I still had tons of fun playing.  I also loved to play fighters and rogues.  I never felt outclassed or invalidated by wizards or clerics.  They were tons of fun to play with or without spellcasters around. 

Full stop.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Campbell said:


> My own experience tells me the way to really do this is to define a clear conceptual space for each caster so they are as specialized as anyone else, make spells less certain, and define a clear conceptual space for martial skill and be fine with letting at will things be awesome.



Tony likes to point out something to the effect that you could give the fighter every single martial archetypes non-combat arena abilities allow free swapping and it would still not compete with the versatility of an old school mage.  Because I think of there ability to be "master class" at that versatility


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

One of the problems in creating a magic system is that it has to blow your mind. It has to feel magical and special.  It has to give the element of wow and look what I found. Look what I can do with this.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I never felt outclassed or invalidated by wizards or clerics.



That high level thief had every ability undermined... that i could tell back in 1e and the level 9 fighter felt like a henchman to the level 10 or 11 mage.  Anecdotes notwithstanding (you get how they arent really important?) Your comments themselves have demonstrated how dramatically different and how more difficult the game had to be played without the caster it reminds me of the pdf Tony quoted for 5e how things would be 10x harder without the casters.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I never felt compelled to have a cleric, or a wizard, or any other particular class in the party.  I still had tons of fun playing.  I also loved to play fighters and rogues.  I never felt outclassed or invalidated by wizards or clerics.  They were tons of fun to play with or without spellcasters around.
> 
> Full stop.




In pre 3.x days it was never the fighter I pitied. It was the thief. Although I never had problems with people not wanting to play any of these classes it was the thief that I saw having trouble keeping up at higher levels.   And it’s amazing that I don’t hear near as much crying from their group. Thief was playing on hard mode. I respected them.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> One of the problems in creating a magic system is that it has to blow your mind.



It has to be compared to modern technology in many ways... and we get more awesome as we go along.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> It has to be compared to modern technology in many ways... and we get more awesome as we go along.




I think it’s very person specific and generational to an extent I think. I dont like magic to feel like comic books with at will effects. I like a little casting time and the feel that each spell is specifically crafted and built from esoteric components and secrets and magic words, sigils, and magic diagrams, and checking the constellations to see if the time is right  and such things.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I was kind of startled that the example of this super-jump was used as an example.  So 4e reduced this imaginary "Primacy of Magic" by...giving rogues magical powers?  WTF?




Are you really surprised?  I mean, you've been in those umpteen skills threads.  Under 5e rules there is zero chance of a rogue doing this.  None.  Flat out can't.  And, we have @Zardnaar talking about how it isn't D&D to allow it.

Seems to me to fit perfectly with what @lowkey13 was claiming that no one was claiming.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> and checking the constellations to see if the time is right  and such things.



That mucks with D&D assumptions generally speaking (Find familiar? is the only one off the top of my head was anything like that )


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> That mucks with D&D assumptions generally speaking (Find familiar? is the only one off the top of my head was anything like that )




Never played much pre 3.x or COC?


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Are you really surprised?  I mean, you've been in those umpteen skills threads.  Under 5e rules there is zero chance of a rogue doing this.  None.  Flat out can't.  And, we have @Zardnaar talking about how it isn't D&D to allow it.
> 
> Seems to me to fit perfectly with what @lowkey13 was claiming that no one was claiming.



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


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Never played much pre 3.x or COC?



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

Daily is silly

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


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Runequest was the first time I seen rituals you could only do once a month or on a specific month of the year... its a dramatically different flavor.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> COC?



Call of Cthulu? No


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> One of the problems in creating a magic system is that it has to blow your mind. It has to feel magical and special.  It has to give the element of wow and look what I found. Look what I can do with this.




Bingo!

And right there, ladies and gentlemen, there is the essence of D&D.  Magic has to feel "magical and special".  Which means it HAS to be better than non-magical, otherwise, it's not magical or special and doesn't give that element of wow and look what I found.  

Imagine a D&D wizards needed to spend hours to cast a single spell.  Or days, or weeks even.  Where no magic item is better than a +1 sword.  Nothing.  Magical items are never more powerful than a +1 sword.

People would absolutely hate it.  It wouldn't even be considered D&D.  Heck, apparently allowing a 23rd level character to jump twice as far as normal is a bridge too far to keep it in the D&D family.    Sorry, bad pun.

All these examples do nothing but prove the point.  We LOVE finding that ring of regeneration.  We REMEMBER that Holy Avenger.  Table goes nuts when the wizard drops that second fireball on the baddies, turning them all into crispy critters.  How did you beat the gathering of giants in the Hall?  Well, we dropped two fireballs on them and those 42 hp giants all went poof.  On and on and on.  

Magic being "magical and special" (if that's a more acceptable phrase than "Primacy of Magic" ) is the essence of D&D.  It's the one strand the binds all editions together.  Stray from that and people start claiming that it's not really D&D anymore.  Doesn't matter whether I or @Tony Vargas or @lowkey13 all think that 4e is part of the D&D family.  I know that we do.  But, the broader perception, that unless Magic is "magical and special" it's not really D&D is very real and very easy to display.

Where @lowkey13 is making a mistake is that he thinks that I'm attaching a value judgement to this.  I'm not.  I'm simply looking at the facts.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I think it’s very person specific and generational to an extent I think. I dont like magic to feel like comic books with at will effects.



If all magic were 1 minute rituals up to hours of rituals it would feel like magic in mythology and legend aside from the odd man out of Celtic Sorcerers... but that wouldn't float either


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

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


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> In pre 3.x days it was never the fighter I pitied. It was the thief. Although I never had problems with people not wanting to play any of these classes it was the thief that I saw having trouble keeping up at higher levels.   And it’s amazing that I don’t hear near as much crying from their group. Thief was playing on hard mode. I respected them.



I loved thieves.  Nobody else had the skills to get places the way they did and I got lots of scouting time where I would be the first one to see the wondrous unknown.............and be eaten.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Er, not one thing I said involved the DM holding any hands.  The DMs job is to provide a fun challenge to the players.  Period.  Full stop.  If the party has no healers, it's a bad DM who just throws things they can't handle at them and the PC's die.



That feels like a very 'new' idea, to me.  Then I realize it's almost 20 years since 3.0 introduced CR guidelines. 

But, yeah, old school, you show up w/o a cleric, you fight the same 12 zombies in the moathouse as if you had three. You die.

Common pact back in the day:  first one to die rolls a cleric.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> That high level thief had every ability undermined... that i could tell back in 1e and the level 9 fighter felt like a henchman to the level 10 or 11 mage.  Anecdotes notwithstanding (you get how they arent really important?)




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


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


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




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


Garthanos said:


> If you arent limited to a time of year for your casting... you do not have that.  Ever played games that actually had constellations and time of year or day of month limits and such affecting them... apparently not.
> 
> Daily is silly
> 
> If COC is Cthulu then I do not doubt they have something closer to in flavor.




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


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


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



Repetition doesn’t make it true, bud.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Repetition doesn’t make it true, bud.




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


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


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



Okay? 

They’re wrong, too.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Repetition doesn’t make it true, bud.



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


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


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




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

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

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


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


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




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


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> @Tony Vargas I think you’re 180 degrees off when you say that the range of play in dnd is narrow compared to other games.
> 
> You can play almost literally anything in dnd with an amount of work relative to how “fantasy” it is.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Eh, the minis game wasn’t ever that popular, and throughout the end of 3.5 through the span of 4e, they narrowed the focus of the brand.
> 
> 4e _can_ be a very fun exercise in skirmish tactics, but the idea that it was primarily that, or that it did only that well, is such preposterous nonsense that I will never believe that anyone who claims it is both arguing in good faith, and actually played 4e for more than a couple sessions with a DM that barely understood the game.
> 
> It’s akin to someone claiming that Luke Skywalker never whined about anything in his whole life and was always a cool dude. It’s objectively false.




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

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

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

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


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


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




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

It's a pretty well supportable claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did I miss anything?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Not really.  Err, not that counter opinions don't matter, but, rather, he's not really making an opinion claim.
> 
> It's a pretty well supportable claim.
> 
> ...




Magic is integral to the essence of D&D. How powerful it is and how it operates in the context of the game is not. 

 4E didn't tank primarily because of the magic. Casuals didn't grok powers and a tactical skirmish game is more niche than beer n pretzels D&D.

Flaw 1.
Making D&D a skirmish game.

Flaw 2.
Powers.

Note most are gone or vary by class? Designers of 5E knew what they could sell. Mearls knew it in 2010, 5E design started 2011.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Magic is integral to the essence of D&D. How powerful it is and how it operates in the context of the game is not.
> 
> 4E didn't tank primarily because of the magic. Casuals didn't grok powers and a tactical skirmish game is more niche than beer n pretzels D&D.
> 
> ...



See, you're conflating the economics end of things with perception.  I mean, 3e tanked as well, remember.  There's a reason we got 3.5 a year early and then 4e not that long after that.  3e is hardly a stellar success.  But, that doesn't matter.

People don't look at 3e and claim that it isn't D&D.   3e is hardly as divisive as 4e was.  Even 2e wasn't as divisive as 4e was.  Whether 4e succeeded monetarily is irrelevant to the discussion.  What IS relevant is the perception that 4e isn't D&D and the reasons behind that perception.

Which have nothing whatsoever to do with how much money it made.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

aramis erak said:


> You can do the same in any rpg. The question is whether or not the feel the system brings is compatible with the genre and setting.
> 
> I mean, there was a guy who used AD&D 1E for Traveller's OTU.
> 
> ...



Nah. 

3e era d20 wasn’t as robust a game as 5e, for one thing. 

For another, class and level is hardly antithetical to science fiction. 

For a third and most important point, you seem to have ignored a rather key part of my post. “With an amount of work relative to how ‘Fantasy’ it is.” Making hard sci-fi or “realistic Rome” is going to benefit best from purpose built rules. 

Building fantasy space opera with sci-fi elements works just fine with a new set of classes and new gear. Hell, new subclasses could probably do 80% of the player option work. 
Fantasy alt-history Rome isn’t hard at all to do with 5e. At most I’d use the classes from Adventures in Middle Earth, and that only if I want low fantasy AU Rome. 
But like, Shadowrun, Star Wars? Easy as lyin’.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> And you're denying people's feeling, seems to be a fairly common tactic. I made it to level 8 and gave up.
> 
> It reminded me of the minis game. It was designed by the same people. Wasn't exact of course in even gets a mention in Art and Arcana.
> 
> ...



I’m not denying feelings, I’m denying nonsensical arguments about the nature of something that are so far from reality as to be akin to someone describing Lord of The Rings while criticizing Star Wars. 

4e has tactics, sure. It also has more support for non combat play than any other edition, more lore per page of rulesbook than most, and facilitated role playing for people who actually tried to play it as written instead of flailing about it not being whatever previous edition they preferred more than most editions. 

I mean, it’s like the “every power is the same” arguments. Literally objectively false, but they persist regardless. No one who actually read the powers and used them in play as they are written could possibly walk away thinking that was true. To get 5 powers that genuinely do the same thing you’d have to crack open the character builder and sift through every class with all sources turned on, and even then they’d each be different as a result of core class features. 

OTOH, I had a group all through 4e that literally could not have cared less about tactical play if their lives depended on it, who all loved very minute of playing it, some of whom became dnd nerds again or for the first time because of 4e. 

The fact is, 4e divided the fan base because it was presented so differently, because vocal “haters” screeched their hate at literally any mention of it, and because people didn’t like that fighters could do seemingly impossible stuff.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, it’s like the “every power is the same” arguments. Literally objectively false, but they persist regardless. No one who actually read the powers and used them in play as they are written could possibly walk away thinking that was true. To get 5 powers that genuinely do the same thing you’d have to crack open the character builder and sift through every class with all sources turned on, and even then they’d each be different as a result of core class features.



Rather than calling people liars when they report this reaction to 4E, have you considered how they could have sincerely formed this impression in spite of the powers not _literally_ being the same? That seems like a pretty outrageous strawman, to be honest: I would be extremely surprised if anyone in the history of the edition war has actually asserted that every power is literally the same. So maybe explore the possibility that, to the players in question, they're similar enough to feel repetitive (an impression perhaps exacerbated by the fact that they're presented as page after page of identically-formatted stat blocks).


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Powers are repetitive and soak up page count.

 Previous editions had spells but they weren't as repetitive. 4E had nothing like 2E or 3E illusions, nothing that could reward clever play. It was lists if damage dice with maybe some effect.


----------



## Coroc (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Not really.  Err, not that counter opinions don't matter, but, rather, he's not really making an opinion claim.
> 
> It's a pretty well supportable claim.
> 
> ...



 Agree with all except 
_5.  Every edition of the game is either impossible or very, very difficult to play without casters except for the one edition that many claim isn't D&D, 4e._

I do not know 4e to well, I do know that it is all about powers (mechanically)  refluffed to whatever the class needs, So instead of what you wrote you could have written: It is easy to refluff magical abilities to mundane sounding abilities mechanically doing the same as their magic fluffed counterparts in 4e.
Whether that counts, I am not sure.
5e is quite easy to play without casters if you allow for resting. Otoh some of the non caster classes e,g, fighters second wind sounds like magical healing refluffed to something abstract mundane, so it is the same.
With this been said, even former editions could be tuned to a no caster scenario, you just would to have to adapt your dm/playstyle to natural healing rests playing a major role.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

No cleric you do set piece battles and more focus on exploration and RP.

 Think a real Ife soldier, 90 to 95% of the time you're not in combat.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Coroc said:


> Agree with all except
> _5.  Every edition of the game is either impossible or very, very difficult to play without casters except for the one edition that many claim isn't D&D, 4e._
> 
> I do not know 4e to well, I do know that it is all about powers (mechanically)  refluffed to whatever the class needs, So instead of what you wrote you could have written: It is easy to refluff magical abilities to mundane sounding abilities mechanically doing the same as their magic fluffed counterparts in 4e.
> ...




Well, depends on what you count as a caster.  I mean, if we're talking about classes that can cast a spell, if you go without casters entirely, then you have, what, 2 fighters, 2 rogue and 1 monk and 1 barbarian class.  That's not a very long lived group unless the DM specifically tailors the game for that group.  And, frankly, when I tried pitching this to my group to play a real swords and sandals kind of game, they absolutely balked.  I had to add in paladins and rangers before they'd even consider it and, out of the six characters, 3 were paladins or rangers.  We wound up with just as much magic as any other group.

Maybe a better way of saying it is that every edition of the game expects you to play with casters.  Even going back to AD&D, most modules would advise you to have the basic six characters - 3 fighter types, a cleric, wizard and thief.  Later edition modules would automatically assume you had casters in the group and would be designed with that in mind - teleport magic, information gathering, etc.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


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



Referencing 3e beng way over powered casters? because all the limits had been stripped (even if the limits were inconsistently implemented before they were at least limits and talented dm?


Zardnaar said:


> No cleric you do set piece battles and more focus on exploration and RP.



Ditch every module ever designed, random encounter tables and all the DM advice...  there was a reason it was rare, It didnt seem supported not really.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Heh, while I am sure that folks out there have played the no-caster parties, I'd point out that if you look at the pre-gen characters of EVERY SINGLE MODULE that includes pre-gen characters, you'll find parties with casters.

I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that the game presupposes you will have casters in the group.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Casuals won't care though they won't know or care about a lot of online terms.  5MWD they won't understand the term.



Can't say I blame them.

5 Months Without Dinner doesn't make any sense to me either.  Or was it 5 Magnificent Wasting Diseases?

Eh, I don't know anymore...


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Magic can color objects through prestidigitation, yet no amount of training will allow a martial character to do such a nearly useless thing.



Give the martial character a can of paint and a brush, however, and wonders can be worked.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


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



had nothing to do with grid the ability was defined to work that way - but there were other abilities and it was obviously designed for the Ninja aspect of rogue (if you werent shooting for that and a ranged one at that you probably do not pick it) . It was a part of the concept of martial abilities progressing into demigod levels of awesome  ....  heck that level 22 power mentioned earlier is at a level where you might be learning the pathways to walk back from the land of the dead or other things.

Applying apprentice level and low level Heroic sensibilities to what is done by Paragons and Epic characters is just meh. Kind of like assuming it's an everyday guy who can barely lift a couple hundred pounds (*instead of someone following down the path to demigodhood) who is beating down a house sized brilliant monster with armor like a tank who can fly and is equipped with built in flamethrowers....

That said, some of the epic destinies were less mythic in that fashion of course assumptions just as there were quite attractive alternatives to "hide in plain sight"


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> For those mysterious cleric free parties.



Once you get beyond low level in 1e-2e each heavy Fighter pretty much needs her own hench Cleric whose one and only job is to keep her upright; because the amount of curing otherwise required would overwhelm the PC Cleric unless curing was all that PC ever did.


> I did manage to see someone who claimed a bag of holding full of the damn things SMH... monty haul was a real thing (did not want to play with that one)



It could happen, I suppose, if a character is high enough level to make its own potions (6th or 8th in 1e, I forget which); and the party is willing to take a year or two off from adventuring in order to allow said character to churn 'em out (and can afford the ingredients); and the DM allows it.

It's the 'take a year or two off' part that always trips this up IME.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

DMs discretion on how to make a healing potion. Mine was holy water, a blessing (clw)  by a priest and some rare herbs reknowned for health benefits. 

 Fairly easy to make by AD&D standards.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> DMs discretion on how to make a healing potion. Mine was holy water, a blessing (clw)  by a priest and some rare herbs reknowned for health benefits.



Stock up on a dozen before the dungeon run?


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> That rarity wasnt because people really wanted to play a celibate bible banger



If "celibate bible banger" is your take-away impression of the Cleric class it's no wonder you don't like them very much.

Of the great many Clerics I've seen played over the years I don't think that description would apply to any of them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Stock up on a dozen before the dungeon run?




 The herbs weren't that common but you could make a few at the right levels. 

 A temple to the healing goddess/god usually had them (laumspur). 

 No cleric though a lot less battles or get in good with the local temple.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> If "celibate bible banger" is your take-away impression of the Cleric class it's no wonder you don't like them very much.
> 
> Of the great many Clerics I've seen played over the years I don't think that description would apply to any of them.



They originally seemed to be following christian myth miracle paths with added hypocrisy of beating the infidel with a blunt weapon to avoid "spilling blood" .. so it sure seemed to fit.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> If "celibate bible banger" is your take-away impression of the Cleric class it's no wonder you don't like them very much.
> 
> Of the great many Clerics I've seen played over the years I don't think that description would apply to any of them.




Cleric of love goddess


Only celibate clerics were specialty priests or priests handbook specials 2E.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Only celibate clerics were specialty priests or priests handbook specials 2E.



They didnt even have support for non-judeo christian style clerics until those specialty priests came out...


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> It doesnt do attrition combat well... is attrition combat the essence of D&D?



I think a solid argument can be made that attrition-based adventuring (beyond just a single combat) was an essence of D&D from inception on through 3e, but not since.



> Where as Heroic center piece battles are definitely not since a spell caster could one shot an encounter or simply decide we win In many editions  (paladins even seem able to in 5e) ARE you sure that doesn't relate to primacy of magic? If you take away the trivializing of otherwise big battles....



Magic-heavy editions can still do the big set-piece battle very well - I've seen (and run) my share in both 1e and 3e - but they need to be set up differently than in 4e; and the enemies either need to be able to fight fire with fire (i.e. have their own magic) or have a big numerical superiority such that the PC front-liners can't always keep the casters out of melee.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> They didnt even have support for non-judeo christian style clerics until those specialty priests came out...




 So? Clerics weren't celibate in any phb. D&D cleric was never a Christian type priest. 

 Except in 2E where it was an option. Only in 2E as well.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> I think a solid argument can be made that attrition-based adventuring (beyond just a single combat) was an essence of D&D from inception on through 3e, but not since.



clw wands and cheap potions became dujour from what I heard in 3e and while that may not be all that is required. its possibly one component.  Its handy to have a solid grasp of party durability or you have anti-climactic death by random arrow.



Lanefan said:


> Magic-heavy editions can still do the big set-piece battle very well - I've seen (and run) my share in both 1e and 3e - but they need to be set up differently than in 4e; and the enemies either need to be able to fight fire with fire (i.e. have their own magic)  or have a big numerical superiority such that the PC front-liners can't always keep the casters out of melee.



Well that is support for primacy of magic right there... they have to be set up to "deal" with casters.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> So?



The class dripped with flavor of that one mythos including the hypocrisy of its historic members who engaged in war while pretending to follow.... never mind.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Once you get beyond low level in 1e-2e each heavy Fighter pretty much needs her own hench Cleric whose one and only job is to keep her upright; because the amount of curing otherwise required would overwhelm the PC Cleric unless curing was all that PC ever did.



Hence the scaling heals of 4e...


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> The class dripped with flavor of that one mythos including the hypocrisy of its historic members who engaged in war while pretending to follow.... never mind.




Very very loosely based on one individual.

 Your the one projecting the cleric was never celibate in a phb. 

Druid was very very loosely based on Celtic mythology. 

 If you don't like something just state it, don't make up crap.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> A 4e rogue is capable of reliably performing feats that any other edition rogue couldn't possibly replicate.  Such as "Cloud Jump" a 22nd level utility that lets the rogue chain two jump checks together without landing in between.  IOW, it's a low powered fly spell, that, by that level, would likely allow the rogue to "jump" about 60 feet or more as a single move.
> 
> In any other edition, doing this would be impossible for a rogue.  It would REQUIRE magic to replicate.



Actually it would simply require being a Monk instead of a Rogue.  Monks had some crazy leap-jump-climb stuff they could do in 3e and earlier - very Crouching-Tiger-like - and Monks being able to do this sort of thing without magic is perfectly cool with me as it suits their genre.

I can't get behind Rogues being able to do this stuff to nearly the same extent, though.  Doesn't fit.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> That’s kind of the way it should be to me for the games I like to play. If every paladin gets a holy avenger it’s not exciting. If every wizard gets a staff of the magi it’s not exciting.



Heh.

The only time I've ever seen a Staff (well, in this case a Wand) of the Magi in play it went like this: character acquires the wand in town (can't remember if by purchase or she'd had it specially commissioned) at cost of about 3/4 of her total wealth, gets all excited, and heads back out into the field with the party.

At the very first possible opportunity to use it she pulls it out, gets hit by a lightning bolt, fails some saves badly, and the Wand blows up in her face.  The only shred of luck she had was making her save vs the enormous amount of explosion damage, meaning she didn't drop dead on the spot.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Very very loosely based on one individual.



Moses miracles ... maces to avoid spilling blood.... yes there was no explicit you are a celibate... there was also no this is the Xtian crusaders eithers we are pretty much talking a response to the flavor.  The bible was that explicitly mentioned no? It really didnt have to be for the flavor to carry with the style of magic they performed.

I was characterizing the flavor of the class not saying the class inhibited roleplaying with explicit hard coded restrictions.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> I can't get behind Rogues being able to do this stuff to nearly the same extent, though.  Doesn't fit.



The 4e rogue was if you chose the right abilities very much the Ninja... the class is flexible based on choices.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Although as far as hard coded restrictions go in 1e days when I asked a DM if I could have a Cleric be a priest of Odin with a spear.. the blunt weapon requirement was enforced so yeah it did kind of hard code things that could have been roleplay choices.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> See, you're conflating the economics end of things with perception.  I mean, 3e tanked as well, remember.  There's a reason we got 3.5 a year early and then 4e not that long after that.  3e is hardly a stellar success.



Au contraire.  If anything, 3e was too successful in its first couple of years; thereby setting impossible financial expectations for subsequent years from suits who don't know how the release-boom-and-tail-off cycle works.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Although as far as hard coded restrictions go in 1e days when I asked a DM if I could have a Cleric be a priest of Odin with a spear.. the blunt weapon requirement was enforced so yeah it did kind of hard code things that could have been roleplay choices.




So? It's what it was a bit absurd true.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> So? It's what it was a bit absurd true.



So absurdity and nailed down flavor that restricted roleplay gets mocked oh my... end of the world


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Au contraire.  If anything, 3e was too successful in its first couple of years; thereby setting impossible financial expectations for subsequent years from suits who don't know how the release-boom-and-tail-off cycle works.




3E did well but they pulled the plug to soon and 3.5 didn't do that well.

 3.0 was horribly front loaded year 1. Sales were decking but even if they declined 50% the edition probably would have clocked in below 1E and BECMI.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> So absurdity and nailed down flavor that restricted roleplay gets mocked oh my... end of the world




It was a roleplay restriction, not a wtf how does this work. 

 Note editions with that restriction are the biggest selling D&D's of all time. 

 Mechanics don't really matter unless they are so outlandish they alienate the casuals.

 In 4Es case it wasn't really the outlandish mechanics so much more they just sucked the fun out of the game for most players.

 Tactical skirmish game won't have wife appeal.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

The d20 OGL made the entire 3.x pervasive ... when did the WWW kick in during this timeline?


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> They didnt even have support for non-judeo christian style clerics until those specialty priests came out...



Actually yes they did even as far back as 1978, if you looked at Druids (a sub-class of Cleric anyway) as actually being Nature Clerics.  Very Pagan.

And, non-Human pantheons (and thus non-Human and certainly non-Christian Clerics) have also been around for-nearly-ever in the game.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It was a roleplay restriction, not a wtf how does this work



Correct in a roleplaying game where there was very few classes it made little sense and it alienated me AND it just got mocked oh my gosh and golly better not let them notice that mace is dripping with blood and brains them hypocritical bible banging celibate moses miracle working crusader look alikes .  

Again why are you worrying about calling them celibate bible bangers... because the game really could have locked down that roleplaying part too... LOL


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> And, non-Human pantheons



You can call it what you want but if you are parting the red sea in your miracle list... and using a mace only it is what it is.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> clw wands and cheap potions became dujour from what I heard in 3e and while that may not be all that is required. its possibly one component.  Its handy to have a solid grasp of party durability or you have anti-climactic death by random arrow.



Not much different from a real-world death by random bullet on the WWI front line.



> Well that is support for primacy of magic right there... they have to be set up to "deal" with casters.



Again, true of any real-world battle: to have a chance of winning you have to be able to deal with whatever the enemy's liable to throw at you.  Take something as simple as mounted cavalry in days of old: if the opposition had it you had to counter it, usually by having some yourself*.

Same is true of magic in a D&D battle: if you can't deal with it, you're probably hooped.

* - rarely indeed was cavalry defeated by entirely unmounted foot soldiers; to the best of my knowledge it only ever happened once.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Not much different from a real-world death by random bullet on the WWI front line.



Not interested in your hopeless fantasy vietnam story lines dude ...  the point of a "set piece battle" is undermined by that anti-climactic goo.

"Realism" was a funny goal in a game where in a very short span you are able to take being hit by a dozen arrows.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Same is true of magic in a D&D battle: if you can't deal with it, you're probably hooped.



Primacy of magic you people make the argument for Tony.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> You can call it what you want but if you are parting the red sea in your miracle list... and using a mace only it is what it is.



Two things:

1. The "miracle list" includes elements from various sources - yes Christianity is one (which only makes sense, given that the game's primary designer was Christian) - just like the rest of the game.

2. The blunties-only rule lasts exactly as long as the DM decides it will last. (that said, as a purely mechanical distinction I don't mind it as much as some, as it serves to differentiate Clerics from Fighters a bit)


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Primacy of magic you people make the argument for Tony.



I'm neither arguing for nor against the whole 'primacy of magic' thing; I'm simply saying that if magic exists in the setting (_and it does, in all editions_) then it's inevitably going to become a factor in any battleplan: how to deploy it, how to defend against it, or (most likely) both.

And if one side has it and the other side doesn't, the side that doesn't is at a huge disadvantage.  Same as a real-world land war over open terrain: if one side has tanks and the other side doesn't it's a pretty safe bet which side is gonna win.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> 1. The "miracle list" includes elements from various sources - yes Christianity is one



Whatever... not really it was obviously bible banger territory. 

Oh wait yes DM is actually the god that fixes every game problem like a roleplaying game restricting roleplaying arbitrarily SO the game is really perfect keep on worshiping


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> I'm neither arguing for nor against the whole 'primacy of magic' thing; I'm simply saying that if magic exists in the setting (_and it does, in all editions_) then it's inevitably going to become a factor in any battleplan: how to deploy it, how to defend against it, or (most likely) both.



Assuming how much existed at a level of affecting large scale battles is sort of Game World dependent you could keep the game world incidence of magic much lower with the heros being the individual exceptions  (for those who like somewhat more historic looking battles instead of modern one where people spread out to avoid problems of area effect attacks) and yes if you have nothing to deal with ranged enemies you might be screwed regardless of the nature of the missile fire battlefield impact of magic could be overwhelming or could be more part of the flow... with adapting to area effect attacks accomplished by tactics in play instead of changing the encounter dramatically. (smart minion class enemies spreading out in response to casters for instance )

If it literally takes a mage to counter a mage...  I find that totally enforcing too much magic on the scenarios both sides of the screen.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Tactical skirmish game won't have wife appeal.



Keep banging that drum there was far more to it... boring assed bags of hit points has less appeal to my wife than having her rogue throw out some cool assed maneuvers.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> You can call it what you want but if you are parting the red sea in your miracle list... and using a mace only it is what it is.




D&D drew on multiple sources. Yes some are biblical and yeah I would call them the essence of D&D. Some spells come from Greek and Roman sources.

 Jesus can walk on water so can my cleric big whoop. Gygax was a kid in the 40s hell is in the 80s I had a book of Bible stories. 


 Big whoop.

 Essence of D&D is heavily rooted in Western mythology and let legends including the Judeo Christian tradition.

 Barely been to church in my life doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Keep banging that drum there was far more to it... boring assed bags of hit points has less appeal to my wife than having her rogue throw out some cool assed maneuvers.




Phone auto correct, I meant wide.


----------



## Coroc (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heh, while I am sure that folks out there have played the no-caster parties, I'd point out that if you look at the pre-gen characters of EVERY SINGLE MODULE that includes pre-gen characters, you'll find parties with casters.
> 
> I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that the game presupposes you will have casters in the group.



Ok no pregenerated characters in that material as far as I can recall, but I do own some of the historical realistic background campaign 2e books (a mighty fortress campaign, Vikings campaign, Crusaders campaign) and they absolutely have no casters, e.g. a cleric would not get spells etc. 
So you can say your evidence is confirmed by this exception, but even in 2e there was the concept of the no magic world, it just wasn't their standard. They even recommended different levels of magic being present in ones campaign world and gave guidelines up to which level priestly or arcane magic should be present in them.
No stupid discussion back then about game balance, if you wanted to play a priest character in a low magic world you would grab a mace and engage in melee for the combat pillar and save your few spells for healing up a bit after the battle.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Coroc said:


> Ok no pregenerated characters in that material as far as I can recall, but I do own some of the historical realistic background campaign 2e books (a mighty fortress campaign, Vikings campaign, Crusaders campaign) and they absolutely have no casters, e.g. a cleric would not get spells etc.
> So you can say your evidence is confirmed by this exception, but even in 2e there was the concept of the no magic world, it just wasn't their standard. They even recommended different levels of magic being present in ones campaign world and gave guidelines up to which level priestly or arcane magic should be present in them.
> No stupid discussion back then about game balance, if you wanted to play a priest character in a low magic world you would grab a mace and engage in melee for the combat pillar and save your few spells for healing up a bit after the battle.




 Spells that were rituals lol. 

  No cleric changed the campaign dynamic generally. Dungeon hacks went out the window hexcrawls were fun.

 My group had domain in not Africa and built shipyards in hidden locations and had merchant prince type domains.

 You don't need martial healing. 1d3 healing fight once or twice a week, lots of downtime hand waved away. Might take you 10 years to hit level 14 instead of 1 year. Real time it was about the same.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Phone auto correct, I meant wide.



Wife worked she likes the flavor of those tricks as much as anything may not care hugely how they exactly work at a tactical level... but hamstringing enemies to slow them down or tripping them up and not being punished by dying because you weren't just beating down the hit points is golden.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Wife worked she likes the flavor of those tricks as much as anything may not care hugely how they exactly work at a tactical level... but hamstringing enemies to slow them down or tripping them up and not being punished by dying because you weren't just beating down the hit points is golden.




Slows game down. Best debuff is death. 
 2E was tactical for us, strategic in BECMI, 1E wasn't really our main one barely played it relative to the others.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

How much of the Players Handbook is just gone if you remove spells that says to me how significant magic is to the game.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Slows game down. Best debuff is death.



Not for me AND as I said I will take many times the duration to resolve if it leads to interesting choices. That slowed group of enemies now is easier for your caster to kill with his area of effect....synergy and team work.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

As opposed to a pure single character nova conflict (not just combat) is done...


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> How much of the Players Handbook is just gone if you remove spells that says to me how significant magic is to the game.




So? 

 Since you seem to hate every edition except for 4E just don't play those editions. We didn't play 4E it's no big deal. 

 Whatever you like has trade offs. BECMI had a very small spells section in the Rules Cyclopedia.  Take powers out if the 4E phb you lose around a third. 12-15 page class descriptions not fun.

4E didn't give you opt out, every other edition didn't. Don't like magic play something else. Don't like powers in 4E you're screwed.

Doesn't really matter what you prefer it's like 5E gave you opt in choices as well there's only 4 races and archtypes as core.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Since you seem to hate every edition except for 4E just don't play those editions. We didn't play 4E it's no big deal.



Honestly I liked each edition better as it went along... til 5e decided intelligence was a dump stat if you didnt use magic. And besides my edition isn't D&D remember not really even a roleplaying game just some skirmishing combat engine....  I don't belong here.  Goodbye.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Doesn't really matter what you prefer it's like 5E gave you opt in choices as well there's only 4 races and archetypes as core.



What opt in choice do I have if I want roughly analogous utility outside of combat for non-casters? They took things away (that are no where near easy to patch in).


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> No cleric changed the campaign dynamic generally. Dungeon hacks went out the window



Just removed the Dungeons from Dungeons and Dragons... all because of lack of one caster class says something to me.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


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




Just a nitpick, but there aren't 36 classes.  There are 12.  12 out of 12 have magic available if the players choose the right subclass.



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




Magic hasn't been magical since 2e.  Too much makes it commonplace and blah.  



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




The premise is flawed. Magic doesn't have to be able to do more than non-magical things.  However, magic is an explanation for why the laws of physics can be broken, so some magic can do more than non-magical things.  That magic can break those laws of physics is also why magic is limited in the amount you can do per day.



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




So what.  I mean, this applies in the real world, too.  Lots of things that people can't justify with a rational explanation has been chalked up to magic.  People have been killed over it.  Justification doesn't have anything to do with whether or not magic has primacy, though.



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




In no edition was it impossible or very, very difficult to play without casters.  In 1e and 2e, the DM had to adjust the way the DM was supposed to, though.  A DM who didn't adjust was being a jerk.  In 3e it was more challenging, but not "very, very difficult." Feats, class abilities, and the ease of the game saw to that.  4e and 5e's non-magical healing make it easy to play without a caster.



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




First, modules aren't rules.  The official modules are just what the DM who designed them thought should be in his game.  Each DM who runs those gets to re-decide for his own game and limit or even remove them entirely.  Second, there is no such expectation in 5e at all.  In fact, the game explicitly doesn't include magic items in the game math just so that there can be no expectation of finding magic items.  Third, magic items are found not because magic has some sort of primacy, but because they are fun.



> Did I miss anything?




Yes.  Everything above is based on preference of players, not primacy of magic.    All of it, from number 1 to number 6, exists because magic is fun for players, not because magic has primacy over everything else.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The premise is flawed. Magic doesn't have to be able to do more than non-magical things.  However, magic is an explanation for why the laws of physics can be broken, so some magic can do more than non-magical things.  That magic can break those laws of physics is also why magic is limited in the amount you can do per day.



Lets get nit picky on this one too. with more specific example.
If I climb a wall reliably and with my normal movement speed because of magic I might be casting a gravity defying magic like movie vampires walking parallel but if I climb a wall reliably with my normal movement speed using supernal athletic ability I am not jutting out  parallel to the wall but otherwise accomplishes the same goal via extraordinary skill.  Mechanically games have limited  structures so things (mostly for simplicity's sake) which may occur by greatly distinct  methods are presented the same at the hardware level so to speak.   I am not sure but I might allow that kind of ability to be an at-will utility in 4e for a high enough level character whether it was the Vampire walk for the athletes bursty reliable speed climbing  

Its not necessarily because it is breaking the laws of physics that it is limited nor does breaking the laws of physics have to describe more than  "how" the task is accomplished

Functional goals vs Methods ... the lion's share of mechanics largely represent those functional goals.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> <snip lots of stuff>
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Everything above is based on preference of players, not primacy of magic.    All of it, from number 1 to number 6, exists because magic is fun for players, not because magic has primacy over everything else.




This is a undead horse I constantly beat.

The areas where magic generally has primacy in D&D are detecting things, surviving hostile environments, and transportation.  Many adventures simply can't be undertaken successfully if the group does not have access to enough power in these areas.

Different editions have approached levelling this primacy different ways:
1e the primary approach was the provision of magic accessible outside the class structure (skewed magic item tables, henchmen, expert hirelings) and prohibition on the most problematic caster type from learning everything (one chance to learn per spell and a cap on maximum learned per level).

2e reduced the provision magic accessible outside the PC (reduced access to henchmen), gave a passing nod to factional support, and reduced the prohibitions on the magic-user (one chance per level to learn a spell, relaxed cap on maximum number).

3e substantially reduced magic accessible outside the PC overtly (by seriously restricting henchmen), and indirectly (by making specialist magic items so valuable that secondary effects like divination, travel, and environmental survival were not kept) and eliminating all restrictions on how many effects a wizard can learn (all spells can be learned, no cap on number).

4e attacked the primacy a different way: by removing many of the larger convenient effects (flight, operational teleportation) and introducing "page 42" stunts which, depending on the DM, could be generously interpreted extrapolations of the PC combat abilities.  It also provided a way for any class to gain access to non-combat specific magic by moving it to rituals and granting a way any interested PC could gain access  It further reduced magic accessible outside the PC by weakening magic items in general and weakening henchmen again. 

5e reverts many of the changes seen in 4e reinserting more powerful effects, reducing stunting, leaving access to rituals but reducing the number and value of their effects, and increasing the power of magic items while simultaneously saying they aren't necessary.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, 33 of 36 classes in the PHB can use magic as opposed to the 3 classes in Basic/Expert which could.




And every single class can swing a weapon.  So I guess it's the Primacy of Martial Combat.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> The areas where magic generally has primacy in D&D are detecting things, surviving hostile environments, and transportation.



Solving a ton of non-combat social issues in one fell swoop did you include considerations about what charm person used to do?


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Solving a ton of non-combat social issues in one fell swoop did you include considerations about what charm person used to do?




No because non-magical approaches typically exist.  Social magic, especially in 1e, could be a great shortcut, but it wasn't non-magical character weren't locked out in the same way.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> No because non-magical approaches typically exist.



I didnt think we were talking about lock out but rather. Absolute perfect functionality vs chancy functional inferiority


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> And every single class can swing a weapon.  So I guess it's the Primacy of Martial Combat.




You joke, but in many ways it is true.  Every class has been levelled in terms of the combat pillar and the combat pillar only.  So, published adventures tend to focus on it because all groups bring the same basic capability to the table.  Tactics and cosmetics may differ, but general effectiveness remains grouped.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> You joke, but in many ways it is true.  Every class has been levelled in terms of the combat pillar and the combat pillar only.



Sure but remember if you won the spell lotto in 1e and had that sleep spell 
(at low level anyway) you were the party big gun.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I didnt think we were talking about lock out but rather. Absolute perfect functionality vs chancy functional inferiority



There was nothing absolute about charm person unless you ran it incorrectly.  All it did was make the victim view you as a very good friend.  It wasn't mind control.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I didnt think we were talking about lock out but rather. Absolute perfect functionality vs chancy functional inferiority




If the adventure is raiding a ship on the sea bottom, the group of fighters and rogues are completely SOL unless and until the DM throws them a bone..  If the adventure is on a timer and the fastest ship can only get there 2 days after the evil ritual completes, the group is stuck unless it can find a magical solution.

Magic as convenience is less of a problem than magic as necessity.  Magic should be a convenience in some situations.  Hitting things with large spiky mallets should be a convenience in others.  Sneaking along for hours at a stretch should be convenient too.  

It'd be nice if D&D offered stronger support whether via items, NPCs, factional support, non-magical equivalents, or publicly available magical access to turn those necessities into conveniences.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Sure but remember if you won the spell lotto in 1e and had that sleep spell
> (at low level anyway) you were the party big gun.



Once.  Then in the next X fights you threw darts or something.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> There was nothing absolute about charm person unless you ran it incorrectly.  All it did was make the victim view you as a very good friend.  It wasn't mind control.



It is an absolute ... that is a social pillar huge of incredible degree that you think it needs to be mind control... LOL


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> It is an absolute ... that is a social pillar huge of incredible degree that you think it needs to be mind control... LOL



An absolute what?  What was absolute about it?


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Sure but remember if you won the spell lotto in 1e and had that sleep spell
> (at low level anyway) you were the party big gun.




Once a day for a limited opposition types.  And one of your 9  to 18 1st level slots was now locked in something that will have degrading value over time.  It was a big trade off.  Often one a player liked, but a trade off.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Once.  Then in the next X fights you threw darts or something.



Yeh once a day at level one a weird dart throwing wizard could do naughty word tons of damage though 3 darts wasn't it lol.... OR if you are the big gun even out of ammo it's really much easier to get the party to at least try for them 5 minute work days its in their best interest.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Once a day for a limited opposition types.  And one of your 9  to 18 1st level slots was now locked



Ummm no it only affected your spells known later in career a much lower cost than locked in slots ie you do not use it when it indeed faded but this class is super flexible. It only took a slot if you wanted it later.

Or I am not parsing what you mean


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

When you say casters are over powered late in their career its argued but nobody hardly plays there... if you complain something also made them potentially over powered at low level...it was yeh but that isnt valuable later in their career.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Ummm no it only affected your spells known later in career a much lower cost than slots ie you do not use it when it indeed faded but this class is super flexible.




Two types of slots in 1e: (a) spells known and (b) spells memorized (or prepared in more modern parlance)

Knowing sleep eats a known spells slot.  Is this likely to be a problem at 1st level?  No., but if your Int is merely 16, you've already consumed about a quarter of the total 1st level spells you can know with your 3 initial spells.

Is it likely to start being a concern by 5th?  Possibly even probably.  Is sleep likely to be memorized once you're past 7th level?  Maybe a single application, just in case.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Intelligence​Chance to Know​Minimum​Maximum​9​35%​4​6​10-12​45%​5​7​13-14​55%​6​9​15-16​65%​7​11​17​75%​8​14​18​85%​9​18​19​95%​*11​All​20​96%​12​All​21​97%​13​All​22​98%​14​All​23​99%​15​All​24​100%​16​All​25​100%​17​All​


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Isnt that the table you are talking about  I do not rememver the kind of limit you were talking about for known spells and the about -  and that maximum was  "a maximum number of spells of each level which the character can understand"


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Once a day for a limited opposition types.  And one of your 9  to 18 1st level slots was now locked in something that will have degrading value over time.  It was a big trade off.  Often one a player liked, but a trade off.



To be fair, missing out on your 9th or 18th lowest-priority 1st level spell choice, in return for swinging significant fights, instead of casting Push or something at 1st & 2nd level, is a pretty OK trade-off.



Garthanos said:


> that maximum was  "a maximum number of spells of each level which the character can understand"



 Know/Understand, there were some spells - unless you had a 19+ int - you'd never be able to memorize.

But, depending on which contradictory/ambiguous/variant rules the DM ignored/interpreted/adopted, which spells those were might be up to you - or entirely random.

Casting faced profound limits & challenges in 1e, it made the Pimacy of Magic that much more vibrant and dramatic - and frustrating.  

Every decision the MU made could be all important "If only I'd memorized lightning bolt instead of fireball, more of my henchmen would've survived."
You never hear a fighter's ghost lamenting "If only I'd brought the glaive-guisarme instead of the guisarme-volgue!"


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Isnt that the table you are talking about  I do not rememver the kind of limit you were talking about for known spells and the about -  and that maximum was  "a maximum number of spells of each level which the character can understand"




Yep, that's the one.  Maximum number of spells known limits the number of spells a magic-user can ever learn (creating new spells excepted) for each spell level.  A magic-user got one chance to learn a spell using the chance to know percentage, and no ability to erase that knowledge -- even if they lost their spellbook.  The only time you got a second chance to learn the spell is if you tried all the spells and failed enough that you didn't hit the minimum number known.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Heh.
> 
> The only time I've ever seen a Staff (well, in this case a Wand) of the Magi in play it went like this: character acquires the wand in town (can't remember if by purchase or she'd had it specially commissioned) at cost of about 3/4 of her total wealth, gets all excited, and heads back out into the field with the party.
> 
> At the very first possible opportunity to use it she pulls it out, gets hit by a lightning bolt, fails some saves badly, and the Wand blows up in her face.  The only shred of luck she had was making her save vs the enormous amount of explosion damage, meaning she didn't drop dead on the spot.




Sounds like a jerk DM to me


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Yep, that's the one.  Maximum number of spells known limits the number of spells a magic-user can ever learn (creating new spells excepted) for each spell level.



7 to 11 spells potentially learned for that level 1 option having one of those be a sleep seems way better than fine.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 7 to 11 spells potentially learned for that level 1 option having one of those be a sleep seems way better than fine.



Oh, it is fine, it's just a trade off.

For example,

Here are the 11 first-level spells one of my magic-users knows:

Charm Person
Comprehend Language
Dancing Lights
Detect Magic
Detect Secret Doors
Feather Fall
Identify
Magic Missile
Mending
Read Magic
Unseen Servant
He had tried and failed to learn Tensor's Floating Disc and Write.

When he was low level, Sleep would have been very tempting.  Given the option later in his career, I don't think he'd swap anything for it.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

I really don’t want to play d&d without magic. And yes magical healing should have a big effect on the game. What’s the use to have it if it doesn’t make a big difference on the game. It should have the “wow”’effect. The person was bleeding to death and is now healed. Cool.

An another topic I preferred it when evil casters weren’t capable of casting healing spells. They just weren’t capable and their gods couldn’t grant the spells. Had alot more flavor.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Know/Understand, there were some spells - unless you had a 19+ int - you'd never be able to memorize.
> 
> But, depending on which contradictory/ambiguous/variant rules the DM ignored/interpreted/adopted, which spells those were might be up to you - or entirely random.
> 
> ...




I loved the guisarme voulge. I had a fighter specialize in it just because it was cool.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Rather than calling people liars when they report this reaction to 4E, have you considered how they could have sincerely formed this impression in spite of the powers not _literally_ being the same? That seems like a pretty outrageous strawman, to be honest: I would be extremely surprised if anyone in the history of the edition war has actually asserted that every power is literally the same. So maybe explore the possibility that, to the players in question, they're similar enough to feel repetitive (an impression perhaps exacerbated by the fact that they're presented as page after page of identically-formatted stat blocks).




You just described what I was talking about. If reading pages of powers was all someone did, they might have their eyes glaze over and only see the basic formatting. 

If they actually played a couple characters and/or payed attention to what other PCs powers did, they couldn’t possibly have the genuine impression that the powers are all the same. 

And hyperbolic or not, the exact phrase “literally all the same” has been uttered in reference to 4e powers as recently as last month in a twitter argument. I curate my twitter experience, so I just muted the person. It was a common refrain back in the day.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> This is a undead horse I constantly beat.
> 
> The areas where magic generally has primacy in D&D are detecting things, surviving hostile environments, and transportation.  Many adventures simply can't be undertaken successfully if the group does not have access to enough power in these areas.
> 
> ...




4e really shoulda put page 42 in the phb, and made it more player facing. 

Still, I stunt just as much in 5e, but 5e needs some sort of direct and explicit encouragement for this in the phb.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

I might be willing to concede the phrase "Omnipresence of Magic" or "Dependency on Magic" or something, because, yeah, ultimately this game is about worlds that are infused with magic, and much of the wonder of it can only be explained by magic.

But that's no different than the role of technology in sci-fi or cyberpunk.

What I don't like about the phrase "Primacy of Magic" is that it comes burdened with the connotation...which I believe is intended, based on the context in which it is used...that Wizards > Fighters.  And I just don't see that.  I get that some people wish Fighters had more options, and in that sense I will grant that "Wizards Are More Interesting to Play Than Fighters" could be _subjectively_ true, although clearly for a lot of people it's not true.

But I just don't agree that Wizards, or casters in general, are more important or more powerful than Fighters and Rogues and Barbarians.  That hasn't been my experience in 5e.  At all.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> An another topic I preferred it when evil casters weren’t capable of casting healing spells. They just weren’t capable and their gods couldn’t grant the spells. Had alot more flavor.



When was that the case?  I remember, in 1e, there was a confusing phrase about "not having a reversible spell both ways," and it was unclear whether that meant (obviously) that you couldn't memorize Cure Light Wounds, then use it to cast Cause Light Wounds, or if you couldn't memorize Cause Light Wounds, at all, on a day that you memorized Cure Light Wounds even once (the interpretation I ultimately went with in my campaign), or if it meant you had to decide, at chargen, if your cleric would Cause or Cure.



TheCosmicKid said:


> Rather than calling people liars ...



That a statement is objectively false does not make the person making it a liar.  That requires prior knowledge that the statement will be false, /and/ intent to deceive.  By the same token, pointing out the objective facts is not an accusation of lying, let alone of  /being a liar/, with the connotation of lying habitually. 
Someone might labor under a host of misperceptions, make misstatements and mistakes frequently, yet still be entirely honest.







doctorbadwolf said:


> And hyperbolic or not, the exact phrase “literally all the same” has been uttered



Sure, using "literally" incorrectly to mean "figuratively - but in high degree" like repeating words for emphasis/authenticity ("I don't _like_ like him" "Oh, you totally, like, _LIKE_ like him!"), is a scourge of pop-culture English.



doctorbadwolf said:


> 4e really shoulda put page 42 in the phb, and made it more player facing.
> Still, I stunt just as much in 5e, but 5e needs some sort of direct and explicit encouragement for this in the phb.



Arguably, in 5e, the Play Loop (Procedure of Play explanation near the front) lets the DM encourage stunting almost by default, by adopting the Goal & Approach mode of action declaration.  Aside from spells, it means the player describes what the character /does/ and the DM decides the resolution.  Taken to it's logical conclusion, players wouldn't even need to know the action types and specific rules associated with their characters non-spell abilities, and wouldn't need to know if they were taking a standard, codified action, like grappling or TWF vs using Extra Attack or making a defined skill vs ability check or "stunting" using a resolution basis improvised by the DM.   It's actually rather sophisticated on the DM side, and potentially more immersive (though that's always highly subjective) on the player side.
(And, TBH, less the formalized stating of the G&A requirement, not uncommon in many prior eds & other RPGs.)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I really don’t want to play d&d without magic. And yes magical healing should have a big effect on the game. What’s the use to have it if it doesn’t make a big difference on the game. It should have the “wow”’effect. The person was bleeding to death and is now healed. Cool.



Sounds  like The Primacy of Magic is and important part of the Essence of D&D, for you, at least. 



Elfcrusher said:


> I might be willing to concede the phrase "Omnipresence of Magic" or "Dependency on Magic" or something, because, yeah, ultimately this game is about worlds that are infused with magic, and much of the wonder of it can only be explained by magic.



It's funny, these discussions often seem to get caught up on choice of label.

"Omnipressence" would work against the concept, making magic feel mundane/fungible (like magic items in 4e).
"Magic Dependency" would work fine, it gets the idea across.  But, frankly, Primacy sounds cooler than Dependency, and doesn't connote addiction.  



> What I don't like about the phrase "Primacy of Magic" is that it comes burdened with the connotation...which I believe is intended, based on the context in which it is used...that Wizards > Fighters.



 Prettymuch, yeah, it's worth recognizing that.  Magic is more critical to the accomplishment of goals, even to survival, than non-magical contributions, which are fungible.  You could use a shield golem or a series of conjured monsters or, at very low level, a well-trained attack dog, in place of a fighter a lot of the time.  Wouldn't be /as/ good, might even get you killed once in a blue moon, but generally, the fighter's contribution is less unique, less critical, more fungible.

"Magic Dependency" would include the same information - success doesn't /Depend/ on the Fighter's contribution - but with the connotation of D&D being 'on magic' like it was a drug.

::

PYL



> I get that some people wish Fighters had more options, and in that sense I will grant that "Wizards Are More Interesting to Play Than Fighters" could be _subjectively_ true



 It'd be hard to picture a "really D&D" implementation of the game in which the players of casters choices weren't more and/or more important than those made by the players of non-casters.   Subjective opinions about the desirability of more and/or more important choices notwithstanding.

(That is, one could feel that fewer choices is simpler, less important choices is liberating, that his fighter or barbarian could charge heedlessly into combat, pick a weapon for cool factor instead of dpr, and generally do what he wants, how he wants it, without everyone screaming that he's not doing exactly the right thing at exactly the right time.)



> I just don't agree that Wizards, or casters in general, are more important or more powerful than Fighters and Rogues and Barbarians.  That hasn't been my experience in 5e.  At all.



 Your experience is one thing (which is fine - someone has claimed exactly that experience in every edition, even 3.5 regardless of Wizards being Tier 1 & Fighters Tier 5), the implementations of the various classes in the books are another, which, is subject to examination an analysis.

Fighters, in 5e, were designed to be simpler than casters, this was explicitly stated in the playtest (with BMs designed to be a  bit more complex for the sake of complexity).  That design intent did not fail:  at chargen & level up, in each adventuring day, and on every round, the wizard has more choices to make than the fighter.  Since a lot of those choices are about  whether & hot to expend daily resources that could have encounter-swinging impact in any pillar, while the fighter's are mostly about which enemies to attack in what order (punctuated by whether to Second Wind or Action Surge this encounter or save it in case there's another before the next short rest), or what mundane task to lend his stat bonuses to out of combat, it's not unfair to say the wizard's choices are more difficult, and more significant, as well, even though it's possible, depending on circumstances, that it might turn out that attacking the red monster before the green one saved the party, while casting fireball, instead of moving & casting lightning bolt, to kill both of them at once made no difference at all.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I might be willing to concede the phrase "Omnipresence of Magic" or "Dependency on Magic" or something, because, yeah, ultimately this game is about worlds that are infused with magic, and much of the wonder of it can only be explained by magic.
> 
> But that's no different than the role of technology in sci-fi or cyberpunk.
> 
> ...




I don’t see how casters are more important than fighters under any edition of d&d.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sounds  like The Primacy of Magic is and important part of the Essence of D&D, for you, at least.
> 
> It's funny, these discussions often seem to get caught up on choice of label.
> 
> ...




Well. I see wizards die fast when the fighters are gone. So I guess that’s primacy of martial.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

If we are calling primacy of magic where magic is helpful, beneficial, and changes the way the game is played then yes I like primacy of magic.  If we want a game without magic there are plenty out there.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

I think you are describing a game that would play the same rather it is 4 wizards or 4 fighters. I don’t think that is possible or desirable. I like different classes having different roles and being good at different things that completely change the way encounters are approached. Now that’s just my opinion.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> If we are calling primacy of magic where magic is helpful, beneficial, and changes the way the game is played then yes I like primacy of magic.  If we want a game without magic there are plenty out there.



 Just a little beyond that, in that it's helful/beneficial & changes the way the game is played to a greater degree than non-magical alternatives. 
And, no, there's nothing wrong with preferring such Primacy of Magic in a fantasy game where magic is the focus, like D&D or Ars Magica.  It'd be shocking if that's not how a Harry Potter RPG shook out, for instance.
An FRPG could feature magic, but not the Primacy thereof, and there'd be nothing wrong with that, either... it just seems like such a game would be missing the Essence of D&D, so better not put that on the cover. 


Arnwolf666 said:


> I think you are describing a game that would play the same rather it is 4 wizards or 4 fighters.



 Not at all, .  For instance, in 4e, a 4-wizard party would be /completely/ different from a 4 fighter party, because 4 defenders would have overlapping mark issues to coordinate, and 4 fighters, particularly, would, unless carefully designed for such a party, likely lack the diversity of skills to handle challenges.  While, conversely, 4 wizards would lack melee resilience, in-combat healing (fighters actually had a bit of self-healing over and above second wind), and, likewise, unless intentionally designed to compensate, lack diversity of skills outside the arena of knowledges.  In combat, the 4-fighter party would break up enemy formations with some marking to prevent the enemy focusing, while others concentrate on one target, then take up marks when the others get low on hp, the 4 wizards would try to reduce enemies from a distance and prevent engagement as much as possible.  Fighters would tend to grind through all their surges by the end of the day, wizards would tend to blow through dailies by the end of the day.

Rather an all-magical party and an all-martial party would both be viable, they'd be different, they'd approach some challenges differently from others, but the game would remain playable, and functional, without modification, either way.  For instance, an all-arcanist party of Artificer, Elemental Sorcerer, Swordmage, and Wizard or an all-martial party - if of different classes, perforce, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue & Warlord - could both handle the same level and difficulty of combat encounters and skill challenges.  The former party would have more difficulty with very physical skill challenges, the latter with more cerebral ones.  The latter could also function fine in a world without magic, at all, the DM just uses the inherent bonuses optional rule.



> I don’t think that is possible or desirable. I like different classes having different roles and being good at different things that completely change the way encounters are approached. Now that’s just my opinion.



That doesn't require the primacy of magic, nor even magic.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> .  By the same token, pointing out the objective facts is not an accusation of lying, let alone of  /being a liar/, with the connotation of lying habitually.



Point out the objective facts and find them citing their unchanged rant/diatribe several threads later well ... ends up being a shoe fits issue.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas[/quote] Sure, using "literally" incorrectly to mean "figuratively - but in high degree" like repeating words for emphasis/authenticity ("I don't _like_ like him" "Oh, you totally, like, _LIKE_ like him!"), is a scourge of pop-culture English.
[/QUOTE]

Eh, I’ve no beef with either usage. Literally has meant several things for quite a while, so that usage isn’t even “incorrect”, it’s just not one of the legitimate uses that you like. 

Edit: As to my other post you replied to, my point was precisely that “arguably” and “by default” aren’t good enough. It should have been made explicit, and put in part of the book most players eventually actually read, like the section on ability checks. IME, most players will literally never read the introduction to the book, or to any given chapter, even if they play with the same phb and reference it regularly for over a decade. If it’s important, put it in a section that gets referenced, and make references to it elsewhere.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I don’t see how casters are more important than fighters under any edition of d&d.



When you have to virtually take Dungeons out of Dungeon and Dragons because no cleric ie this super sized impact on the game... Yeh that means more important.

It wasn't even me saying that but one of those arguing that primacy of magic isn't the thing... because you could adjust the game to deal with lack of X.  The adjustment is over the top. 

Further from all I have heard a party of clerics and druids in 3e... make the party of fighters or even the Fighter that joins look worse than the Druids bear. So I think there may have been more importance.

Actually I think Zard was saying that 3e might be the only edition where magic was that much more important but the lack of cleric goes all the way back.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Eh, I’ve no beef with either usage. Literally has meant several things for quite a while, so that usage isn’t even “incorrect”, it’s just not one of the legitimate uses that you like.



Then, when someone says "literally the same" you could reasonably take it as "really, really feelz the same, to me." 



> Edit: As to my other post you replied to, my point was precisely that “arguably” and “by default” aren’t good enough. It should have been made explicit, and put in part of the book most players eventually actually read, like the section on ability checks. IME, most players will literally* never read the introduction to the book, or to any given chapter, even if they play with the same phb and reference it regularly for over a decade. If it’s important, put it in a section that gets referenced, and make references to it elsewhere.



 If you're talking p42, yeah, it should have been at least explained as something the DM had recourse to, and that players should feel free to declare such actions.  If you're 5e/G&A... it's really not that important the players read the books, at all (beyond their class & spell lists), so long as the DM is on the ball.







* I see what you did, there.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You just described what I was talking about. If reading pages of powers was all someone did, they might have their eyes glaze over and only see the basic formatting.
> 
> If they actually played a couple characters and/or payed attention to what other PCs powers did, they couldn’t possibly have the genuine impression that the powers are all the same.



And you just exemplified what _I_ was talking about. You're discounting players' reported experiences when they don't match what you expect. You say it's not possible, but clearly enough players _did_ actually play a couple characters -- or more -- and come away with that genuine impression. If you deny that, you're calling them liars.

And yeah, the seeds of that impression might very well have been sown in the first experience of reading the book and glazing over. Maybe if it had been formatted differently, some of them might have played exactly the same campaign with exactly the same rules but had a more positive experience. First impressions are important. That might seem frustratingly superficial to you, but I'm trying to explain the reception of 4E, not pass judgment on its objective quality.



doctorbadwolf said:


> And hyperbolic or not, the exact phrase “literally all the same” has been uttered in reference to 4e powers as recently as last month in a twitter argument. I curate my twitter experience, so I just muted the person. It was a common refrain back in the day.



Whether or not it's hyperbolic matters for how you respond to it. If it is hyperbolic, and you respond to it literally, you're tilting at a straw man. In general, I find it's helpful to respond to the _least_ ridiculous interpretation of the other guy's words you can possibly conceive, rather than the most.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> "Omnipressence" would work against the concept, making magic feel mundane/fungible (like magic items in 4e).
> "Magic Dependency" would work fine, it gets the idea across.  But, frankly, Primacy sounds cooler than Dependency, and doesn't connote addiction.
> 
> Prettymuch, yeah, it's worth recognizing that.  Magic is more critical to the accomplishment of goals, even to survival, than non-magical contributions, which are fungible.  You could use a shield golem or a series of conjured monsters or, at very low level, a well-trained attack dog, in place of a fighter a lot of the time.  Wouldn't be /as/ good, might even get you killed once in a blue moon, but generally, the fighter's contribution is less unique, less critical, more fungible.
> ...




So far I've been assuming your main beef is that you think Wizards > Fighters.  But does it bother you that a Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue kind of needs to have a magic weapon?  Is that part of your complaint about the role of magic?

Because I don't think that spellcasting ifself is strictly necessary...in fact all too often I've seen the casters pretty much thwarted by magic-resistant/legendary monsters, and reduced to trying to buff their teammates, while the F/B/R crowd beats the BBEG down with their weapons.  But, yeah, they are _magic_ weapons.

In your ideal world, is the Fighter supposed to be as effective as the Wizard without any magic items?


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> When you have to virtually take Dungeons out of Dungeon and Dragons because no cleric ie this super sized impact on the game... Yeh that means more important.
> 
> It wasn't even me saying that but one of those arguing that primacy of magic isn't the thing... because you could adjust the game to deal with lack of X.  The adjustment is over the top.
> 
> ...



Oh ok. I don’t want to play a game without them. i want the game to need clerics. Just like all the major classes. Some are after all just variants of the other imho. 

Although you can still play the game with minor modifications without a cleric. It’s no big deal and easy to do.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You just described what I was talking about. If reading pages of powers was all someone did, they might have their eyes glaze over and only see the basic formatting.
> 
> If they actually played a couple characters and/or payed attention to what other PCs powers did, they couldn’t possibly have the genuine impression that the powers are all the same.
> 
> And hyperbolic or not, the exact phrase “literally all the same” has been uttered in reference to 4e powers as recently as last month in a twitter argument. I curate my twitter experience, so I just muted the person. It was a common refrain back in the day.



All I can say is that I disagree.

Some powers were different, but others ... meh.  Didn't feel distinct to me.

In other words stop telling everybody what their opinion is.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Bump


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> When you have to virtually take Dungeons out of Dungeon and Dragons because no cleric ie this super sized impact on the game... Yeh that means more important.
> 
> It wasn't even me saying that but one of those arguing that primacy of magic isn't the thing... because you could adjust the game to deal with lack of X.  The adjustment is over the top.
> 
> ...




You'll hear all sorts if crap online. It a big world someone somewhere will have tried something. 

 You keep contradicting yourself. You claim you can't play without clerics when in fact you can. 2E even had things like all fighter games or all thieves. 

 The Dungeon hack only as the one true way hasn't really been D&D since about 1981. 

 And when we point out that yes you can play D&D without a cleric you claim we're not playing D&D because the game is different in tone. 

 Erm probably playing a game like that because we want a different tone. 

 You keep being objectively wrong. Some things are subjective others not so much while others fall somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

I want every class to be capable of things that shock and amaze us when played well. You should be able to play a fighter or rogue skillfully in a way that makes people stand up and take notice. This need not come from daily rationing, but not every "Damn. That happened." moment needs to come from a spell caster.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Erm probably playing a game like that because we want a different tone.



Thought them thar Dungeons might be one of them thar essense of Dungeons and Dragons...since it was suggested that even decaying ability of attrition fights MUST BE done well but since you can also play the game without that. Must not be so.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

ff


Arnwolf666 said:


> I don’t see how casters are more important than fighters under any edition of d&d.




Here's a quick anecdote from a  3.5 game I ran:

The group has cleared an ancient monastery of bandits and are doing a final pass to clean up/check for secrets before heading out.  They notice via the Druid's _Detect Magic_ that one of the mosaics in the living areas is a magic item.  The Wizard casts _Identify_ and discovers it is a teleport link to somewhere and learns the command word.  The Wizard has other interests he wants to get to, but the group decides to scout it out.

A quick recon of the arrival point area doesn't find a matching magic portal to bring them back to the surface, but by talking to a friendly spirit they discover it is a forgotten city of the dwarves lost since the Great War.  The Druid, the Fighter, and the Barbarian strongly want to explore further, the Wizard strongly wants to leave and the other two PCs have no opinion.  The Wizard is the only character with long distance travel capability.  He announces he is leaving and anyone who doesn't want to be trapped with unknown dangers with no known escape route are welcome to join him.  They return home.

Quiz time!
How was the magic discovered? How would a fighter find it?
How was the magic unlocked? How would a fighter do it?
Who decided the group needed to leave regardless of what the other members wanted?  What gave him that power?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> ff
> 
> 
> Here's a quick anecdote froma  3.5 game I ran:
> ...




So, who stopped him getting chopped into bits or loses initiative and chopped into bits. Grapple in 3E also= dead wizard very fast.

 Also I don't think you'll find to many people defending 3E it's the prime example of most things wrong with modern D&D. 

That level of magic isn't the essence of D&D it's why it's gone and didn't come back. Much like THAC0 and powers. 

 Not being able to by magic seems to be the essence of D&D 5/7 editions and it's goneburger because it sucks the fun out of the game and the exploration/discovery side if things.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> So far I've been assuming your main beef is that you think Wizards > Fighters.  But does it bother you that a Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue kind of needs to have a magic weapon?  Is that part of your complaint about the role of magic?



The Primacy of Magic is not a complaint, but an observation.  
Up to 3.5, at the earliest, having a magic weapon at some point became absolutely critical - without it, you'd be completely unable to affect a variety of not-that-uncommon enemies who were quite hard to escape and could do /horrible/ things to you.  In 3.5 and 5e, it's still /highly/ desirable, compared to punching through resistance, but 3.5 had the added layer of weapon composition to consider (you could end up with quite the golf-bag).   In 4e, even a trait like insubstantial doesn't convey utter immunity, and resistances are rarely to untyped (which includes weapon) damage (ironically, in 4e, more than any other edition, you're virtually guaranteed that magic weapon, unless Inherent Bonuses were in use - C'est la D&D).  

So, a non-magical class generally needing magic weapons to contribute meaningfully/at-all to certain combat encounters is support for the Primacy of Magic.

Both magic items and casters figure into the Primacy of Magic - or Magic Dependency, if you prefer.  They figure a little differently in different still-D&D editions.  Magic items are more a build resource in 3e than in any other really-D&D game (unless you count PF1 as separate from 3e), for instance, but they're still /very/ important, and, yes, can be especially so when there's no casters to provide magic.  By the same token, casters are very important, but in a setting where magic items are extremely rare, even for PCs, or even non-existent, they're that much /more/ important.



> In your ideal world, is the Fighter supposed to be as effective as the Wizard without any magic items?



Ideally, I'd prefer "balanced with" to "as effective as" - I'd expect the effectiveness of a wizard & fighter to be very different in nature.   But, yes, ideally class balance should not be contingent upon one class having access to found items.   For instance, the effectiveness of a Ranger vs Warlock or Artificer vs Warlord or Fighter vs Paladin, assuming corresponding 4e-style formal Roles, should be quite comparable, whether both had items or neither did.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> So, who stopped him getting chopped into bits or loses initiative and chopped into bits. Grapple in 3E also= dead wizard very fast.
> 
> Also I don't think you'll find to many people defending 3E it's the prime example of most things wrong with modern D&D.
> 
> ...




Assuming you are asking why the group didn't kill their Wizard -- for the same reason they left when he wanted to.  He was their only known route home.

Can one or more PCs of any class kill a PC?  Sure!  Combat-wise, most of the classes are decently balanced in DPR and resiliency.
Can one or more classes dominate decision-making by simply being the only ones who can literally do something about a situation?  Absolutely.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Assuming you are aking why the group didn't kill their Wizard -- for the same reason they left when he wanted to.  He was their only known route home.
> 
> Can one or more PCs of any class kill a PC?  Sure!  Combat-wise, most of the classes are decently balanced in DPR and resiliency.
> Can one or more classes dominate decision-making by simply being the only ones who can literally do something about a situation?  Absolutely.




No, he was asking who kept the wizard from dying to mooks in combat.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Oofta said:


> All I can say is that I disagree.
> 
> Some powers were different, but others ... meh.  Didn't feel distinct to me.
> 
> In other words stop telling everybody what their opinion is.



I never told anyone what their opinion is. I told people that certain aspects of their complaints are based on objectively false premises. 

The powers do different things in play. That's fact. They make the classes play differently in a fight, or in the case of utility powers, give very different tool kits outside of combat, even to two classes with similar skill lists. Rangers and Rogues just fight and overcome obstacles differently, even if they choose the same skill set. They are objectively more different from round to round or challenge to challenge than most non spellcasters are without using magic items to define your character in other editions. Fighters and rogues have never been more different from eachother in any other edition of dnd. Same Wizards and Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids, Fighters and Barbarians, War Clerics and Paladins. The list goes on until you run out of class that have been in previous editions. 

Beyond that, a single target pure striker melee rogue is practically a different class from a secondary control, multi-target focused, dagger thrower or shortbow rogue. They simply do entirely different things. 

The fact you didn't see any of that somehow doesn't make it not the case. You just missed it. 

Which again, leads into what I said earlier. 4e divided the fan base in spite of commercially doing fine and still being the top of the RPG market, and being the edition during which the surge in DnD popularity in general started, because of presentation more than any other single factor. 

The essence of DnD for many people is largely "look and feel", and familiarity of player options upon quick perusal. Hell, even I balked the first time I played it, until I actually had a DM that had read the DMG and understood how the game works. He was, ironically, an old 2e DM, and understood it as a game to be run about the same as how he'd always run 2e, with the addition of actual mechanics for everyone outside of combat, and everyone having something to do that was less samey than "I hit several times with my sword" in combat.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> No, he was asking who kept the wizard from dying to mooks in combat.




D&D is a team based game, that's the essence of it. 
3E had it's issues, in most games I didn't see magic invalidate the other PCs although the Druid was close. It was overpowered sure but you could still have fun it was harder than say 2E.  And that power level is goneburger. 

 OSR can't buy magic items, 3E and 4E disagreed but 3Evat least resembled 2E and could be played similar (alot if players were crap at buying items it's not fun).


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> No, he was asking who kept the wizard from dying to mooks in combat.




Oh! The party fought in its entire.  That said, the Wizard was something of a paranoid and wasted a lot of power keeping defensive spells up when they probably weren't necessary.

Do Fighters and Rogues have value?  Of course, I never meant to imply they don't.  It's just that they literally cannot replace the spellcasters and succeed at the same range of missions.  With care and forethought, spellcasters can get through reasonably short missions leaning on assets like defensive spells, summons and conjures, or hit and run tactics much more easily than the game allows non spellcasters to replace magic.

Part of the problem is in the more recent (3.5+) editions of the game, great care has gone into making certain all the classes are capable in the combat pillar.  So dropping all non caster and replacing them with caster will change tactics, but maintain capability.

No such care has be given to other aspects of the game so travel, survival, and exploration are hard hit by the removal of magic.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I never told anyone what their opinion is. I told people that certain aspects of their complaints are based on objectively false premises.
> 
> The powers do different things in play. That's fact. They make the classes play differently in a fight, or in the case of utility powers, give very different tool kits outside of combat, even to two classes with similar skill lists. Rangers and Rogues just fight and overcome obstacles differently, even if they choose the same skill set. They are objectively more different from round to round or challenge to challenge than most non spellcasters are without using magic items to define your character in other editions. Fighters and rogues have never been more different from eachother in any other edition of dnd. Same Wizards and Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids, Fighters and Barbarians, War Clerics and Paladins. The list goes on until you run out of class that have been in previous editions.
> 
> ...




It wasn't too dog Pathfinder beat it. RPG market shrank. Objective facts. 

 5E started the revival, Pathfinder and OSR kept the torch burning.

 Pathfinder sales tanked around 5E release, PFS objectively collapsed in a lot of areas.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> D&D is a team based game, that's the essence of it.
> 3E had it's issues, in most games I didn't see magic invalidate the other PCs although the Druid was close. It was overpowered sure but you could still have fun it was harder than say 2E.  And that power level is goneburger.
> 
> OSR can't buy magic items, 3E and 4E disagreed but 3Evat least resembled 2E and could be played similar (alot if players were crap at buying items it's not fun).




It may be team-based, but he who can, will call the tune.  If people want to explore the shipwreck, but the caster doesn't want to prep/cast waterbreathing then the group will do something else!  If the caster wants to go home and moral suasion cannot convince him otherwise then either the group goes or it lives without the caster.  If the group decides its had enough and expels the caster then it still cannot do what the caster didn't want to do.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Oh! The party fought in its entire.  That said, the Wizard was something of a paranoid and wasted a lot of power keeping defensive spells up when they probably weren't necessary.
> 
> Do Fighters and Rogues have value?  Of course, I never meant to imply they don't.  It's just that they literally cannot replace the spellcasters and succeed at the same range of missions.  With care and forethought, spellcasters can get through reasonably short missions leaning on assets like defensive spells, summons and conjures, or hit and run tactics much more easily than the game allows non spellcasters to replace magic.
> 
> ...




Ok, my turn for an anecdote (extremely abbreviated): the party had to turn a winch to raise a portcullis while being attacked by waves of mooks.  This required Athletics rolls, ideally from two characters simultaneously, with penalties on the rolls if they took damage while trying.  

How would a party of Wizards have done this?

Point being: if you want to craft adventures such that they can only be completed with the presence of some classes, you can craft adventures that can only be completed with the presence of some classes.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I never told anyone what their opinion is. I told people that certain aspects of their complaints are based on objectively false premises.
> 
> The powers do different things in play. That's fact. They make the classes play differently in a fight, or in the case of utility powers, give very different tool kits outside of combat, even to two classes with similar skill lists. Rangers and Rogues just fight and overcome obstacles differently, even if they choose the same skill set. They are objectively more different from round to round or challenge to challenge than most non spellcasters are without using magic items to define your character in other editions. Fighters and rogues have never been more different from eachother in any other edition of dnd. Same Wizards and Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids, Fighters and Barbarians, War Clerics and Paladins. The list goes on until you run out of class that have been in previous editions.
> 
> ...



TLDR version: I'm right and you are not entitled to your opinion.

Have a good one.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, my turn for an anecdote (extremely abbreviated): the party had to turn a winch to raise a portcullis while being attacked by waves of mooks.  This required Athletics rolls, ideally from two characters simultaneously, with penalties on the rolls if they took damage while trying.
> 
> How would a party of Wizards have done this?
> 
> Point being: if you want to craft adventures such that they can only be completed with the presence of some classes, you can craft adventures that can only be completed with the presence of some classes.




Summon 2 earth elementasl to turn and a wall of stone to keep out the mooks.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It wasn't too dog Pathfinder beat it. RPG market shrank. Objective facts.
> 
> 5E started the revival, Pathfinder and OSR kept the torch burning.
> 
> Pathfinder sales tanked around 5E release, PFS objectively collapsed in a lot if areas.




Um, no. 4e outsold Pathfinder in every quarter until after Next was announced and they stopped publishing new 4e stuff. 

The revival started around the time Aquisitions Inc got big, which was well before the Next playtest was announced. Hell, before Essentials, IIRC. 

The torch never needed PF or OSR to keep burning, also. More people kept playing with their old DnD books than played either of those. 

At it's height, DDi subscriptions probably outdid PF book sales. Why do I say that? Because even at the low point during the Next playtest, DDi still had nearly 100k subs. Even if they all had 1 year subs, which were at a very generous discount, they were raking in gobs of cash from that service. At the height of 4e, when DDi was still the place to get new Dragon and Dungeon mag articles on top of the builder and compendium, it was much larger than that. 

Everything other than DnD is like every campaign setting other than homebrew in popularity. You have to discount the top dog to even call them popular with a straight face. And now 4e is lumped in with everything else behind 5e in places like roll20, but before the playtest was announced, nothing was beating it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> It may be team-based, but he who can, will call the tune.  If people want to explore the shipwreck, but the caster doesn't want to prep/cast waterbreathing then the group will do something else!  If the caster wants to go home and moral suasion cannot convince him otherwise then either the group goes or it lives without the caster.  If the group decides its had enough and expels the caster then it still cannot do what the caster didn't want to do.




Diving suits don't exist in the D&D world. Diving wreck adventures usually provide a way to get underwater if required via NPCs or a water breathing plant you eat.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Summon 2 earth elelmental to turn and a wall of stone to keep out the mooks.



Only if high enough level, you don't get surprised or grappled or you lose initiative. 
 I lost a level 19 archmage to trolls in second Ed.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Summon 2 earth elelmental to turn and a wall of stone to keep out the mooks.




It was a low-level adventure.

Also, you're assuming the casters (all three of them, because those are concentration spells) happen to have those spells selected.  Can I choose which magic items my team of Fighters happens to have when faced with your challenge?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Um, no. 4e outsold Pathfinder in every quarter until after Next was announced and they stopped publishing new 4e stuff.
> 
> The revival started around the time Aquisitions Inc got big, which was well before the Next playtest was announced. Hell, before Essentials, IIRC.
> 
> ...




Didn't DDI count inactive players and ex players? I had an account as well for example.

 We know now they decided to kill 4E in 2010, 5E design started 2011. That's not successful they probably sold well at launch when people bought it blind like I did. Never bought any more books after release and forgot to cancel DDI until 2010.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Diving suits don't exist in the D&D world. Diving wreck adventures usually provide a way to get underwater if required via NPCs or a water breathing plant you eat.




Yeah, the DM can throw the players a bone.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Yeah, the DM can through the players a bone.




 Without magic you don't get to explore the wreck. Or are you suggesting that people get to breath water? 

Quite a few underwater adventures in older D&D.  Even 4E required magic for this what's your point?

If people can breath water, and fly it's not D&D it's super heroes. Even then they normally have some explaination that makes sense in their universe.

Superpowers are still supernatural in practice. The force isn't magical as such but it's not normal either.

 It's fiction, heroes can do stuff we can't IRL.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> When you have to virtually take Dungeons out of Dungeon and Dragons because no cleric ie this super sized impact on the game... Yeh that means more important.
> 
> It wasn't even me saying that but one of those arguing that primacy of magic isn't the thing... because you could adjust the game to deal with lack of X.  The adjustment is over the top.
> 
> ...




I was thinking u were saying


Nagol said:


> ff
> 
> 
> Here's a quick anecdote from a  3.5 game I ran:
> ...




The fighter can ruin an encounter also by saying I don’t want to participate.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> It was a low-level adventure.




OK, Wizard 1 and 2 suggest the first mooks should crank while wizard 3 drops a web to keep more undesirables out.  Or 2 enlarges after laying down web and grease.  Or... I can go on.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Oofta said:


> TLDR version: I'm right and you are not entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Have a good one.



Oh dear lord stow the melodrama. "I'm right" doesn't equate to "you are not entitled to your opinion". 

You can think anything you want. What you are never, ever, in any public facing discussion venue, entitled to, is stating that opinion without any chance of someone telling you that you're wrong. Or calling out mistaken factual information. 

It's fine that you found the powers too similar for your taste. That doesn't mean they were the same, it just means you had a higher bar for dissimilarity (especially of presentation) than the designers or people who enjoyed 4e. 

If your argument has never been that the powers literally did the same things and had no distinction or uniqueness and that classes of the same role all played exactly the same, then nothing in my argument has anything to do with you, and you easily could have just not replied to me with a defensive counter-post calling me a jerk or whatever. 

If your argument has been the above, then I was talking about your arguments, and I will maintain and reiterate here that you were wrong about that. Because they powers simply do not do the same things, and make the classes that are thematically similar play more differently than they have in the past. If you can't see how different _Come And Get It_ is in play from _Blinding Barrage_...then you are actively choosing not to see it, or you haven't actually read the powers with any intent to understand them on even a basic level. It's genuinely as simple as that. There is no negative feeling here, it's just a matter of what the actual game mechanics in question _do in the game_.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Without magic you don't get to explore the wreck. Or are you suggesting that people get to breath water?
> 
> Quite a few underwater adventures in older D&D.  Even 4E required magic for this what's your point?
> 
> ...




As I wrote above. it'd be nice if D&D offered stronger support whether via items, NPCs, factional support, non-magical equivalents, or publicly available magical access to turn magical necessities into conveniences.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

4E powers aren't the same, I think they're repetitive but not the same. 

 It's a common complaint, it's clear what people are really complaining about us the powers themselves.

 On release you couldn't really play an illusionist. A side effect of 4E design was they didn't have room to fit all the classes in lol. That's not good design when you exclude 5/11 classes.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I was thinking u were saying
> 
> 
> The fighter can ruin an encounter also by saying I don’t want to participate.




Not by mid-level he can't.  The party can go "Ok" and do without by sacrificing more power to that encounter.  The fighter is approximately 1/N of the standard combat capability where N is the number of PCs.  That's much easier to handle.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Didn't DDI count inactive players and ex players? I had an account as well for example.
> 
> We know now they decided to kill 4E in 2010, 5E design started 2011. That's not successful they probably sold well at launch when people bought it blind like I did. Never bought any more books after release and forgot to cancel DDI until 2010.




Wait oh my god I'm literally cackling over here. Are you suggesting that a significant number of DDi subscribers, which is people _paying a monthly fee for access to the DDI service_ were actually just people who forgot for multiple years that they were paying for it? *Seriously!?*

That is actually the most absurd thing I've ever encountered in a discussion about 4e. I really hope you meant something else. 

I don't know you need to believe so hard that 4e flopped hard, but it just didn't, bud. They canned it because they knew that they weren't getting as much of the pie as they could with an edition that wasn't soured by an edition war, and they knew that to get it they were going to have to start from scratch with enormous amounts of player feedback and actively invite people back into the fold in the most inclusive way possible. They rebooted DnD, refusing to even call the new edition by an edition number, because they knew that a divided fanbase was limited how much they profit they could make, not because they were losing money.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> OK, Wizard 1 and 2 suggest the first mooks should crank while wizard 3 drops a web to keep more undesirables out.  Or 2 enlarges after laying down web and grease.  Or... I can go on.




More concentration spells, depends on those spells being selected for the day, and depends on those slots still being available (FWIW this was the final escape from the dungeon). And even if all those conditions are met and the targets succeed at their saving throws...now those slots are gone.

:-/


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> More concentration spells, depends on those spells being selected for the day, and depends on those slots still being available (FWIW this was the final escape from the dungeon). And even if all those conditions are met and the targets succeed at their saving throws...now those slots are gone.
> 
> :-/




Sure! The slots are gone!  The days' work gets shorter and more dangerous!  But it gets done if the group proceeds with planning and care.  The non-caster party situations may not even be discovered and if discovered impossible to complete regardless of planning and care.  In other words, non-casters offer utility.  Casters offer opportunity.

And this is in 5e which is far more careful to try and balance caster's long term capability than 3.X does.  The quote I responded to said any edition.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

We are talking about different things here. Fourth edition is more interested in how a Fighter is different from a Barbarian or Ranger than other editions. Same goes for how different a Wizard is from a Bard, Sorcerer, Cleric, or Avenger.

Almost every other edition is more concerned with how different a spell caster is from a martial PC while not really having too much differentiation within the category.

Ideally I think we should care about both in roughly equal measure.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

On a different note:

Mundane characters can absolutely explore a wreck without magic. Diving bells exist. 

But DnD worlds are magical. The desire to carefully avoid ever having it be true that the best solution to a problem is magical is like making a science fiction game where it's never the case that technology is the best solution to a problem. It's not a reasonable requirement. 

If you want less magical dnd, there are 3rd party options, like Adventures in Middle-Earth. That product is well balanced within itself, and magic users are by far the minority. 

But for me, even if I'm playing a swashbuckler rogue with no magic of their own, I'm playing in a magical world where sometimes the diving bell is replaced with a ring of water breathing that you can buy from the shipwright that attaches to the mast of your ship, and allows you to breath water and ignore the pressure of the deep for a certain amount of time, x/day. 

Because the literal physical world itself is magical. 

I keep running into this in my own system as well, where one of my friends and fellow designers will point out that there's nothing stopping every character from gaining magic of some kind, and I'm just like..."Okay? So what? Why wouldn't every Wise (a term which here means, someone who knows about the supernatural) person find or learn magic of some kind? If someone wants to play the fantasy version of a Luddite, they can, but the game doesn't need to encourage it."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Oofta said:


> All I can say is that I disagree.



Fair 'nuff.



> powers were different



 fact


> but others ... meh.  Didn't feel distinct to me.



Opinion



> In other words stop telling everybody what their opinion is.



Not telling you what your opinion is, just what the facts were.

Technically - and this is really just a technicality - every 4e class power was even unique - _because the name of the class was part of the power_, yes, really, thus 'technicality.'
Eventually a few shared the same name (MP1, the Rogue & Warlord each got an exploit called Anticipate Attack - but they were _completely_ different), some names got used for both a power and a feat, or both a feat and an item... danger of feat proliferation, I guess. 
As of Essentials, that changed slightly as Healing Word was re-cycled whole cloth to the Sentinel Druid, /including keeping the Cleric class name as part of the power/ - may have happened with other powers, too, I'm honestly not sure.  
Thing is, that's nothing new to D&D.  Spellcasters have always shared some of their spells.   In 1e, a shared spell was noted as such, "except as noted above and described below, this spell is the same as the _n_ level _other caster_ spell of the same name," was not unfamiliar.  In 3e, myriad spells had several classes listed with them maybe even a different levels or components for some of those classes.  In 5e, each caster's list contains more shared spells than spells unique to it (the high point, the wizard, has 33 spells it doesn't share, the low point, the sorcerer, /none/.)   Nor was it only spells. 1e Thieves shared some of their 'Special' Abilities with Monks and Assassins, 2e, with Bards, IIRC, 3e, in addition to most of them becoming just skills, with Barbarian (Uncanny Dodge), 5e, with Bard (Expertise).  4e went back to the 1e format of listing spells (and prayers & extended it to exploits) by class, then level, then alphabetically, instead of having one big list like in 3e, and took it a step further by putting each list right after its class description - no (technically exact) duplications, no references to another list.

Personally, I had always preferred the 1e organization, you could read the class, read the spells for the first few levels, and have an idea what it could do.  I suppose it /could/ have taken mechanically-identical powers, and done the 1e thing, there'd have been a few Rogue powers that gave an Attack line of DEX vs AC, and then substituted "except as noted above, this exploit is identical to the level _n_ fighter exploit of the same name," but it'd've saved almost no space, I guess, so they didn't do it - instead, they got a tad disingenuous (IMHO) and gave them different /names/, as well, and figured no one would notice (ha!).   Again, personally, I think consolidating similar powers by source has a certain aesthetic appeal, though, even if it'd mean that each class would have some class powers, then also draw from a separate list of powers by source, which might, in turn, have special lines for each class.... OK, maybe not that appealing.  ::  … no I still like the idea, just needs the right organization/implementation... (heh, subjective preferences are like that).


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

Add Concentration to the list of Fourth Edition inspired mechanics that I hate in Fifth Edition. Just like the Healing Surge to Hit Dice transition they took something with compelling gameplay and stripped out the things that made them interesting in play. The game would be more interesting without both.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> On a different note:
> Mundane characters can absolutely explore a wreck without magic. Diving bells exist.



 Not to get too scientific, but until decompression chambers, diving bells could be death traps.

OTOH, there's a myth that Alexander the Great, I think it was, had himself lowered into the sea in a glass box and observed an aquatic kingdom, complete with aquatic people picking fruit of aquatic trees.   So, yeah, fantasy world, who knows.  

Maybe you can just hold your breath /a really long time/.   Beowulf sure did.



> But DnD worlds are magical. The desire to carefully avoid ever having it be true that the best solution to a problem is magical is like making a science fiction game where it's never the case that technology is the best solution to a problem.
> It's not a reasonable requirement.



I kinda gotta agree.  
How' bout avoiding magic /always/ being the best solution?  Maybe avoiding it being the /only/ solution?  Or even, however occasionally, having it not offer a solution, at all?
That unreasonable?


----------



## Mort (Sep 18, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Add Concentration to the list of Fourth Edition inspired mechanics that I hate in Fifth Edition. Just like the Healing Surge to Hit Dice transition they took something with compelling gameplay and stripped out the things that made them interesting in play. The game would be more interesting without both.




Interesting. I find Concentration to be one of the best 5e mechanics. 

It is a massive balancing factor to spellcasters that makes shenanigans easily possible in prior editions not work in 5e - while still retaining the spellcaster feel so many people seem to like.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Add Concentration to the list of Fourth Edition inspired mechanics that I hate in Fifth Edition. Just like the Healing Surge to Hit Dice transition they took something with compelling gameplay and stripped out the things that made them interesting in play. The game would be more interesting without both.



I'd judge concentration syncretic:  it's Concentration (just a CON save instead of a skill) from 3e, Sustain from 4e, and, well, Concentration from 1e.  And, it applies less often than any of those mechanics did.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Campbell said:


> We are talking about different things here. Fourth edition is more interested in how a Fighter is different from a Barbarian or Ranger than other editions. Same goes for how different a Wizard is from a Bard, Sorcerer, Cleric, or Avenger.
> 
> Almost every other edition is more concerned with how different a spell caster is from a martial PC while not really having too much differentiation within the category.
> 
> Ideally I think we should care about both in roughly equal measure.




I agree, though I'd also say that giving fighters distinct mechanical abilities with limited resource based usage doesn't actually make them similar to wizards, it just _looks_ like it does. In the end, much like with balance, appearance is often more impactful than reality. 

But no fighter power ever summoned anything, created a wall of elemental damage, made them fly, etc. 

If I had a time machine and wanted to waste it on betting on things that don't matter, I'd bet my entire savings account that if you went back and made the lead up to 4e friendlier to people who loved 3.5 (ie, no making fun of it in official announcements and such), and presented powers in a way that looked more like abilities in Star Wars Saga Edition (like 5e has done), decreased the PHB number of powers in favor of including at least 1 of the PHB2 classes, released the rest of the PHB2 classes within the first year (and the gnome, for crying out loud), and tweaked some other presentation problems here and there, the edition war simply would not have happened. Full stop. 

we'd still have a 5e right now, because they still hadn't learned the lessons of rolling out too much content too fast to keep up with, using extensive public engagement as a tool for creating the game, etc, but at least the 4e run would have been much friendlier.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> On a different note:
> 
> Mundane characters can absolutely explore a wreck without magic. Diving bells exist.
> 
> ...




Diving bells may exist, but I suspect many campaigns don't have them.  And a diving bell lets you see the wreck, not explore it.  SCUBA gear on the other hand would let you explore it.  It would be potentially more dangerous than using magic but that's OK!  It moves the necessity to a convenience.

Having the world have had this question asked and a reasonably priced answer determined (like the mast ring) is great!  An herb that grants water breathing for a hour would also work great. I just think the game would be better off with some strong systems/advice for DMs to include such in their worlds through faction support, incidental magic, or non-magical equivalents.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Campbell said:


> We are talking about different things here. Fourth edition is more interested in how a Fighter is different from a Barbarian or Ranger than other editions. Same goes for how different a Wizard is from a Bard, Sorcerer, Cleric, or Avenger.



IDK, it seems pretty concerned with both class distinctions within a source, within a role, and even within a source & role (Ranger & Rogue are quite distinct from eachother, as are Artificer and Bard, for instance).



> Almost every other edition is more concerned with how different a spell caster is from a martial PC while not really having too much differentiation within the category.



 Spell caster category?  OK, yes, sure, back in the day, both Magic-users & Clerics (& Druids & Illusionists & high-level Paladins & Rangers & optional Bards) 'memorized' 'spells.'  Vancian for everybody.   



> Ideally I think we should care about both in roughly equal measure.



I suppose there's something to be said for both similarity - mechanical consistency and parsimony of sub-systems, shared qualities among similar classes - and for differentiation - there's a point to the class even existing, choices have mechanically distinct functions, contributions, and concepts.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 18, 2019)

Now 4E healing surges and 13th age healing may be a quick fix for people that want to play that way. I always liked books with optional rules to allow players to customize a campaign the way they want.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not to get too scientific, but until decompression chambers, diving bells could be death traps.
> 
> OTOH, there's a myth that Alexander the Great, I think it was, had himself lowered into the sea in a glass box and observed an aquatic kingdom, complete with aquatic people picking fruit of aquatic trees.   So, yeah, fantasy world, who knows.
> 
> Maybe you can just hold your breath /a really long time/.   Beowulf sure did.



 As ever, I am not too worried about scientific reality in a fantasy roleplaying game. Diving bells work in games because it's fun to let them work. That's all the explanation I need. Let Al dive in a glass case to the bottom of the ocean, I say.



> I kinda gotta agree.
> How' bout avoiding magic /always/ being the best solution?  Maybe avoiding it being the /only/ solution?  Or even, however occasionally, having it not offer a solution, at all?
> That unreasonable?



I'm all for that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'd bet my entire savings account that if you went back and made the lead up to 4e friendlier to ... decreased the PHB number of powers in favor of including at least 1 of the PHB2 classes, released the rest of the PHB2 classes within the first year (and the gnome, for crying out loud...



4e PH1:  June 2008,  4e PH2:  March 2009.  It was less than a year.  

If they wanted to squeeze more content like classes & races in the PH1, they could've just put the magic items in the DMG.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Diving bells may exist, but I suspect many campaigns don't have them.  And a diving bell lets you see the wreck, not explore it.  SCUBA gear on the other hand would let you explore it.  It would be potentially more dangerous than using magic but that's OK!  It moves the necessity to a convenience.
> 
> Having the world have had this question asked and a reasonably priced answer determined (like the mast ring) is great!  An herb that grants water breathing for a hour would also work great. I just think the game would be better off with some strong systems/advice for DMs to include such in their worlds through faction support, incidental magic, or non-magical equivalents.



You can...leave...a diving bell, and go back into it. People can hold their breath a long time in dnd. It seems to assume really healthy lungs and practice in the skill of holding one's breath. (I'd have tied it to the Athletics skill, myself) 

You don't need never-ending continuous breathing to explore underwater. You just need a place to breath within range, and a decent handle on how long you can hold your breath, and how fast you can swim. 

People explored underwater before scuba gear. 

I'll never understand folks who need to restrict mundanes on the most strict possible terms, even erring on the side of going beyond how restrictive real life is. Just let them be cool, guys. It's fine.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

Maybe they're _magic_ diving bells...


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e PH1:  June 2008,  4e PH2:  March 2009.  It was less than a year.
> 
> If they wanted to squeeze more content like classes & races in the PH1, they could've just put the magic items in the DMG.




I don't really care about nit picking particulars. The wait was long enough that it bothered people. There shouldn't have been any significant wait. I am not interested in hashing out the best model for that in a weird hypothetical used to make a point about presentation and how the marketing was handled.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> 4E powers aren't the same, I think they're repetitive but not the same.
> 
> It's a common complaint, it's clear what people are really complaining about us the powers themselves.
> 
> On release you couldn't really play an ill





Tony Vargas said:


> 4e PH1:  June 2008,  4e PH2:  March 2009.  It was less than a year.
> 
> If they wanted to squeeze more content like classes & races in the PH1, they could've just put the magic items in the DMG.




That and not worrying about level 21-30.

 I don't think anything would have saved 4E though as implemented the playstyle is to niche.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You can...leave...a diving bell, and go back into it. People can hold their breath a long time in dnd. It seems to assume really healthy lungs and practice in the skill of holding one's breath. (I'd have tied it to the Athletics skill, myself)
> 
> You don't need never-ending continuous breathing to explore underwater. You just need a place to breath within range, and a decent handle on how long you can hold your breath, and how fast you can swim.
> 
> ...




I confess to not checking the current rules for holding one's breath.  It used to be a minute or two, tops before bad things started happening.  I see its up to 6 minutes for Con 20 types now.  Which is a long time in D&D.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You can...leave...a diving bell, and go back into it. People can hold their breath a long time in dnd. It seems to assume really healthy lungs and practice in the skill of holding one's breath. (I'd have tied it to the Athletics skill, myself)
> 
> You don't need never-ending continuous breathing to explore underwater. You just need a place to breath within range, and a decent handle on how long you can hold your breath, and how fast you can swim.
> 
> ...




Not long term, I think Pearl divers in shallow areas could last around 8 minutes with a lifetime of training.


----------



## TheSword (Sep 18, 2019)

... Gelfling.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Maybe they're _magic_ diving bells...



Maybe, but I'm perfectly happy with them just being diving bells and not being picky about the scientific realism of diving in a fantasy world. 

But if you got a DM or group who _just can't even_ with things that defy whatever perception they have (right or wrong or in between) of how a thing works IRL, it could just be made of a special metal that diffuses the effect of rapidly changing pressure, with naturally cultivated underground fungus lining the inside that scrubs your exhaled breath to keep the air inside clean and usable. It's fantasy, without being _magical_ in any way that matters or could be dispelled with dispel magic.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Both magic items and casters figure into the Primacy of Magic - or Magic Dependency, if you prefer.  They figure a little differently in different still-D&D editions.  Magic items are more a build resource in 3e than in any other really-D&D game (unless you count PF1 as separate from 3e), for instance, but they're still /very/ important, and, yes, can be especially so when there's no casters to provide magic.  By the same token, casters are very important, but in a setting where magic items are extremely rare, even for PCs, or even non-existent, they're that much /more/ important.




I have a different reaction to "Wizards are better than Fighters" and "The game is just too dependent on magic."

To the former I simply disagree.

To the latter, it's a valid criticism/complaint/observation, but I also don't have much sympathy for it.  Yes, the "Essence of D&D" is that there's magic.  There are people who cast spells.  There are magical items.  There are monsters that can only exist because of magic.  There are magical sigils and traps and doors and portals and pools and everything else.  

But just as I cannot imagine D&D without magic, I also cannot imagine it without swords and shields and bows and arrows.  (That said, I can quite happily imagine it...and sometimes wistfully do...without rapiers and hand crossbows.) 



> Ideally, I'd prefer "balanced with" to "as effective as" - I'd expect the effectiveness of a wizard & fighter to be very different in nature.   But, yes, ideally class balance should not be contingent upon one class having access to found items.   For instance, the effectiveness of a Ranger vs Warlock or Artificer vs Warlord or Fighter vs Paladin, assuming corresponding 4e-style formal Roles, should be quite comparable, whether both had items or neither did.




I think that is a fine goal, and I agree it's not ideal that, at high level, a Fighter without any magic items is at a bigger relative disadvantage compared to a Wizard without any magic items, but at the same time I don't know of any solutions that I like.  Giving the Fighter comic book superhero abilities is not, to me, a satisfying solution.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Maybe, but I'm perfectly happy with them just being diving bells and not being picky about the scientific realism of diving in a fantasy world.
> 
> But if you got a DM or group who _just can't even_ with things that defy whatever perception they have (right or wrong or in between) of how a thing works IRL, it could just be made of a special metal that diffuses the effect of rapidly changing pressure, with naturally cultivated underground fungus lining the inside that scrubs your exhaled breath to keep the air inside clean and usable. It's fantasy, without being _magical_ in any way that matters or could be dispelled with dispel magic.




I was being silly.

I'm with you.  I don't need to explain the physics (or magic) of the diving bells.  They work, 'kay?

(Well, _maybe_ they work.  Mwuhahahahahaha....)


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Not long term, I think Pearl divers in shallow areas could last around 8 minutes with a lifetime of training.




Ugh. Again (for the millionth time) I do not care at all about nitpicking particulars. I literally could not care less about it. I care the minimal possible amount. To care less, I'd have to not know that nitpicking particulars exists. 

Why? Because it doesn't ever matter, and doesn't ever usefully add to a discussion. 

Here's a nit pick that matters about as much as yours, which is to say it doesn't. Coastal nomads that can hold their breath that long have actual hereditary adaptations that make them better at holding their breath for longer than others can, and their "training" is literally just diving on a daily basis their entire lives, which is part of why some of them still die from overestimating their abilities. 

Is that information additive to the discussion, somehow? I can't think of any way that it is, myself. 

Back to the point, even 8 minutes is a pretty damn long time, and allows for quite a lot of exploration when you don't have to return to the surface to get your breath and let your lungs (and spleen, of all things) rest. But more importantly (as in, important, where the preceeding information isn't), DnD allows for high con PCs to hold their breath for plenty long to explore in multiple back and forth trips without magic.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Wait oh my god I'm literally cackling over here. Are you suggesting that a significant number of subscribers, which is people _paying a monthly fee for a service_ were actually just people who forgot for multiple years that they were paying for it? *Seriously!?*



 Or kept forgetting to cancel it.  Or found canceling too inconvenient.  

Prettymuch the whole point of a subscription model.  
IM(Cynical)O.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I was being silly.
> 
> I'm with you.  I don't need to explain the physics (or magic) of the diving bells.  They work, 'kay?
> 
> (Well, _maybe_ they work.  Mwuhahahahahaha....)



Heh. Sorry if I was overly assertive in my reply. The whole "all things mundane must be very strictly kept in line with the DM's perception of how it really works in the really real world" mentality is one of my biggest pet peeves in TTRPGs. Probably the least important thing I'd leave a table over.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Or kept forgetting to cancel it.  Or found canceling too inconvenient.
> 
> Prettymuch the whole point of a subscription model.
> IM(Cynical)O.



For years!? And it was super easy to cancel! Every time I did to save money for a while and come back or when the group was on a hiatus, it took exactly one minute to do so, including the time it took to navigate to the web page! 

I'm sorry, but I cannot fathom taking seriously the notion that even a single whole percent of the subscription base was "I keep meaning to cancel/I still have that subscription?!/whatever" customers. 99.X% were people who absolutely intended to be actively subscribed, and any claim to the contrary is extraordinary  to the point that it requires direct, strong, evidence to view it with any attitude other than laughter and the assumption that the speaker is making a joke.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> That and not worrying about level 21-30.
> 
> I don't think anything would have saved 4E though as implemented the playstyle is to niche.



The playstyle is largely the same as any other editions, including 5e. 

I wouldn't even be playing 5e right now if my group hadn't been able to transition witout changing our playstyle at all.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Oh dear lord stow the melodrama. "I'm right" doesn't equate to "you are not entitled to your opinion".
> 
> You can think anything you want. What you are never, ever, in any public facing discussion venue, entitled to, is stating that opinion without any chance of someone telling you that you're wrong. Or calling out mistaken factual information.
> 
> ...



Saying that your opinion is factual does not make it so no matter how often you repeat it.

The verbiage changed slightly.  But take off the classification label and tweak the fluff and to me they look much the same.

Which is, of course, just my opinion.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Having the world have had this question asked and a reasonably priced answer determined (like the mast ring) is great!  An herb that grants water breathing for a hour would also work great. I just think the game would be better off with some strong systems/advice for DMs to include such in their worlds through faction support, incidental magic, or non-magical equivalents.



I skipped this part last time in my reply. Sorry. 

Yes, I absolutely agree! I would also love to see a feat that represents mild hereditary aquatic adaptation, just increased breath holding time and swim speed, with some benefits that are relevant when not underwater. 

I love the idea of an herb you can buy or forage that lets you breath water or hold your breath for aquatic mammal lengths of time (ie, hours at a time), and I really wish the Saltmarsh book had gone into that advice you mention. Terrible missed opportunity, there.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> For years!? And it was super easy to cancel! Every time I did to save money for a while and come back or when the group was on a hiatus, it took exactly one minute to do so, including the time it took to navigate to the web page!
> 
> I'm sorry, but I cannot fathom taking seriously the notion that even a single whole percent of the subscription base was "I keep meaning to cancel/I still have that subscription?!/whatever" customers. 99.X% were people who absolutely intended to be actively subscribed, and any claim to the contrary is extraordinary  to the point that it requires direct, strong, evidence to view it with any attitude other than laughter and the assumption that the speaker is making a joke.



(a) Remember that it wasn't always a paid subscription model.

(b) People _do_ in fact forget to cancel stuff like this. It may sound lazy and irresponsible to you and to me, but it happens a lot. Like @Tony Vargas said, the whole subscription model sort of expects people to do this.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Saying that your opinion is factual does not make it so no matter how often you repeat it.
> 
> The verbiage changed slightly.  But take off the classification label and tweak the fluff and to me they look much the same.
> 
> Which is, of course, just my opinion.




You seem to have trouble parsing fact from opinion in a set of statements. The powers are factually different. I even recognised the validity of them _not being different enough for you_, which is an entirely different thing. 

Again, "they were too similar for me to enjoy" is an opinion. A strange one to hear from someone who likes other editions of dnd, unless maybe you only ever liked spellcasters, since they're the only ones that are at all different from eachother, but still very much an opinion. Or more specifically, a statement of preference. 
"The powers are the same." is an objectively incorrect statement of fact. If you never made that claim, then there is no reason for you to be defensively snarking at me over and over in this thread.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> (a) Remember that it wasn't always a paid subscription model.
> 
> (b) People _do_ in fact forget to cancel stuff like this. It may sound lazy and irresponsible to you and to me, but it happens a lot. Like @Tony Vargas said, the whole subscription model sort of expects people to do this.




When was it not paid? The entire run of 4e, as long as the CB and the digital magazines were a thing, IIRC, it was a paid sub. Certainly during any time that could possibly be relevant to this discussion. 

And there are people who leave subscriptions going that they forget or don't care about, but the majority of people can't afford that behavior, and aren't that out of touch with their bank account. The idea that any significant percentage of DDI subs were accidental is patently absurd. It was brought out as an argument in bad faith.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don't really care about nit picking particulars. The wait was long enough that it bothered people. There shouldn't have been any significant wait.



Heh, just say'n.  The "Gnome Problem" was addressed within what, 9 mo?  And it was still being talked about in 2012.  1e and 5e had a year or more so between books with significant crunch.  Artificer? about to come out after 5 years.  Psion?  Still in the pipeline.  Warlord?  Yeah, right.

I guess "get out something even only some players want in less than a year" is not the Essence of D&D.

(Actually, to me, 5e's pace of release /does/ feel like "Really D&D," because 1e is what I acclimated to.  Book a year?  Sounds comfy.)


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Heh, just say'n.  The "Gnome Problem" was addressed within what, 9 mo?  And it was still being talked about in 2012.  1e and 5e had a year or more so between books with significant crunch.  Artificer? about to come out after 5 years.  Psion?  Still in the pipeline.  Warlord?  Yeah, right.
> 
> I guess "get out something even only some players want in less than a year" is not the Essence of D&D.
> 
> (Actually, to me, 5e's pace of release /does/ feel like "Really D&D," because 1e is what I acclimated to.  Book a year?  Sounds comfy.)




Dude, you're ignoring the actual point, again. 

Gnomes, Barbarians, Druids, Monks, etc, are a core part of DnD. The Artificer, as much as I love it, isn't. 

Waiting a few years for tertiary class and race options is fine. Waiting at all for options that are, for many people, the point of playing dnd instead of Savage Worlds, isn't. 

We had to wait for bards and druids, tony. Bards and druids. Not comperable in any way to waiting for Artificers, and not related at the end of the day to the release schedule. The problem wasn't that books didn't come out soon enough. The problem was that core player options that large segments of the player base don't want to play dnd without weren't part of the initial release. They could have decreased the number of powers, items, or even waiting until PHB2 to release epic levels, and reduced the problem, and the base would have been largely fine with waiting longer than a year for PHB2.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Saying that your opinion is factual does not make it so no matter how often you repeat it.



Saying that a false statement of an opinion doesn't save it from being false, either.

(Not that I'm saying you, specifically, do that, below...)



> The verbiage changed slightly.  But take off the classification label and tweak the fluff and to me they look much the same.
> Which is, of course, just my opinion.



You are relating an opinion that sounds like it involves some facts, and you are setting it in the context of 4e being NOT-D&D, but presumably you don't find any similar issue in 5e (or 3.5?).   And, that may need some clarification.

Now, within a given source, there are some /very/ similar powers, where you could do exactly that.  File off the class & power name, and you have two martial encounter weapon attack powers that, say, let you shift half your speed and attack an enemy for 2W damage.  Only the fluff text is that different.  OK, maybe one uses STR and the other DEX (in 5e, that's just called a finesse weapon, not much of an issue).  There aren't a tremendous number of such powers though, and there really aren't many that cross source lines.

So, like I said above, even I feel the aesthetic impulse to just consolidate powers by Source.  I mean, that's my opinion on the matter.

OTOH, you have the Sorcerer, in 3.5 and 5e, alike, he had no spells that were unique to his list ("he" being Hennet, of course), likewise, in 5e, the Sorcerer has no spells that are only sorcerer spells.  Not a problem, both eds are Really D&D, neither was Warred against (much, 3.5 caught some flack as a 'money-grab,' and grognards groused about it's 'grid dependence').  Yet, that some sorcerer spells, stripped of identifying marks and fluff text might be close enough to "look much the same," mechanically to Warlock or Wizard spells was an issue in 4e?

Or have the many spell-list duplications in past editions, in general, and the Sorcerer, in particular, always been appalling to you, as well?

Or is this opinion getting into the point Cambell, made, above, about 4e seeming more concerned with differentiating classes from eachother within roles, and other eds seeming more concerned with differentiating between casters & non-casters?


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

Basically this ad populam argument basically boils down to you cannot have what you want, not just in this world, but in any world that could have possibly existed.

We get told there's this big tent that exists, but any desire that contradicts the final shape Fifth Edition took like wanting more concise design language or a fighter that can be played with skill is strictly verboten.

It feels like accept things as they are and be happy with what you got. Just join the rest of us already. It does not feel like contrary voices are welcome or respected.

I think Fifth Edition is a damn good game and I enjoy playing it. I would not play it otherwise. Still, this notion that it represents an untouchable state of game design perfection, like there is no reason for any other game to exist, is really wearing thin with me.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Dude, you're ignoring the actual point, again.



Who?  
Me?  



doctorbadwolf said:


> Gnomes, Barbarians, Druids, Monks, etc, are a core part of DnD. The Artificer, as much as I love it, isn't.



Barbarians were a late 1e edition, Druid (much as I love it) was literally the least-popular class on the last D&D Beyond set of statistics I saw pasted up here, and the Barbarian & Monk were left out of 2e.  Gnomes, IIRC, were always the least-popular race, too, the Bard was openly mocked for decades. 



> Waiting a few years



 5 years...







> for tertiary class and race options is fine. Waiting at all for options that are, for many people, the point of playing dnd instead of Savage Worlds, isn't.



 Psionics, though not a class, were in the 1e PH1, and in every ed since.  The Warlord was in a PH1.   They're not 'tertiary.'


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Barbarians were a late 1e edition, Druid (much as I love it) was literally the least-popular class on the last D&D Beyond set of statistics I saw pasted up here, and the Barbarian & Monk were left out of 2e.  Gnomes, IIRC, were always the least-popular race, too, the Bard was openly mocked for decades.
> 
> 5 years... Psionics, though not a class, were in the 1e PH1, and in every ed since.  The Warlord was in a PH1.   They're not 'tertiary.'




More nit picking, and careening out of the way of the point. 

It does not matter what was in the 1e PHB or a supplement for it. To players anticipating 4e, which is the only perspective that mattered _at all_, those classes needed to be available from day one. I won't quibble over word choice or whatever any further. If you have something to say about the actual meat of anything I said, I'm happy to discuss it.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Saying that a false statement of an opinion doesn't save it from being false, either.
> 
> (Not that I'm saying you, specifically, do that, below...)
> 
> ...




It's a fact that in my opinion the structure of 4E gave us powers that felt generic to me and several of the people I played with.

That's all.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

I absolutely believe that Bards, Barbarians, Druids, and Gnomes are more essential to most people's experience of Dungeons and Dragons then Psionics and Warlords.

I also believe that if Fifth Edition did not have  Warlocks, Tieflings, and Dragonborn it would have had a minimal impact on its acceptance. Now it can't take that stuff out because new players love them too much but it absolutely could have at release.

Warlords are a mascot. They will never be a thing because they cannot be a thing.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> (a) Remember that it wasn't always a paid subscription model.
> 
> (b) People _do_ in fact forget to cancel stuff like this. It may sound lazy and irresponsible to you and to me, but it happens a lot. Like @Tony Vargas said, the whole subscription model sort of expects people to do this.




I meant to cancel after 1 year forgot about it twice.

2nd 4E campaign was 2010, paying for it may as well use it. We had one really good session, wife like her dwarf fighter but then they changed the racial thing on DDI, group wasn't happy overall/mist of the time and it was just to hard using core books and a single DDI subscription so the players were kind if excluded from reading stuff at home.

Made it to level 8 and gave up.

I would probably play it if offered if option b was nothing but I wouldn't run it. Bard or Rogue would have been my choice. Even if I wanted to run it 2010 couldn't get the players and it works better with 5 than 3 players.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I absolutely believe that Bards, Barbarians, Druids, and Gnomes are more essential to most people's experience of Dungeons and Dragons then Psionics and Warlords.
> 
> I also believe that if Fifth Edition did not have  Warlocks, Tieflings, and Dragonborn it would have had a minimal impact on its acceptance. Now it can't take that stuff out because new players love them too much but it absolutely could have at release.
> 
> Warlords are a mascot. They will never be a thing because they cannot be a thing.




Warlocks and Tieflings have gone over well, still waiting on a Dragonborn. Young players like Tieflings.

On release I don't think cutting then would have mattered to much and they're opt in ad well.

 Warlords and Psionics aren't the essence of D&D either.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Re: blown-uo Wand of the Magi


Arnwolf666 said:


> Sounds like a jerk DM to me



Er...where do you get this conclusion from?

Magic items are (and should be!) fragile enough that some of them breaking becomes a very real possibility if you get nailed with a fireball, lightning bolt, or similar and blow your save.

And wands, when they break, have a chance of going >boom!< - an unintentional version of the 'retributive strike' you can get by breaking one intentionally.

The character in question just got immensely unlucky.  Them's the breaks, pun intended.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 18, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I absolutely believe that Bards, Barbarians, Druids, and Gnomes are more essential to most people's experience of Dungeons and Dragons then Psionics and Warlords.



I wouldn't consider /any/ of those (nor the Artificer) essential to "most people's" experience of D&D.  I'd hardly credit much beyond the Big 4 being /essential/ to /most/.

OTOH, they're all candidates for creating a 'Gnome Effect,' if that ever really was a thing.  The Warlord is merely /new/ compared to the others.  The Artificer is coming because it's essential to Eberron.  And psionics can't come later than Athas with borking that setting.



Zardnaar said:


> Warlords and Psionics aren't the essence of D&D either.



 Warlords were contrary to the Primacy of Magic, in their only appearance, because they rivaled casters in the formal Leader Role, they enabled viable martial-only parties.  So, yeah, not only not the Essence of D&D, but the antithesis, under this theory (ouch).

Psionics, OTOH, are supernatural powers, in each of their incarnations they've been powerful, unique, & limited in manageable ways.  They fit fine.  And, while they were more notorious than beloved back in the day, they have come back in every single ed since.  They may not be /vital/ to the Essence of D&D, but they're surely compatible with it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I wouldn't consider /any/ of those (nor the Artificer) essential to "most people's" experience of D&D.  I'd hardly credit much beyond the Big 4 being /essential/ to /most/.
> 
> OTOH, they're all candidates for creating a 'Gnome Effect,' if that ever really was a thing.  The Warlord is merely /new/ compared to the others.  The Artificer is coming because it's essential to Eberron.  And psionics can't come later than Athas with borking that setting.
> 
> ...




 They are you can put anything in D&D but there's a time and place for it.  Doesn't have to be in the phb.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Oh, it is fine, it's just a trade off.
> 
> For example,
> 
> ...



Strong enough list, but one question: where does Detect Secret Doors come from?  Is that a spell from UA (most of which we tossed)? Or is it something your MU self-designed (if so, cool!)?

And even at high level I'd still take Sleep over Mending.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Here's a quick anecdote from a  3.5 game I ran:
> 
> The group has cleared an ancient monastery of bandits and are doing a final pass to clean up/check for secrets before heading out.  They notice via the Druid's _Detect Magic_ that one of the mosaics in the living areas is a magic item.  The Wizard casts _Identify_ and discovers it is a teleport link to somewhere and learns the command word.  The Wizard has other interests he wants to get to, but the group decides to scout it out.
> 
> ...



And who, when the chance was there, failed to bump the wizard in mid-casting thus ensuring the whole party had to stay put until s/he could memorize up another teleport?  The Druid, Fighter, and Barbarian did have a choice in the matter...

And given that the thing that was discovered (the portal) was itself magical, I don't see it as unfair that it took magic to find and 'unlock' it.  Had it been a non-magical secret door, that's different...though I notice the party has no Thief/Rogue in its lineup so even there the options would come down to magic or hammers.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Which again, leads into what I said earlier. 4e divided the fan base in spite of commercially doing fine and still being the top of the RPG market, and being the edition during which the surge in DnD popularity in general started, because of presentation more than any other single factor.



You must be in a vastly different market than I am.  4e caused a bit of a spike in popularity on release, but nowhere near what 3e prompted; and D&D was otherwise fading badly until 5e came out - after which it took off.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> If I had a time machine and wanted to waste it on betting on things that don't matter, I'd bet my entire savings account that if you went back and made the lead up to 4e friendlier to people who loved 3.5 (ie, no making fun of it in official announcements and such), and presented powers in a way that looked more like abilities in Star Wars Saga Edition (like 5e has done), decreased the PHB number of powers in favor of including at least 1 of the PHB2 classes, released the rest of the PHB2 classes within the first year (and the gnome, for crying out loud), and tweaked some other presentation problems here and there, the edition war simply would not have happened. Full stop.



Only thing I'd add to that list of retroactive changes is this: dispense with the "everything is core" idea.  Put out what's supposed to be core right up front (including the missing races, classes, etc.) and have done with it.  Subsequent releases are optional.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I love the idea of an herb you can buy or forage that lets you breath water or hold your breath for aquatic mammal lengths of time (ie, hours at a time), and I really wish the Saltmarsh book had gone into that advice you mention. Terrible missed opportunity, there.



Truth is, the realm of quasi-magical herbs in general is pretty much empty design space at the moment even though common literature is loaded with examples (athelas for healing in LotR, gillyweed for water-breathing in Harry Potter, etc.).

There was, I think, a rather vague attempt made at quasi-magical herbs in a very old Dragon Mag. article, and from that we houseruled our own system; but I don't know of any 'official' version in anything newer than 2e.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Strong enough list, but one question: where does Detect Secret Doors come from?  Is that a spell from UA (most of which we tossed)? Or is it something your MU self-designed (if so, cool!)?
> 
> And even at high level I'd still take Sleep over Mending.




It appeared in an enemy spell book and I yoinked it as soon as I saw it!  I'm not sure where it came from; maybe a Dragon or homebrew construction?  It causes a faint glow to outline concealed entrances/exits for a couple of rounds per level.

(This magic-user has made a few personal spells; mostly electrical in nature including Wall of Sparks (like Wall of Fire mostly; less spread damage but a bit extra damage to victims clad in metal) and Ball Lightning (looks and acts like Dancing Lights, goes Zzzap! when comes into contact with matter, split (level)d4 damage between the balls when first created, duration, range, appearance, control as per dancing lights).)

Mending is great! It helps make sure basic gear are patched up and not a concern for the DM.  It also helps break the ice with farmers and other common folk -- offering to repair pots and such shows that the character just regular folk!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Only thing I'd add to that list of retroactive changes is this: dispense with the "everything is core" idea.  Put out what's supposed to be core right up front (including the missing races, classes, etc.) and have done with it.  Subsequent releases are optional.



Do you think that would have changed how the edition was recieived in terms of the absurd "it's not dnd!!!!!1!!" stuff?



Lanefan said:


> Truth is, the realm of quasi-magical herbs in general is pretty much empty design space at the moment even though common literature is loaded with examples (athelas for healing in LotR, gillyweed for water-breathing in Harry Potter, etc.).
> 
> There was, I think, a rather vague attempt made at quasi-magical herbs in a very old Dragon Mag. article, and from that we houseruled our own system; but I don't know of any 'official' version in anything newer than 2e.




Absolutely. I'd love to see some work expanding the game in that direction, tbh.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> They could have decreased the number of powers, items, or even waiting until PHB2 to release epic levels



I definitely would have done that... they need more time to gel on epic anyway.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> You must be in a vastly different market than I am.  4e caused a bit of a spike in popularity on release, but nowhere near what 3e prompted; and D&D was otherwise fading badly until 5e came out - after which it took off.



I've actually never paid the least attention to my local market for any reason. I'm working from the internet community, the popularity of people watching other people play dnd (started in 4e with Aquisitions Inc), the tabletop game boom (started during the 4e era), and the signs of rising out of the slump in terms of games being made and sold. All of that started during 4e, and skyrocketed in the wake of 5e's popularity.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> It appeared in an enemy spell book and I yoinked it as soon as I saw it!  I'm not sure where it came from; maybe a Dragon or homebrew construction?  It causes a faint glow to outline concealed entrances/exits for a couple of rounds per level.



Probably a homebrew by your DM then, as I don't recall ever seeing it anywhere official.



> Mending is great! It helps make sure basic gear are patched up and not a concern for the DM.  It also helps break the ice with farmers and other common folk -- offering to repair pots and such shows that the character just regular folk!



I long ago weakened Mending just a bit and busted it down to a cantrip (combined it with Stitch), where it remains.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It's fiction, heroes can do stuff we can't IRL.



Sure till you don't like the fluff....


Zardnaar said:


> Not long term, I think Pearl divers in shallow areas could last around 8 minutes with a lifetime of training.



Sure but they aren't Beowulf


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Do you think that would have changed how the edition was recieived in terms of the absurd "it's not dnd!!!!!1!!" stuff?



Not sure, but I think it would have given it a better chance of being accepted at all, or at least taken out for a test drive by more groups.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Sure till you don't like the fluff....
> 
> Sure but they aren't Beowulf




 I've said multiple times they can put immersion breaking stuff on feats or a splat book. Beowolf is also fairly obscure relative to ye olde Knight in Shining armor.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'll never understand folks who need to restrict mundanes on the most strict possible terms, even erring on the side of going beyond how restrictive real life is. Just let them be cool, guys. It's fine.



Archers regularly IRL out firing epic fighters in d&d land is my current go to for that  and football players with a standing broad jump of a 20 strength and myself as a 16 year old having the jump of 16 Strength character for example....  Its almost like the game examples wanted to make sure martial types are very mundane


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Archers regularly IRL out firing epic fighters in d&d land is my current go to for that  and football players with a standing broad jump of a 20 strength and myself as a 16 year old having the jump of 16 Strength character for example....  Its almost like the game examples wanted to make sure martial types are very mundane



Once again so that's what people want. 

 Doesn't bother me if they make some sort of feat letting you breathe underwater. 

Merman Ancestor 

Done.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> And who, when the chance was there, failed to bump the wizard in mid-casting thus ensuring the whole party had to stay put until s/he could memorize up another teleport?  The Druid, Fighter, and Barbarian did have a choice in the matter...
> 
> And given that the thing that was discovered (the portal) was itself magical, I don't see it as unfair that it took magic to find and 'unlock' it.  Had it been a non-magical secret door, that's different...though I notice the party has no Thief/Rogue in its lineup so even there the options would come down to magic or hammers.




The players were tired of arguing at that point mostly, I think.  It's not unfair precisely.  It's just spellcasters need the utility of others to help them out but provide both utility and opportunity for different stuff.  I think the game would be stronger if there were other sources (not necessarily as good as spell casting companions) of opportunity.  The editions have slowly and probably without consideration been removing the opportunity systems originally in place.  I provide such (factions, expert NPCs, henchmen, specialist tools/drugs/herbs, weird items) when I run, but as a player I've been in campaigns where such stuff doesn't exist because the rulebooks don't touch on it and DMs have a lot of other things to think about.

At one point the party noticed that lack too and decided to head back to town and recruit a rogue... where they got distracted and wandered off without actually, you know, recruiting anyone only to realise it in the middle of a different dungeon when the first trap went off.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Beowolf is also fairly obscure relative to ye olde Knight in Shining armor.



Like the one who simply reached into boiling water and pulled somebody out? Or fought off a dozen round table knights barenaked  the two actually have that "not really dependent on their tools aspect" to put it in Fate terms in common.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Not sure, but I think it would have given it a better chance of being accepted at all, or at least taken out for a test drive by more groups.




Personally, I would love to see 'Orcus' the abandoned draft that caused 4e to be time-squeezed.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Like the one who simply reached into boiling water and pulled somebody out? Or fought off a dozen round table knights barenaked  the two actually have that "not really dependent onf their tools aspect" to put it in Fate terms in common.




 A fighter can do that in D&D, modern encounter guidelines sorta prevent it.

Reaching into boiling water is just damage, a high level fighter can take down mooks unarmed. 

 Hell 2E you could build an unarmed fighter.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

Mort said:


> Interesting. I find Concentration to be one of the best 5e mechanics.
> 
> It is a massive balancing factor to spell casters that makes shenanigans easily possible in prior editions not work in 5e - while still retaining the spell caster feel so many people seem to like.




My concerns are pretty much about game play rather than game balance. Game play is all about the ability to make decisions that matter and impact your success or failure whereas game balance is more about equality of outcome. My primary beef with Fifth Edition is a game is that it makes concessions to game play in order to have a more balanced game.

It feels like every opportunity they sought to bring the skill floor and skill ceiling closer and closer together. This touches on all points of the game from class design to spell design to monster design. Concentration instead of Sustaining a Spell, Hit Dice instead of Healing Surges, Neovancian Casting instead of Vancian Casting, Split Movement instead of positioning,  Weak Combat Maneuvers, Champion being nearly as good as a well played Battle Master, relying overly on Advantage and Disadvantage, and monsters that are big bags of hit points are a few of my least favorite things.

I get it. All this stuff makes the game more accessible, but by removing a whole host of interactions they have cut down on a skilled player's ability to punch above their weight class. One of my favorite parts of playing and running Fourth Edition was that you could play a Fighter well in the same way you could a Wizard well in previous editions. I would like a higher skill ceiling.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> A fighter can do that in D&D, modern encounter guidelines sorta prevent it.
> 
> Reaching into boiling water is just damage,



Yeh sort of a side effect of hit points I grant and even the original story sounds possibly like an odd sort of euphemism because the person he pulled out was a woman and unharmed. So not exactly certain what it meant.  But vivid. LOL 



Zardnaar said:


> a high level fighter can take down mooks unarmed.



Well what was intended and why I specified roundtable knights was these would be assumed anything but mooks (in context of the Greatest knight even very prestigious (call them level 9 in almost any version of D&D). 

I actually enjoy parallels over much broader gaps I think being able to tear down monsters in Beowulfs case and the bad guys even unarmed and unarmored in Lancelot's was maybe the only obvious one.   Cuh Cuhlainn and Sampson and Lancelot now those three all used Berserkergang and had empowering oaths which conflicted with other social oaths... only Lancelot managed to dodge between his... perhaps both his were indirectly both empowering and that made a difference.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> ...Champion being nearly as good as a well played Battle Master...



Say wot mate?


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Say wot mate?




I think they are too close in effectiveness. There is definitely a gap, but not large enough for my tastes.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Like the one who simply reached into boiling water and pulled somebody out? Or fought off a dozen round table knights barenaked  the two actually have that "not really dependent on their tools aspect" to put it in Fate terms in common.



Probably more obscure.  
But, I mean, Beowulf has had several movies, at least one fairly big budget, at least one (not the same one) actually good, and … other projects that used the name but not the story...


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Hell 2E you could build an unarmed fighter.



Sure but this definitely was an example of fighting outside of his forte or we could take it back to yea old heroes are versatile way more versatile than sometimes games present


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Yeh sort of a side effect of hit points I grant and even the original story sounds possibly like an odd sort of euphemism because the person he pulled out was a woman and unharmed. So not exactly certain what it meant.  But vivid. LOL
> 
> 
> Well what was intended and why I specified roundtable knights was these would be assumed anything but mooks (in context of the Greatest knight even very prestigious (call them level 9 in almost any version of D&D).
> ...




The way I did it was if your level 6 fighter was butt naked rather that give them CR appropriate encounters you used level 0 NPCs so the fighter was bad ass without weapons but would still take some damage.

Same thing if you're playing a stealth ninja, most NPCs are level 0,1,2 so a 5th level Thief can probably ninja them.

 it point inflation kinda killed that aspect off a bit. 

 When I first played 2E with modern gamers the fighter player from 3.5/PF rolled up a Myrmidon from the Complete Fighters book. Due to the difference between the editions he was a lot more effective relatively than in 3E and he enjoyed it although I did use some modernism like ascending AC. 

 Not I rate 2E and B/X high on my list of D&Ds, they're also lower powered than say 3.5 and 1E although in 1E its really on a couple of classes and level 11+ you really notice it.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> The way I did it was if your level 6 fighter was butt naked rather that give them CR appropriate encounters you used level 0 NPCs so the fighter was bad ass without weapons but would still take some damage.



Oh yes presenting the flunkies as mooks is a valid solution and workable I was just indicating the story intent was well to point out how over the top the lead character was and that they didnt need their tools for it which is a theme of Beowulf too  ... which level 6 might not qualify but that is something presentation can change. So I wouldn't  discredit your method.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

I like the idea in some thread (this one?) recently that Fighters can do vaguely defined epic things by spending a resource. (I proposed HD).

That way different DMs can decide what is suitably epic. Tony will let them leap tall buildings in single bounds. Others will let them make really great coffee for the Wizard.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Re: blown-uo Wand of the Magi
> Er...where do you get this conclusion from?
> 
> Magic items are (and should be!) fragile enough that some of them breaking becomes a very real possibility if you get nailed with a fireball, lightning bolt, or similar and blow your save.
> ...




Actually there were pretty harsh rules for magic item  s breaking on failed saves and making item saving throws. It’s cool if he did it all the time and was consistent and not just because he got himself a staff of the magi.  That was he knew up front they risk before blowing that kind of gold.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Oh yes presenting the flunkies as mooks is a valid solution and workable



In 4e I would probably need to make them under leveled minions unless the knight was a particular build ...


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I think they are too close in effectiveness. There is definitely a gap, but not large enough for my tastes.



I'm at a loss for the possible benefit of player options that are just strictly better than other player options that fill the same spot. 

That seems like very bad design.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'm at a loss for the possible benefit of player options that are just strictly better than other player options that fill the same spot.
> 
> That seems like very bad design.



Not sure but I think he is saying if you have a bevvy of choices the choices should have a yield ... ie better results when you do well and worse when you dont??? I am just guessing but not sure.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You seem to have trouble parsing fact from opinion in a set of statements. The powers are factually different. I even recognised the validity of them _not being different enough for you_, which is an entirely different thing.
> 
> Again, "they were too similar for me to enjoy" is an opinion. A strange one to hear from someone who likes other editions of dnd, unless maybe you only ever liked spellcasters, since they're the only ones that are at all different from eachother, but still very much an opinion. Or more specifically, a statement of preference.
> "The powers are the same." is an objectively incorrect statement of fact. If you never made that claim, then there is no reason for you to be defensively snarking at me over and over in this thread.



_Precisely because_ "They are the same" is obviously objectively incorrect if taken literally, "They were too similar for me to enjoy" is how a reasonable person arguing in good faith would interpret the complaint. Your continued attempts to argue against this strawman are unconstructive.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Oofta said:


> It's a fact that in my opinion the structure of 4E gave us powers that felt generic to me and several of the people I played with.



 So you have no opinions about any other edition?  Nor the analogous plight of the poor sorcerer, with not a unique spell to his class name in two other editions?  



Elfcrusher said:


> I like the idea in some thread (this one?) recently that Fighters can do vaguely defined epic things by spending a resource. (I proposed HD).



 Something like that.  MP2 had 'Martial Practices' - alternatives to rituals that did not-terribly-epic things at the cost of a Surge.  



> That way different DMs can decide what is suitably epic. Tony will let them leap tall buildings in single bounds.



Well Medieval buildings.  







> Others will let them make really great coffee for the Wizard.



Coffee's not period.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'm at a loss for the possible benefit of player options that are just strictly better than other player options that fill the same spot.
> 
> That seems like very bad design.




It's largely that I do not really like the simple options. I would rather the Champion just not exist. In my 4th Edition games I did not include the Slayer or the Knight. I largely ignored the Essentials stuff.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> When was it not paid? The entire run of 4e, as long as the CB and the digital magazines were a thing, IIRC, it was a paid sub. Certainly during any time that could possibly be relevant to this discussion.



The Character Builder was definitely available outside of a subscription for most of the time I was playing 4E. I ran one campaign and played another with it. But there was a point where they completely scrapped the old program, released a new (and less functional) one, and tied it to a subscription model.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> It's largely that I do not really like the simple options. I would rather the Champion just not exist. In my 4th Edition games I did not include the Slayer or the Knight. I largely ignored the Essentials stuff.




I get that some people don’t want to play the Champion because it’s too “simple”, but why do you care if other people do?  Is there something about the concept that conflicts with your philosophy of the game?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> _Precisely because_ "They are the same" is obviously objectively incorrect if taken literally, "They were too similar for me to enjoy" is how a reasonable person arguing in good faith would interpret the complaint. Your continued attempts to argue against this strawman are unconstructive.



The simpler conclusion that jives more closely with the majority of more in depth arguments i've seen up to today would be, "the powers may not literally be the same, but they effectively are, because they do basically the same couple things, and there is no meaningful difference between any two examples." 

Which is what I'm arguing against. It ain't true, and this isn't a matter of opinion, because it can objectively be tested. The powers do different things that can and do completely change the course of a scene depending on what powers are used. Even if we don't compare Split The Tree to Flaming Sphere, or other such powers that are completely, undeniably, different in every single facet other than the visual organizational structure and the fact they both result in damage. 

I mean, literally show me a power in the power list of any martial class that is remotely similar to Flaming Sphere or Wall of Fire? My Hexblade had weird zones of shadowy blindness and nectrotic damage, and the ability to move targets he hit in any direction from like 3 squares away. My rogue could not be built with anything like that, nor my monk, warlord, or ranger. My assassin could become a shadow creature that damaged anything that hit him, and teleport short distances at will. 

It really is objectively true that the classes and powers are very different, and presentation creates the false perception of lacking diversity of outcome and methodology in play.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Something like that.  MP2 had 'Martial Practices' - alternatives to rituals that did not-terribly-epic things at the cost of a Surge.



Anything that a nearly impossible check might accomplish was my idea for spending hp or an HD in 5e it leaves it within the GM decision scope... still wont avoid the coffee probably 


Tony Vargas said:


> Well Medieval buildings.  Coffee's not period.



 LOL


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> The Character Builder was definitely available outside of a subscription for most of the time I was playing 4E. I ran one campaign and played another with it. But there was a point where they completely scrapped the old program, released a new (and less functional) one, and tied it to a subscription model.



Nope. Getting updates requires a sub. Well, okay, you could get the update files from someone with a sub. 

But that doesn't really address what I asked. I asked when DDi was free during the actual run of 4e. When could you legally get the updates, compendium, and magazines without a sub?


----------



## Mort (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> My concerns are pretty much about game play rather than game balance. Game play is all about the ability to make decisions that matter and impact your success or failure whereas game balance is more about equality of outcome. My primary beef with Fifth Edition is a game is that it makes concessions to game play in order to have a more balanced game.




I think making the caster actually face meaningful choices greatly enhances game play.

I DMd 3e/3.5 all the way through 20th level and it really struck me how casters had too much choice without sacrifice: buff the fighter, debuff the enemy, section off the battlefield and summon some monsters for good measure, all in the same combat - sure why not.

It was too much and needed to be reigned in. Concentration does that by making the caster choose.



Campbell said:


> It feels like every opportunity they sought to bring the skill floor and skill ceiling closer and closer together. This touches on all points of the game from class design to spell design to monster design. Concentration instead of Sustaining a Spell, Hit Dice instead of Healing Surges, Neovancian Casting instead of Vancian Casting, Split Movement instead of positioning,  Weak Combat Maneuvers, Champion being nearly as good as a well played Battle Master, relying overly on Advantage and Disadvantage, and monsters that are big bags of hit points are a few of my least favorite things.




There are plenty of opportunities for skilled play in 5e. 5e actually promotes party synergy extraordinarily well.



Campbell said:


> I get it. All this stuff makes the game more accessible, but by removing a whole host of interactions they have cut down on a skilled player's ability to punch above their weight class. One of my favorite parts of playing and running Fourth Edition was that you could play a Fighter well in the same way you could a Wizard well in previous editions. I would like a higher skill ceiling.




There are lots of interactions in 5e that enhance skilled play both individually and as a team. the BM fighter in my group is a powerhouse because the player really knows how to use his abilities to their maximum benefit (and he's not a powerhouse on offense, he built a very good defensive BM).

not knocking 4e BTW, it was also very good for party symmetry and showcasing non spell casters. I just think 5e does it quite well too.

I was just reading the first combat encounter in descent into avernus (a very tough encounter for 1st level characters) and thinking a party of skilled players will rock this, inexperienced players will get pasted.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I get that some people don’t want to play the Champion because it’s too “simple”, but why do you care if other people do?  Is there something about the concept that conflicts with your philosophy of the game?




If we are playing a challenge oriented game it is my expectation that skill at playing the game should matter both in the mechanics and the fiction of the game. I prefer games where these round to round decisions matter and impact performance for all players. I think playing the game hard should have its rewards.

When I play Fifth Edition I do not like really care if another player is playing a Champion. I just enjoy the game for what it is, and do not expect it to be the sort of game I would ideally want it to be.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> It's largely that I do not really like the simple options. I would rather the Champion just not exist. In my 4th Edition games I did not include the Slayer or the Knight. I largely ignored the Essentials stuff.



 One viable option is to simply make the more complicated stuff severable.  For instance, you could let someone pay a 4e 'greatweapon' fighter, and just nix the encounters & dailies.  He'd be simple.  He'd be strictly inferior.  But he would be able to handle the Defender Role at least as well as a Companion character.  
Or, to have simple options to swap in for more complicated ones - a single 'feat package' instead of choosing a new one every level, 'pre-builds' (like pregens except the not-too-complicated stuff is left open), etc.


Elfcrusher said:


> I get that some people don’t want to play the Champion because it’s too “simple”, but why do you care if other people do?  Is there something about the concept that conflicts with your philosophy of the game?



Well, it cuts both ways, really.  There's nothing wrong with having simple options available, if they're at least viable (which has not always been the case), there's nothing wrong with more choice-rich options, if unless they're just plain broken (which often has been the case), and the presence of both in no way prevents those interested in only one from choosing that one.

Yet, /only/ the fighter got a simple option in 5e*.  And, his choice-rich non-caster option makes, what? an additional 6 meaningful choices?

The whole simple-fighter fetish seems like it's just part and parcel of the same 'Primacy of Magic' Essence-of-D&D.  A simple fighter won't rival casters in versatility, so even if he gets some big numbers, doesn't threaten the Primacy of Magic.  It's certainly very compatible with it, whatever motivations some of its proponents may harbor. 









* OK, arguably the Barbarian /only/ has simple options.  I mustn't keep forgetting about the barbarian.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> So you have no opinions about any other edition?  Nor the analogous plight of the poor sorcerer, with not a unique spell to his class name in two other editions?




It was an answer to a question about the structure of 4E.

In other editions you have the option of playing martial characters that feel different in structure and resource management.

Did they duplicate word for word?  Of course not. But in my opinion the resource management, structure and supernatural  nature of powers felt generic.  There were several things my fighter did that to could have relabeled arcane, changed the focus a bit and nobody would have batted an eye.

None of that necessarily made it a bad game.  It was just a game I stopped wanting to play.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The simpler conclusion that jives more closely with the majority of more in depth arguments i've seen up to today would be, "the powers may not literally be the same, but they effectively are, because they do basically the same couple things, and there is no meaningful difference between any two examples."
> 
> Which is what I'm arguing against.



Don't.

Argue against the strongest possible version of your opponents' case. Nobody here and now has even come close to claiming what you're reporting to be the "majority" argument. So even if your report is accurate (a caveat on which I am _extremely_ skeptical), so what? Do you want a trophy for being smarter than the dumbest person you could find on the internet?


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nope. Getting updates requires a sub. Well, okay, you could get the update files from someone with a sub.
> 
> But that doesn't really address what I asked. I asked when DDi was free during the actual run of 4e. When could you legally get the updates, compendium, and magazines without a sub?



You answered your own question. There was a lengthy period when you could _use_ the Character Builder without a current sub. Which, naturally, a lot of people did.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Did they duplicate word for word?  Of course not. But the resource management, structure and supernatural  nature of powers felt generic.



Powers were not all supernatural. Martial powers were not.  That's a fact.  Your opinion doesn't change that fact.  (Now, if we're talking cleaving to the Primacy of Magic, then the fighter having powers that could be perceived as magical and/or that rival the magical powers of other classes would be a red flag.  An exploit or maneuver that's too powerful, in a case of iron-clad circular reasoning, either would be magical, and thus couldn't be a fighter maneuver, or wouldn't be magical and thus couldn't be allowed to be so powerful.  That is, if the Primacy of Magic is treated as a goal, axiom, Essential to D&D.)

So, leave out 'supernatural nature.'  That leaves resource management & structure.  Now, /every/ caster in 1e and 2e, used the same resource management - Vancian - and the same structure (all spells had the same stat block). In 3e, there was the spontaneous-casting variation on Vancian, and not only did all spells have the same structure, they were all mixed together in one list with many spell shared. In 5e, the difference between neo-Vancian 'prepped' and 'known' casters is remarkably slight, and they're all spontaneous with regard to resource management.  Most have few, and the sorcerer has no, unique spells on their lists.  And, yet, all that is somehow not a problem that makes all caster feel generic and samey?

Again, it sounds like your point is related to Campbell's observation that other eds (Real D&D editions, that respect the Primacy of Magic, I'd say) put a higher priority on differentiating casters from non-casters, than casters from eachother. 



> There were several things my fighter did that to could have relabeled arcane, changed the focus a bit and
> nobody would have batted an eye.



Well, arcane powers tend to be able to do literally anything, so not too surprising.  I mean, fighters attacked very effectively in melee (and little else), back in the day, a Tensers Transformation, and so did the Magic-User.  Still, what things were those?

It think the point would be more interesting could you scrub the Wizard name & Arcane keyword & fluff off a wizard attack spell, and have a fighter attack exploit, ready for martial fluff.

A survey of fighter & wizard powers reveals some very significant differences:  Wizards don't have a single weapon power.  Fighters don't have any implement powers.  Fighters also don't have area powers, having mostly melee, while wizards are mostly range/area.  That prettymuch leaves Close powers.   The fighters Close powers tend to be close burst 1, and affect enemies /the fighter can see/.  The wizard's tend to be blasts, some affect all creatures, some only enemies (but all enemies).  The fighter does untyped damage with his weapon, the wizard mostly does various elemental damage types, sometimes psychic, occasionally radiant. 

No candidates leap to mind.  The exploits of the fighter and spells of the caster actually very different.  Moreso than, say, the spells of Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock are from eachother in 5e.



> In other editions you have the option of playing martial characters that feel different in structure and resource management.



I guess the issue, then, is why is it only the martial classes that /need/ to have different structure & resource management?  

The Primacy of Magic as Essence of D&D is certainly one potential, underlying reason.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> You answered your own question. There was a lengthy period when you could _use_ the Character Builder without a current sub. Which, naturally, a lot of people did.



"Without a /current/ sub" is not the same as free.  You could also have pirated it.  ::


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Powers were not all supernatural. Martial powers were not.  That's a fact.  Your opinion doesn't change that fact.  (Now, if we're talking cleaving to the Primacy of Magic, then the fighter having powers that could be perceived as magical and/or that rival the magical powers of other classes would be a red flag.  An exploit or maneuver that's too powerful, in a case of iron-clad circular reasoning, either would be magical, and thus couldn't be a fighter maneuver, or wouldn't be magical and thus couldn't be allowed to be so powerful.  That is, if the Primacy of Magic is treated as a goal, axiom, Essential to D&D.)
> 
> So, leave out 'supernatural nature.'  That leaves resource management & structure.  Now, /every/ caster in 1e and 2e, used the same resource management - Vancian - and the same structure (all spells had the same stat block). In 3e, there was the spontaneous-casting variation on Vancian, and not only did all spells have the same structure, they were all mixed together in one list with many spell shared. In 5e, the difference between neo-Vancian 'prepped' and 'known' casters is remarkably slight, and they're all spontaneous with regard to resource management.  Most have few, and the sorcerer has no, unique spells on their lists.  And, yet, all that is somehow not a problem that makes all caster feel generic and samey?
> 
> ...



My fighter did things that were physically impossible.  That's the definition of supernatural.

All builds followed the same pattern.

I also disagree with the primacy of magic theory you keep pushing.

But all that is just my opinion.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> "Without a /current/ sub" is not the same as free.  You could also have pirated it.  ::



Point me to where I used the word "free".


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

All fighters in all editions do things that are physically impossible to do. They fight things with a little piece of metal that no human being could possibly fight. 

In real life even a teenage gorilla would flatten any human easily.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> An exploit or maneuver that's too powerful, in a case of iron-clad circular reasoning, either would be magical, and thus couldn't be a fighter maneuver, or wouldn't be magical and thus couldn't be allowed to be so powerful.  That is, if the Primacy of Magic is treated as a goal, axiom, Essential to D&D.)



That's iron-clad circular reasoning, all right, but perhaps not in the sense you intend.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, it cuts both ways, really.  There's nothing wrong with having simple options available, if they're at least viable (which has not always been the case), there's nothing wrong with more choice-rich options, if unless they're just plain broken (which often has been the case), and the presence of both in no way prevents those interested in only one from choosing that one.
> 
> Yet, /only/ the fighter got a simple option in 5e*.  And, his choice-rich non-caster option makes, what? an additional 6 meaningful choices?




I don't understand what any of this has to do with not wanting other people to play the simple option.



> The whole simple-fighter fetish seems like it's just part and parcel of the same 'Primacy of Magic' Essence-of-D&D.  A simple fighter won't rival casters in versatility, so even if he gets some big numbers, doesn't threaten the Primacy of Magic.  It's certainly very compatible with it, whatever motivations some of its proponents may harbor.




It's the Man trying to keep you down, Tony.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> In real life even a teenage gorilla would flatten any human easily.



The RL population trends of humans vs. gorillas would tend to evince otherwise.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> The RL population trends of humans vs. gorillas would tend to evince otherwise.




If they tried it with swords instead of guns it might be a different story.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

I believe historically most gorillas would have been killed by spears. Or maybe arrows.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> All fighters in all editions do things that are physically impossible to do. They fight things with a little piece of metal that no human being could possibly fight.
> 
> In real life even a teenage gorilla would flatten any human easily.



People have been hunting and killing creatures far larger and stronger than them since cro-magnans were hunting mastadons with sticks.

What they've never had is an aura of damage or the ability to pull any number of creatures (even unintelligent ones) adjacent and then smack them all.

Which were a couple of the low level powers.  

But I'm tired of talking about a dead edition.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

If it helps I am largely uninterested in the specifics of any edition. I just prefer a fiction that I find to be coherent. If a fighter regularly faces off against trolls, giants, dragons, and demons I want it to seem reasonable that doing all that could be a Tuesday for him. I cannot see that being the case for someone with the Athleticism of even most real world professional athletes. So it makes sense to me that he must be more capable than they are.

Generally when I want a more down to earth sort of fiction I reach for RuneQuest.

For the record I am not really a fan of the stuff that had no explanation of what was going on in the fiction in Fourth Edition anymore. I feel the same way about Action Surge and Second Wind now.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Yeh once a day at level one a weird dart throwing wizard could do naughty word tons of damage though 3 darts wasn't it lol.... OR if you are the big gun even out of ammo it's really much easier to get the party to at least try for them 5 minute work days its in their best interest.



Um, I don't know what game you played, but it wasn't the 1e I know.  1st level wizards didn't hit very often and if they managed to get lucky and hit with a dart, that 1d3(1d2 vs large) didn't go very far.  As for the 5 minute work day, wandering monsters were very common in those editions AND cast-rest-cast-rest wasted a lot of game time resting.  It was much more fun for most of the group(not the wizard) to push on.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Sounds like a jerk DM to me



Sounds like a bad player to me.  The first thing you do is pop off 9 charges so that you have room to absorb incoming spells.  Had that player done that, the lightning bolt would simply have added 3 charges to the "wand."


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

Dart shenanigans were largely a 2nd Edition fighter thing. It was mostly that darts had an insane rate of fire and you still got your strength and weapon specialization bonuses. Who cares if it's a d4 when you are adding 5+ damage to each one?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Dart shenanigans were largely a 2nd Edition fighter thing. It was mostly that darts had an insane rate of fire and you still got your strength and weapon specialization bonuses. Who cares if it's a d4 when you are adding 5+ damage to each one?




And throwing 7 per round. With Gauntlets of Ogre power.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Oofta said:


> People have been hunting and killing creatures far larger and stronger than them since cro-magnans were hunting mastadons with sticks.



Intelligent ones armored like tanks and the size of houses with built in flamethrowers.... LOL


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> 1st level wizards didn't hit very often



 Its only worth while if you use the speed factor rules sometimes 3 attacks even with the slightly less to hit at level one have very good aggregate to hit. The progression was crap but starting out?  perhaps look again at the following tables... unless you were exceptional strength  my fighter had 17 strength and that was basically +1 someone could make a character like Armstrong form full metal alchemist LOL .

Fighter / Paladin / Ranger


d20 roll / Character LevelLevel 0Level 1-23-45-67-89-1011-1213-1415-1617+1missmissmissmissmissmiss*9**7**5**3*2missmissmissmissmiss*10**8**6**4**2*3missmissmissmissmiss*9**7**5**3**1*4missmissmissmiss*10**8**6**4**2**0*5missmissmissmiss*9**7**5**3**1**-1*6missmissmiss*10**8**6**4**2**0**-2*7missmissmiss*9**7**5**3**1**-1**-3*8missmiss*10**8**6**4**2**0**-2**-4*9missmiss*9**7**5**3**1**-1**-3**-5*10miss*10**8**6**4**2**0**-2**-4**-6*11*AC 10**9**7**5**3**1**-1**-3**-5**-7*12*AC 9**8**6**4**2**0**-2**-4**-6**-8*13*AC 8**7**5**3**1**-1**-3**-5**-7**-9*14*AC 7**6**4**2**0**-2**-4**-6**-8**-10*15*AC 6**5**3**1**-1**-3**-5**-7**-9*+16*AC 5**4**2**0**-2**-4**-6**-8**-10*+17*AC 4**3**1**-1**-3**-5**-7**-9*++18*AC 3**2**0**-2**-4**-6**-8**-10*++19*AC 2**1**-1**-3**-5**-7**-9*+++20*AC 1**0**-2**-4**-6**-8**-10*+++

Mages tables

d20 roll / Character LevelLevel 1-56-1011-1516-2021+1missmissmissmiss*10*2missmissmissmiss*9*3missmissmiss*10**8*4missmissmiss*9**7*5missmissmiss*8**6*6missmiss*10**7**5*7missmiss*9**6**4*8missmiss*8**5**3*9miss*10**7**4**2*10miss*9**6**3**1*11*AC 10**8**5**2**0*12*AC 9**7**4**1**-1*13*AC 8**6**3**0**-2*14*AC 7**5**2**-1**-3*15*AC 6**4**1**-2**-4*16*AC 5**3**0**-3**-5*17*AC 4**2**-1**-4**-6*18*AC 3**1**-2**-5**-7*19*AC 2**0**-3**-6**-8*20*AC 1**-1**-4**-7**-9*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> And throwing 7 per round. With Gauntlets of Ogre power.



Oh my that is ...well a bit much... I apparently only saw a tame version


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Intelligent ones armored like tanks and the size of houses with built in flamethrowers.... LOL




They're


Garthanos said:


> Oh my that is ...well a bit much... I apparently only saw a tame version




You should see the 2E dart grandmaster.
Don't even need gauntlets 18/whatever works.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> You should see the 2E dart grandmaster.



Well the instance I was talking about was a mage being effective in ranged combat because multi-attack works...


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Intelligent ones armored like tanks and the size of houses with built in flamethrowers.... LOL



People have been destroying tanks for about a century now.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> People have been destroying tanks for about a century now.



with broadswords... and raw muscle power LMFAO


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> You answered your own question. There was a lengthy period when you could _use_ the Character Builder without a current sub. Which, naturally, a lot of people did.



Feel free to explain what that has to do with DDI subscription numbers as an indicator of how much money wotc was making? 

Does this somehow counter something I was saying, or is it just a nit pick that “technically you could use the builder without a subscription” which has literally nothing to do with the actual argument you were replying to?


----------



## Eric V (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> _Precisely because_ "They are the same" is obviously objectively incorrect if taken literally, *"They were too similar for me to enjoy"* is how a reasonable person arguing in good faith would interpret the complaint. Your continued attempts to argue against this strawman are unconstructive.





Just to address the bolded part...

If one is comparing powers from classes against each other, they really are, factually, quite different.  As pointed out above, _Come and Get it_ is very different from _Blinding Barrage_ is very different from _Powerful Warning_ is very different from _Verdant Retaliation_, etc. etc.

Within a class, yes, some powers were mere upgrades of other ones, and some effects of some powers were a tiny bonus because they instead did more damage.  I can see those being similar...but what would make no sense at all is to say "Too similar for me to enjoy" but then do literally the same thing ("I attack recklessly!") over and over again and not find that "too similar to enjoy."

Non-casters in 5e have had their options made much more similar to each other than they ever did in 4e.  Maybe barbarian powers in 4e weren't differentiated enough, but they were more differentiated than ever before or since.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The premise is flawed. Magic doesn't have to be able to do more than non-magical things. However, magic is an explanation for why the laws of physics can be broken, so some magic can do more than non-magical things. That magic can break those laws of physics is also why magic is limited in the amount you can do per day.




Potato, potahto.  Also, no longer true in 5e where you have both rituals and at-will casting.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 19, 2019)

Essence of d&d
Fighter, mage, thief, cleric
Hp, ac, Vancian magic. 
Everything else is just ribbons.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> 1e the primary approach was the provision of magic accessible outside the class structure (skewed magic item tables, henchmen, expert hirelings) and prohibition on the most problematic caster type from learning everything (one chance to learn per spell and a cap on maximum learned per level).



Just a quibble.

It is one chance per character level to learn a spell in 1e and 2e.  You can retry next level.  Meaning that for most wizards, (clerics this wasn't an issue) you could typically learn all the spells you came across.  It just took a bit of time.

Although, that being said, I did play an MU once up to 12th level that failed his chance to learn invisibility like 9 times.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Its only worth while if you use the speed factor rules sometimes 3 attacks even with the slightly less to hit at level one have very good aggregate to hit. The progression was crap but starting out?  perhaps look again at the following tables... unless you were exceptional strength  my fighter had 17 strength and that was basically +1 someone could make a character like Armstrong form full metal alchemist LOL .
> 
> Fighter / Paladin / Ranger
> 
> ...




That chart changes nothing.  ACs of 4 and 5 were common at level 1.  That wizard needed to roll a 16 or better just to do....:::gasp::: 1d3!!  At least the fighter could kill something he hit.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Not long term, I think Pearl divers in shallow areas could last around 8 minutes with a lifetime of training.




Well, if by lifetime of training, you mean being about 16 years old, then, sure.    See the Haenyo divers of Chejudo South Korea for a great example.  All women funnily enough.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Don't.
> 
> Argue against the strongest possible version of your opponents' case. Nobody here and now has even come close to claiming what you're reporting to be the "majority" argument. So even if your report is accurate (a caveat on which I am _extremely_ skeptical), so what? Do you want a trophy for being smarter than the dumbest person you could find on the internet?



This whole tangent started because someone made a spurious claim about defenders of 4e, and then someone else pointed out that rather a lot of haters make claims about 4e that are simply untrue.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> That chart changes nothing.



It means they hit insignificantly worse than others at level 1 which means you were wrong but apparently unable to admit it.



Maxperson said:


> ACs of 4 and 5 were common at level 1.  That wizard needed to roll a 16 or better just to do....:::gasp::: 1d3!!  At least the fighter could kill something he hit.




Did you miss me mentioning IF you are using the speed factor rules?  NOW I will show you the damage was better than 1D3 Darts have a speed factor of 2 a bastard sword 6 and a scimitar 4 and the like. If you as a mage did something silly like toss a 17 on strength its 3d3+3

When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes
first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled
to multiple attacks Compare the score of the lower-factored weapon with
that of the higher. *If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower,or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. If the difference is 10 or greater, the opponent with the lower-factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent is allowed to attack, and 1 further attack at the same time the opponent with the higher-speed-factored weapon finally is allowed to attack.*


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

@Garthanos

No one used weapon speed factors. A mean like maybe a couple people. This is like the people who claim that Non Weapon Proficiencies were optional. Technically correct, but who cares.

@Maxperson

I am of the opinion that magic feels more magical when it does different things than what martial characters can do instead of doing the things martial characters can do better. A wizard should be able to do things a rogue could never do. A rogue should be able to do things a wizard could never do. To do this you just have define a niche for skill use so that skills and magic can complement each other, have different trade offs, and risks associated with them.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> That chart changes nothing.  ACs of 4 and 5 were common at level 1.  That wizard needed to roll a 16 or better just to do....:::gasp::: 1d3!!  At least the fighter could kill something he hit.




Umm, no, they weren't actually.  An AC of 4 or 5 meant chainmail or better and you generally didn't see that on too many 1HD or less monsters.  And, guess what, at 1st level, the fighter and the wizard HAD THE SAME THAC0.  :shock:  Given a decent dex score, the wizard, at 1st level, was hitting pretty much as often as the fighter.

And, sure, they're doing d3 damage per hit.  But, the bad guys are generally between 2-4 HP each.  The wizard was pretty adept at killing 2-3 kobolds at 1st level, while the fighter could only swing his longsword once.  3/2 if you started using 2e specs.  

To be fair though, 2e fighters were the pinnacle of fighters in D&D.  Capable of killing a troll in a single round at 1st level.  Something they've never been allowed to to before or since.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> @Garthanos
> 
> No one used weapon speed factors.



We tried them once my DM liked fiddly bits, but  the impact was nothing like Zards Dartmaster goo from 2e....


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

And it was still better flavor than a mage shooting a crossbow in 3e....


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> To be fair though, 2e fighters were the pinnacle of fighters in D&D.  Capable of killing a troll in a single round at 1st level.  Something they've never been allowed to to before or since.



 Is that a critical hit kicking in or that weapon specialization people are mentioning or what?


----------



## Coroc (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Honestly I liked each edition better as it went along... til 5e decided intelligence was a dump stat if you didnt use magic. And besides my edition isn't D&D remember not really even a roleplaying game just some skirmishing combat engine....  I don't belong here.  Goodbye.



To branch of the main topic for a moment, I think you are right with the int dumpstat in 5e. 
For bard int would not be an option, but, why do sorcerers have to be based on cha? Or warlocks maybe?
They really could have based one of these two classes on int to give more balance to the attributes. 
The e2.5 sorcerer was based on intelligence.
They changed that to cha main stat only in 3e or 3.5e I think.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Coroc said:


> sorcerers have to be based on cha? Or warlocks maybe?



In 4e a Warlock could use con and channel his life force (and resist the pain or pleasure the magic induced to keep their focus while casting - its how I pictured it any way )


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> My concerns are pretty much about game play rather than game balance. Game play is all about the ability to make decisions that matter and impact your success or failure whereas game balance is more about equality of outcome. My primary beef with Fifth Edition is a game is that it makes concessions to game play in order to have a more balanced game.
> 
> It feels like every opportunity they sought to bring the skill floor and skill ceiling closer and closer together. This touches on all points of the game from class design to spell design to monster design. Concentration instead of Sustaining a Spell, Hit Dice instead of Healing Surges, Neovancian Casting instead of Vancian Casting, Split Movement instead of positioning,  Weak Combat Maneuvers, Champion being nearly as good as a well played Battle Master, relying overly on Advantage and Disadvantage, and monsters that are big bags of hit points are a few of my least favorite things.
> 
> I get it. All this stuff makes the game more accessible, but by removing a whole host of interactions they have cut down on a skilled player's ability to punch above their weight class. One of my favorite parts of playing and running Fourth Edition was that you could play a Fighter well in the same way you could a Wizard well in previous editions. I would like a higher skill ceiling.



To me the TL;DR version of this quote comes down to "I want system mastery to be more of an advantage in play".

Cool for you.  Not for me.

I'd rather the system on the player side be simple enough to a) make full system mastery so easily attainable that anyone can do it, and thus no advantage anywhere; and b) just get out of the way so as to let me follow the story and play my character in character without having to reference rules all the time.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Actually there were pretty harsh rules for magic item  s breaking on failed saves and making item saving throws. It’s cool if he did it all the time and was consistent and not just because he got himself a staff of the magi.  That was he knew up front they risk before blowing that kind of gold.



Oh we all know the risks!   And the harsher item-breakage rules are something I quite like, particularly as a DM as I can then give out more neat things.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> And throwing 7 per round. With Gauntlets of Ogre power.



I have one of those active in my game right now: Hobbit Fighter spec. in darts with a girdle of giant strength and high Dex.  Rate of fire is 4/round; and if she ever finds or commissions a bandolier of infinite dart production there'll be no stopping her.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Did you miss me mentioning IF you are using the speed factor rules?  NOW I will show you the damage was better than 1D3 Darts have a speed factor of 2 a bastard sword 6 and a scimitar 4 and the like.




So they did nothing fast.  So what.  That fighter with the bastard sword probably had 7 hit points, assuming he rolled a 5 with a +2 con modifier.  The wizard would have to hit all 3 times, maxing out two of the rolls to take the fighter down.  More if the fighter rolled decently, the wizard would have to roll even better.  After rolling a 16 or higher 3+ consecutive times.

Now let's give the mage max hit points and be generous and give him a +1 con modifier.  He has 5 hit points and the fighter doesn't even have to roll average on a single hit with that bastard sword to take the wizard down.  

So let's face off.  Wizard with a 8-10AC vs. a fighter with a 5AC.  You get 3 darts per round and I get a bastard sword.  I'll won't even make you roll.  You can go first and let's see who wins.



> If you as a mage did something silly like toss a 17 on strength its 3d3+3




Oh.  Just "toss" on a 17?  Did you play 1e?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> We tried them once my DM liked fiddly bits, but  the impact was nothing like Zards Dartmaster goo from 2e....




I got that idea from the forums circa 2002, we did use speed factor, throw darts and daggers even if non proficient.

 We tried a lot if optional rules, speed factor was more or less default along with casting times.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> So let's face off.  Wizard with a 8-10AC vs. a fighter with a 5AC.  You get 3 darts per round and I get a bastard sword.  I'll won't even make you roll.  You can go first and let's see who wins.



OK.  What spells do I have memorized; 'cause if I'm going first you can bet the farm I ain't leading off with darts. 

That, and why would a wizard not start out with staff as the first proficiency?  d6 damage, has a bit of reach, has some non-combat uses, and you're all set if you ever happen to find a magical staff later. (and in some versions, wielding a staff - being a large-ish 2-handed weapon - in melee gave a point of AC as well)


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Umm, no, they weren't actually.  An AC of 4 or 5 meant chainmail or better and you generally didn't see that on too many 1HD or less monsters.  And, guess what, at 1st level, the fighter and the wizard HAD THE SAME THAC0.  :shock:  Given a decent dex score, the wizard, at 1st level, was hitting pretty much as often as the fighter.




::: plink ::: ::: plink :::

Giant Ant: AC 2
Baboon: AC 7
Badger: AC 4
Fire beetle: AC 4
Bugbear: AC 5
Carrion Crawler: AC 7
Giant Centipede: AC 9 and finally one that averages those low hit points you mention below, but oh, it had save or die poison.
Crab: AC 3

Sorry bud.  4-5 AC is looking pretty common.



> And, sure, they're doing d3 damage per hit.  But, the bad guys are generally between 2-4 HP each.  The wizard was pretty adept at killing 2-3 kobolds at 1st level, while the fighter could only swing his longsword once.  3/2 if you started using 2e specs.




You had a DM who went easy street on you.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> OK.  What spells do I have memorized; 'cause if I'm going first you can bet the farm I ain't leading off with darts.




Your one first level spell is already gone in this scenario that @Garthanos has set up where the 1st level wizard is somehow better in combat than a 1st level fighter.



> That, and why would a wizard not start out with staff as the first proficiency?  d6 damage, has a bit of reach, has some non-combat uses, and you're all set if you ever happen to find a magical staff later. (and in some versions, wielding a staff - being a large-ish 2-handed weapon - in melee gave a point of AC as well)




What wizard wants to walk into melee with probably 2, lucky to have 4 hit points?


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> So they did nothing fast.  So what.




3d3 is not nothing at level 1 there is less chances rolled 3 times of completely missing than the fighter has ... and guess what its vs kobolds and all the various other things at level 1 and many of them humanoids using weapons


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 3d3 is not nothing at level 1 there is less chances rolled 3 times of completely missing than the fighter has ... and guess what its vs kobolds and all the various other things at level 1 and many of them humanoids using weapons



3d3 isn't going to happen.  You'll be lucky to do 1d3 in any given round.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> @Garthanos has set up where the 1st level wizard is somehow better in combat than a 1st level fighter.



Nope that sleep spell makes him the parties big gun... firing off 3 darts makes him less than totally useless afterwards. You make wierd assumptions

As well as doing bad math.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Nope that sleep spell makes him the parties big gun... firing off 3 darts makes him less than totally useless afterwards.



Unlike you apparently, I actually played wizards in 1e.  They were still totally useless after using their one spell, even with darts.   The number of times that my wizards made a difference with a d3 hit was miniscule.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> 3d3 isn't going to happen.  You'll be lucky to do 1d3 in any given round.



The fighter with raging 5 percentiles more your math sucks.

.3x2 + .3x2 + .3x2== 2 mage
.4 x 5.5 == 2.25 fighter

I gave him 10 percentiles in the above

Your fighter is not super impressively better....
And the dart thrower is at range...


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Multi-attacking is good.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

AND yes I totally said the wizard is going to WALK into MELEE

Minperson you are not only bad at math...


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> The fighter with raging 5 percentiles more your math sucks.
> 
> .3x2 + .3x2 + .3x2== 2 mage
> .4 x 5.5 == 2.25 fighter




Your math sucks.

1 hit from a wizard: average damage with a dart 2
1 hit from a fighter: average damage with a bastard sword 6(5+1 for str)

It wasn't about damage over time.  It was about putting down what you hit.

At least the fighter will have a good chance of killing what he hits.  The wizard just ends up dead when the creature he hits swings back.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

AND I totally said he was FIGHTING vs the party Fighter....


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Is that a critical hit kicking in or that weapon specialization people are mentioning or what?




Fighters Handbook, kits, weapon styles, weapon speciazation phb, maybe optional rules from Combat and Tactics regarding weapon mastery or multiple weapon speciazation.

Optional rules allowing bonus nwp to be turned into weapon proficiency.

Fighters Handbook was basically 2E Complete Warrior/Martial Power useful for Paladin's and Rangers.

Also crafting rules so a PC master Smith could craft better weapons and armor or 18 int in 3E terms would give you 7 extra "feats".


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> AND I totally said he was FIGHTING vs the party Fighter....




Then the wizard loses badly.  The fighter has an AC of 5, so the wizard gets 3 rolls needing 15 or better each time.  He has to hit the fighter 3 times to win.  The fighter on the other hand only needs 13 or better, and needs to roll better than 2 ones on his 2d4 to win with a single hit.

I'm assuming a 16 strength for the fighter and being generous and giving the wizard a 16 dex so he has an AC of 8, rather than the 10 he probably really has.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> To me the TL;DR version of this quote comes down to "I want system mastery to be more of an advantage in play".
> 
> Cool for you.  Not for me.
> 
> I'd rather the system on the player side be simple enough to a) make full system mastery so easily attainable that anyone can do it, and thus no advantage anywhere; and b) just get out of the way so as to let me follow the story and play my character in character without having to reference rules all the time.




I am of the mind that if you want the mechanics to fade away then simply do not have them. If the expectation is that we are going to spend our time engaging with discrete mechanics instead of the fiction directly then those mechanics should be salient and deeply engaging. What purpose do mechanics serve if not to create compelling game play and emergent story?

At the end of the day I want to make meaningful choices that impact the outcome of things. I am fully comfortable doing so without system getting in the way (because there is no system to get in the way). Several of the games I like to play have no combat system at all.

I want to play the game hard and play my character hard. I also do not want to _follow _the story. I want to actively experience it and be part of creating it.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Your math sucks.
> 
> 1 hit from a wizard: average damage with a dart 2
> 1 hit from a fighter: average damage with a bastard sword 6(5+1 for str)



You embarrass yourself again you cannot even get the average right

I did the damage from d8 (4.5 +1 for strength you want the bastard sword instead of the  longsword that would be 5.5 + 1?

if the mage hits .3 and the fighter .4

and the fighter hits .4 you miss almost 2 out of three times it might easily take you 3 rounds to get that one shot in and the mage is very very likely to have had 2 or even 3 hits in...
he has tried 9 times already


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Then the wizard loses badly.



That was sarcasm TOTALLY

caused by you doing this.... 


Maxperson said:


> So let's face off.  Wizard with a 8-10AC vs. a fighter with a 5AC.  You get 3 darts per round and I get a bastard sword.  I'll won't even make you roll.




SMH


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> @Garthanos
> 
> No one used weapon speed factors. A mean like maybe a couple people. This is like the people who claim that Non Weapon Proficiencies were optional. Technically correct, but who cares.




Really?  Every group I ever played with in 2e used speed factors.  Random initiative per round as well.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> You embarrass yourself again you cannot even get the average right
> 
> I did the damage from d8 (4.5 +1 for strength you want the bastard sword instead of the  longsword that would be 5.5 + 1?




You don't get to change the weapon.  It's a bastard sword and it's 2d4+1



> and the fighter hits .4 you miss almost 2 out of three times it might easily take you 3 rounds to get that one shot in and the mage is very very likely to have had 2 or even 3 hits in...
> he has tried 9 times already




The reality is that the wizard probably has a 10AC.  He's very unlikely to have a dex bonus.  He gets hit on an 11.  I was being nice to you, and the wizard still loses.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Every group I ever played with in 2e used speed factors.  Random initiative per round as well.



Same here.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Is that a critical hit kicking in or that weapon specialization people are mentioning or what?




Two weapon specialization, longsword and shortsword with ambidexterity and specs in longsword.  Granted, it's true, this would be on the second round, but, (1d12+2/1d12+2/1d8) gives me 32 points of damage, before a strength bonus.  Count in any sort of percentile strength and now I'm doing 41 points.  Most trolls tap in around 30 HP.

I'm certainly obliterating an ogre in a single round.

2e didn't have critical damage.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> ::: plink ::: ::: plink :::
> 
> Giant Ant: AC 2
> Baboon: AC 7
> ...



Carrion Crawler against a 1st-level party?  That's pretty hardcore - I've given parties of 3rd-5th+ levels fits with those things!

A solo Bugbear against a party?  That AC 5 won't save it for long, though it'll take some punishment before going down.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The reality is that the wizard probably has a 10AC.  He's very unlikely to have a dex bonus.  He gets hit on an 11.  I was being nice to you, and the wizard still loses.



I am shooting over the fighters shoulder at the baddies...


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Every group I ever played with in 2e used speed factors.  Random initiative per round as well.



Same.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Carrion Crawler against a 1st-level party?  That's pretty hardcore - I've given parties of 3rd-5th+ levels fits with those things!



Yes no kobolds or goblins..... he wants a small percentage difference to mean as much as possible because most of the time it didnt and wont if the other character gets to make 3 shots a round


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

This has become the nerdiest argument ever.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Two weapon specialization, longsword and shortsword with ambidexterity and specs in longsword.  Granted, it's true, this would be on the second round, but, (1d12+2/1d12+2/1d8) gives me 32 points of damage, before a strength bonus.  Count in any sort of percentile strength and now I'm doing 41 points.  Most trolls tap in around 30 HP.
> 
> I'm certainly obliterating an ogre in a single round.
> 
> 2e didn't have critical damage.




You can use twin longswords you get 2 then 3 attacks.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You don't get to change the weapon.  It's a bastard sword and it's 2d4+1



sorry different edition inserted


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> This has become the nerdiest argument ever.




We're nerds. It's serious business.

I had a smart fighter played by mate named Aubec.
Specialized bastard sword

He was double specialized in twf+ambidextrous.

Specialized in shields

Specialized in using the bastard sword two handed

At level 1.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> You can use twin longswords you get 2 then 3 attacks.




You took penalties for using weapons of the same length.  That was one of the Ranger benefits.  But, even with longsword/shortsword, you still got 2 then 3 attacks.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Carrion Crawler against a 1st-level party?  That's pretty hardcore - I've given parties of 3rd-5th+ levels fits with those things!
> 
> A solo Bugbear against a party?  That AC 5 won't save it for long, though it'll take some punishment before going down.



Against a party, yep.  We're discussing how effective a 1st level reduced to darts wizard will compare in combat with a 1st level bastard sword fighter, though.

Carrion Crawlers kill you fast or die fast,  They're squishy, and initiative matters.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> You took penalties for using weapons of the same length.  That was one of the Ranger benefits.  But, even with longsword/shortsword, you still got 2 then 3 attacks.




You could double specialize and use weapons of equal length.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I am of the mind that if you want the mechanics to fade away then simply do not have them. If the expectation is that we are going to spend our time engaging with discrete mechanics instead of the fiction directly then those mechanics should be salient and deeply engaging. What purpose do mechanics serve if not to create compelling game play and emergent story?



They mostly serve to keep things more or less in line, much like the rules of any game or sport.

Problem is, in some RPGs (including the RAW versions of every D&D edition incuding and after 1e) the mechanics threaten to become the game rather than simply serve it.

Proof: the very fact that char-ops (particularly in 3-4-5e) exists as a concept.



> I want to play the game hard and play my character hard.



I guess I'm not that hardcore - I mostly want to kick back, have a laugh, get into character, entertain and be entertained, and just give 'er.



> I also do not want to _follow _the story. I want to actively experience it and be part of creating it.



Shrug...if the DM has crafted an engaging plot or story, or we're in an interesting adventure, as a player I'll more or less go along with it. But if I get bored then I'll start creating story, and if I'm creating story it's probably going to involve chaos and mayhem sooner rather than later...


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Every group I ever played with in 2e used speed factors.  Random initiative per round as well.



1e rather than 2e here, but I've never in my life used speed factors (or weapon type vs armour type) in any game I've run or played.

Random initiative each round, however, always has been and always will be hard-coded into the system.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> We're nerds. It's serious business.



indeed why else would we bring up math

Let me see
.35 x2 +.35 x 2 +.35 x2  =  2.05 (mage probably hit)
.35 x2 +.35 x 2 +.35 x2  =  2.05 (mage probably hit)
.35 x2 +.35 x 2 +.35 x2  =  2.05 (mage probably hit)
three rounds likely 6.15 ... could interrupt an enemy spell caster
with even that first one could take out entirely kobold or various smaller ones even round one

Bastard sword from 1e is 2d4+1 (giving the 17 my fighter had in 1e)
.4x6  = 2.4 fighter probably didnt
.4x6  = 2.4 fighter fair chance but still not certain by now
.4x6 =  2.4 fighter has probably hit

The end result is a Mage could be pretty offensively effective


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Against a party, yep.  We're discussing how effective a 1st level reduced to darts wizard will compare in combat with a 1st level bastard sword fighter, though.
> 
> Carrion Crawlers kill you fast or die fast,  They're squishy, and initiative matters.



Yeah, anything with multiple attacks gets an initiative for each attack here (including PCs), so a Crawler is very likely to get in one or two shots early on...which can mess up any party if the saves go south.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> You could double specialize and use weapons of equal length.



I never used combat and Tactics.  Just the Fighter's Handbook


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

How did weapon speed factors even apply vs a Carrion Crawler ... DM might be calling those pincer Scimitar like speed factor 4?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> indeed why else would we bring up math
> 
> Let me see
> .35 x2 +.35 x 2 +.35 x2  =  2.05 (mage probably hit)
> ...



Throwing darts had several other uses. 

1. Reasonable damage at low levels THAC0 difference was fine.

2. Interupted spells. 3 attacks only need to deal 1 damage, speed factor 2.

3. Countering stone skin spells.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I never used combat and Tactics.  Just the Fighter's Handbook




Page 64 fighters handbook.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> How did weapon speed factors even apply vs a Carrion Crawler ... DM might be calling those pincer Scimitar like speed factor 4?




Went on size of the monster.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Throwing darts had several other uses.
> 
> 1. Reasonable damage at low levels THAC0 difference was fine.
> 
> ...



the first two I remembered not the last


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> the first two I remembered not the last




Those were the main ones off the top of my head. Poison delivery was another one, very useful for a Darksun bard with type E poison. Save vs poison or die, 20 damage if you succeed. DS bards got a free poison 1/day.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> indeed why else would we bring up math
> 
> Let me see
> .35 x2 +.35 x 2 +.35 x2  =  2.05 (mage probably hit)
> ...




The fighter with a 17 strength is hitting the wizard with the 8 AC on an 11 or higher.  He's hitting half the time.  In two rounds he's hit 1 time on average, doing enough damage to take out the wizard unless he rolls 2 ones.

The wizard with the 16 dex trying to hit an AC of 5 needs a 15 or higher on the die, so he's missing 70% of the time.  He will probably hit once per round, but even then, he can't take out the fighter with two hits and the fighter likely takes out the wizard by round 2.

Imagine if we gave the fighter a 16 in an off stat like dex.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Smart wizard casts strength on fighter, average roll turns a 17 strength into 18/50 or so. 

 Best level 2 damage spell.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The fighter with a 17 strength is hitting the wizard with the 8 AC on an 11 or higher.



Except they are on the same team firing at an indeterminate enemy and I am shooting over the fighters shoulder?  Did yu mess where I repeated it was sarcasm about them being vs each other? and I only did the sarcasm because you had already seemed to jump to a conclusion it was vs.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Eric V said:


> Just to address the bolded part...
> 
> If one is comparing powers from classes against each other, they really are, factually, quite different.  As pointed out above, _Come and Get it_ is very different from _Blinding Barrage_ is very different from _Powerful Warning_ is very different from _Verdant Retaliation_, etc. etc.
> 
> ...



Perception can sometimes be funny.

Have you ever walked into a store, found an aisle with three dozen slightly different variants on the theme of "shampoo", and felt like you'd really rather just have _shampoo_ and be done with it? Like, even though the differences between the shampoo products are admittedly real, they are not as big a deal as the people trying to sell you the shampoo would like you to believe, and not worth your time and energy trying to sort through?

Or maybe you've never had that experience, and it makes no sense at all to you. So what? What does saying "That makes no sense at all!" accomplish? When the observable evidence makes no sense according to your premises, you can either get frustrated and scream and shout, or you can face up to the reality that something is wrong with your premises. So if people react one way to 4E and a different way to 5E, but this makes no sense because they're supposedly doing the same thing in both editions, then _it's wrong to think they're doing the same thing in both editions_. Some variable must be different. The constructive thing to do is to figure out what that might be. If I were you, I would start by exploring this "illusion of choice" phenomenon; it seems a likely suspect.

But, just a warning... If you or anybody else are gearing up to argue that that people are mistaken to regard 4E as offering mere "illusion of choice" because 4E's choices are real and meaningful, then: *Stop. You have missed the point of this post entirely.* Meditate further on the question _"What does saying this accomplish?"_, delete whatever it was you were composing, and try again.

If you _did_ get the point of this post, I'm sorry to have patronized you like that. But I felt it was necessary for the sake of absolute clarity.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Apparently my random to hit picked corresponds to us attacking Kobolds


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Perception can sometimes be funny.
> 
> Have you ever walked into a store, found an aisle with three dozen slightly different variants on the theme of "shampoo", and felt like you'd really rather just have _shampoo_ and be done with it? Like, even though the differences between the shampoo products are admittedly real, they are not as big a deal as the people trying to sell you the shampoo would like you to believe, and not worth your time and energy trying to sort through?
> 
> ...



Conversely, what pizza do you like? Deep dish? Thin crust? White or red? And what toppings do you like?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

MichaelSomething said:


> Conversely, what pizza do you like? Deep dish? Thin crust? White or red? And what toppings do you like?



Not seafood pizza.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This whole tangent started because someone made a spurious claim about defenders of 4e, and then someone else pointed out that rather a lot of haters make claims about 4e that are simply untrue.



Don't get me wrong, I'm sure haters have said things about 4E that are untrue. There was a lot of vitriol going around (and, apparently, still is). However, so far as I've seen on this thread, all of the allegedly untrue claims allegedly made by 4E haters exist only in the accounts of 4E defenders. This raises several questions most pressingly (a) _Are 4E defenders really the best source on the beliefs of 4E critics?_ and (b) _What's the point of bringing all this up now?_

(And, not to beat around the bush, I strongly suspect the answers to be (a) _Hell no_ and (b) _Because refighting old battles on our terms is a lot easier and more fun than seeking understanding of our opponents_.)


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

MichaelSomething said:


> Conversely, what pizza do you like? Deep dish? Thin crust? White or red? And what toppings do you like?



You have now touched on a matter in which I have some professional experience.

Some customers have very specific preferences.
Other customers just want a "regular pizza", and will get sour with servers who waste their time bombarding them with options.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> then _it's wrong to think they're doing the same thing in both editions_. Some variable must be different. The constructive thing to do is to figure out what that might be. If I were you, I would start by exploring this "illusion of choice" phenomenon; it seems a likely suspect.




Honestly?  The most likely culprit is simply presentation.  4e powers look samey because they were formatted in a very specific way.  So, yeah, it's easy to get the perception that they are all the same.  5e powers are written in natural language paragraphs, so, in order to actually know what the powers are, you actually have to read the paragraphs.  And, since we're wired to read that way anyway, it flows naturally.

IOW, the perception is based on presentation, not actual fact.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> (a) _Are 4E defenders really the best source on the beliefs of 4E critics?_ and (b) _What's the point of bringing all this up now?_




I'd point out that it's 4e critics that brought all this up.  Those of us who enjoy 4e have repeatedly tried to separate the discussion from rehashing edition warring garbage from the actual point being made that Primacy of Magic is the common element in all versions of D&D.

A point which no one has been able to bring any contrary evidence against, so, they've gone wading into edition warring territory and talking about how 4e failed and whatnot because everything else seems to point to the Primacy of Magic being an accurate accounting of the essence of D&D.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Honestly?  The most likely culprit is simply presentation.  4e powers look samey because they were formatted in a very specific way.  So, yeah, it's easy to get the perception that they are all the same.  5e powers are written in natural language paragraphs, so, in order to actually know what the powers are, you actually have to read the paragraphs.  And, since we're wired to read that way anyway, it flows naturally.
> 
> IOW, the perception is based on presentation, not actual fact.



Yeah, I agree, presentation almost certainly bears responsibility. Probably not _all_ of it -- it seems unlikely that we should be able to point to one single thing and say, _"That! That's why 4E is 'not D&D'!"_ -- but a big part of it.

However, the presentation of 4E is a fact about 4E. I wouldn't make a meaningful distinction between presentation and fact.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Throwing darts had several other uses.
> 
> 1. Reasonable damage at low levels THAC0 difference was fine.
> 
> ...



I am actually picturing reflavoring this casting of darts for that wizard as runes which he uses dex to precisely carve into his staff and which is how his dex affects their accuracy and when he points his runed staff they fly off to harm the enemy after the fight he touches the staff to where they hit to recover them.... and they show up on the staff once more.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> However, the presentation of 4E is a fact about 4E. I wouldn't make a meaningful distinction between presentation and fact.



Arguably its even a functional thing. I can very quickly get clues from power presentation about how it works how often it can be used and what parts are functional and what are just flavor and so on...  So it isn't even just cosmetic (to use a different connotational word)


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I'd point out that it's 4e critics that brought all this up.  Those of us who enjoy 4e have repeatedly tried to separate the discussion from rehashing edition warring garbage from the actual point being made that Primacy of Magic is the common element in all versions of D&D.
> 
> A point which no one has been able to bring any contrary evidence against, so, they've gone wading into edition warring territory and talking about how 4e failed and whatnot because everything else seems to point to the Primacy of Magic being an accurate accounting of the essence of D&D.



That is... one interpretation of the course of the discussion so far.

Here is another: There is _plenty_ of contrary evidence against Primacy of Magic being the essence of D&D, in the form of all the other complaints about 4E which don't have anything to do with it. In order to impeach this evidence, the 4E defenders have reverted to edition war mode and tried to cast all such complaints as "factually incorrect" (which, unfortunately, wouldn't actually impeach them as evidence here even if it were true).


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Just a quibble.
> 
> It is one chance per character level to learn a spell in 1e and 2e.  You can retry next level.  Meaning that for most wizards, (clerics this wasn't an issue) you could typically learn all the spells you came across.  It just took a bit of time.
> 
> Although, that being said, I did play an MU once up to 12th level that failed his chance to learn invisibility like 9 times.




One chance per character level in 2e.  1e is 1 chance to revolution of the list and you only get a new revolution of the list when either you check all spells and still don't have minimum count or gain a point of Int.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> That is... one interpretation of the course of the discussion so far.
> 
> Here is another: There is _plenty_ of contrary evidence against Primacy of Magic being the essence of D&D, in the form of all the other complaints about 4E which don't have anything to do with it. In order to impeach this evidence, the 4E defenders have reverted to edition war mode and tried to cast all such complaints as "factually incorrect" (which, unfortunately, wouldn't actually impeach them as evidence here even if it were true).




The thing is it doesn’t actually matter. The other complaints about 4e appear in other editions. So since the same elements exist between editions that are and are not considered part of DND, then they are not essential.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> One chance per character level in 2e. 1e is 1 chance to revolution of the list and you only get a new revolution of the list when either you check all spells and still don't have minimum count or gain a point of Int.




Sorry. “Revolution of the list”?

Not sure what you mean.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> One chance per character level in 2e.  1e is 1 chance to revolution of the list and you only get a new revolution of the list when either you check all spells and still don't have minimum count or gain a point of Int.



Pretty sure 1e is also one shot per level at learning a given spell, provided you still have headroom below the limit.  And yes, gaining an Int point also gives you another shot.

You also, I think, get a random new spell each time you train; which if you're lucky might just happen to be the useful one you've blown several times otherwise.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Sorry. “Revolution of the list”?
> 
> Not sure what you mean.




You need to check knowledge of every spell in the spell list before you get another chance to check a spell again unless your Int changes in a  permanent manner.  And you only get to check again if you haven't hit minimum.



			
				1e PHB pg.10 said:
			
		

> The character may select spells desired in any order he or she wishes. Each spell may be checked only once. Percentile dice are rolled, and if the number generated is equal to or less than the percentage chance shown, then the character can learn and thus know that spell (it may be in his or her spell books - explained hereafter).
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




As an aside, a house rule I use and see a lot is increases in Int won't force a Magic-user to forget a spell.  Technically, that's not true.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> You have now touched on a matter in which I have some professional experience.
> 
> Some customers have very specific preferences.
> Other customers just want a "regular pizza", and will get sour with servers who waste their time bombarding them with options.



What do you give to people who want a regular pizza? Just cheese? Or do you push the most expensive thing you can get away with?


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The thing is it doesn’t actually matter. The other complaints about 4e appear in other editions. So since the same elements exist between editions that are and are not considered part of DND, then they are not essential.



Are the same people complaining about these elements in the other editions?
If not, then they are not _perceptually_ the same element.
If they are not perceptually the same element, then the essence of D&D could hinge upon that perceptual difference.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that they're "factually" the same, that it's "nonsense" for people to perceive a difference, but that entire line of discussion is totally missing the point. People _do_ perceive a difference. That is the only fact of consequence here. So far you have been twisting, denying, downplaying, ridiculing, or simply ignoring that fact to suit your theories. Instead you need to suit your theories to that fact.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Pretty sure 1e is also one shot per level at learning a given spell, provided you still have headroom below the limit.  And yes, gaining an Int point also gives you another shot.
> 
> You also, I think, get a random new spell each time you train; which if you're lucky might just happen to be the useful one you've blown several times otherwise.




Nope.  I guess it is a common house rule.  It's one shot period unless you don't hit your minimum or change your Int.  Gaining spells per level doesn't come in until 3e.  That's probably another house rule to help out magic-users.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

MichaelSomething said:


> What do you give to people who want a regular pizza? Just cheese? Or do you push the most expensive thing you can get away with?



You have to press them for more detail, and accept that you're gonna annoy them a bit, because you'll annoy them a lot more if you guess and guess wrong. You're set up for failure by the disconnect between the option-heavy menu and their simplicity-seeking preferences.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Except they are on the same team firing at an indeterminate enemy and I am shooting over the fighters shoulder?  Did yu mess where I repeated it was sarcasm about them being vs each other? and I only did the sarcasm because you had already seemed to jump to a conclusion it was vs.



Dude.  I'm showing which is the better fighter.  Aiming both at them at the unknown doesn't show that.  There are too many variables like 2 orcs and a kobold, where one of the orcs has a shield and the other doesn't.  If you want to know which is the better fighter, you aim them at each other.  Best of 1000.  

Dart throwing wizard or the fighter aimed at each other 1000 times.  Which do you think will win most of those fights?  Hint: It isn't the wizard.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The thing is it doesn’t actually matter. The other complaints about 4e appear in other editions. So since the same elements exist between editions that are and are not considered part of DND, then they are not essential.



Except not.  Many of the "Not D&D" complaints about 4e are about HOW the elements are presented, not what the elements are.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> A point which no one has been able to bring any contrary evidence against, so, they've gone wading into edition warring territory and talking about how 4e failed and whatnot because *everything else* seems to point to the Primacy of Magic being an accurate accounting of the essence of D&D.




You, Tony, and Garthanos count as "everything else"?

I...and I am sure others...would agree that the "Presence of Magic" is somehow part of the equation.  But it alone is insufficient, nor is it primary.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Not seafood pizza.



Definitely not Warlord pizza.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Dude.  I'm showing which is the better fighter.  Aiming both at them at the unknown




Its just not my goal in general I was showing contribution after firing that spell in a more normal setting - maybe its yours.

Plus a ranged combatant can have less hit points with fewer problems so i am not sure its realistic either to make it a face to face duel.

Kobolds are basically what the example shows (7) d4 and goblins(8) d8  human soldiers with  ac 8 to 4 with d6 hit points they are level appropriate enemies using weapons. 

The AC in the example I was doing works out perfectly as a kobold but that favors the Dart thrower a lot .... as a Goblin the armor goes up slightly and does not guarantee the wizard quite so many kills.


The mage is now contributing and can do so situationally,


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> _"I'd point out that it's 4e critics that brought all this up._*"
> 
> No. This was brought up by Tony Vargas.*



Tony I think was inspired by Oofta who mentioned 4e as not D&D? sorry forgot the spelling...

Ooof even realized he had created a divergence


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Its just not my goal in general I was showing contribution after firing that spell in a more normal setting - maybe its yours.
> 
> Plus a ranged combatant can have less hit points with fewer problems so i am not sure its realistic either to make it a face to face duel.




Um.  They're darts.  Short range is 15 feet.  Medium is 30 feet.  Actually, in 1e it was 1.5 and 3, because it used inches to represent feet x 10.  At short or medium range, the fighter just walks up and hits the wizard.  And at medium range the wizard has -2 to hit, so that 15 to hit, becomes a 17.  And if we use 1e as written, the wizard has a further -2 to hit due to the fighter's AC of 5, so that 17 becomes a 19.  If you move to 45 feet for long range, then the wizard's penalty to hit further erodes and he now needs a 22 to hit the AC 5 fighter.  

So yeah, go ahead and throw darts from a good distance away.



> Kobolds are basically what the example shows (7) d4 and goblins(8) d8  human soldiers with  ac 8 to 4 with d6 hit points they are level appropriate enemies using weapons.




The vast majority of 1st level fights are not to kobolds and goblins.  Most fights will involve creatures with 1 or more full hit dice.



> The mage is now contributing and can do so situationally,



Sure.  I guess in a few corner cases the mage stops being useless with darts.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Um.  They're darts.  Short range is 15 feet.  Medium is 30 feet.  Actually, in 1e it was 1.5 and 3, because it used inches to represent feet x 10.  At short or medium range, the fighter just walks up and hits the wizard.



And yeh your typical encounter is the wizard on the front row standing at the hip of the fighter grinning and taking it LOL -- again you present it as VS


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Post 87:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"But ever since I've been playing, some things have remained the same. We still roll a D20 to resolve attacks and our defensive saving throws. We still have HP, AC, the standard ability scores. Yes, the math is a bit different and the number and type of dice we roll has been tweaked but my AD&D fighter/rogue can be recreated with more-or-less same feel in 5E. Wizards still cast fireballs and clerics still heal.

I think 4E (again, a game I really, really did try to enjoy) is the exception that proves the rule. There was just something ... missing.  "

OK not explicitly 4e isnt D&D but the trigger of sounding it out as the NOT D&D never the less


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> You are asserting the position that in 1e, 1st level MUs are really combat useful?



More like showing a way to make them more useful...  10 feet behind the fighter is fairly typical from my memory and enough to dart like crazy and the offensive output via weapon speed factor would be not horrible and the accuracy is a small amount different.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Yeah, one person said that. And it could have been ignored as personal opinion



It was a common opined thing and often way more extremely ... hence the reason Tony decided to do his I am going to figure out where that came from analysis AND yes I LOVE /sarcasm that it meant rehashing being told I do not belong in your tent lowkey13


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> And yeh your typical encounter is the wizard on the front row standing at the hip of the fighter grinning and taking it LOL -- again you present it as VS



You chose darts.  You're stuck with dart range.  Don't back out now.

And again, vs. is the best way to determine which is the best fighter.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The vast majority of 1st level fights are not to kobolds and goblins.  Most fights will involve creatures with 1 or more full hit dice..



Those men above have d6...that is a raging 3.5 hit points mage is still taking out 2 in three rounds from over the fighters shoulder


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I'm just trying to make sure I understand this debate.
> 
> You are asserting the position that in 1e, 1st level MUs are really combat useful?
> 
> ...




Yeah.  It's a strange argument.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You chose darts.  You're stuck with dart range.



Second row or even third is fine dart range .... in fact people whine when a fighter tricks someone into moving 10 feet


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Post 87:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Which, more or less is how those other threads I pointed out way up in post 708 went off the rails too.

You get some superficial commonalities: trade dress, sacred cows (stat names, hit points, etc.) that ended up being shared with items that are demonstrably aren't D&D (I'm referring to independent things from other publishers like Heroquest, Runequest, Chivalry & Sorcery -- not any specific edition of D&D).

What we have never achieved is finding enough commonality inside even a few editions of D&D to set it apart from say Earthdawn.  That's mainly because there aren't enough commonalities to our methods of playing D&D to come to agreement for what that means.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Tony I think was inspired by Oofta who mentioned 4e as not D&D? sorry forgot the spelling...
> 
> Ooof even realized he had created a divergence




I was pointing out that one of the aspects of 4E was how they consolidated all classes and monsters into the same rules structure with at will, encounter and daily powers.  That *in my opinion *all classes had purely supernatural abilities.

How about this.  One of the things that I think of as the essence of D&D is that while all PCs, NPCs and monsters follow the same basic rules for interfacing with the world there's an additional layer added to how they are implemented.  All PCs have to track HP, and may have a few conditions (i.e. exhaustion) that apply on an irregular basis.  As another example everyone uses the same rules to climb a wall unless they have an exceptional ability.

So a wizard is structured so that people playing that class have to track resources to a greater degree than others.   They may have more flexibility, but it comes at the cost of more complexity.  The only additional resource a champion fighter normally needs to track is their second wind.  A wizard tracks spells and available slots while debating which spell to cast when, a fighter slaps on armor and swings a sword.

In my opinion one important essence of D&D is that in play, from the perspective of the player running a wizard versus a champion fighter almost feels like a different game.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> 1e rather than 2e here, but I've never in my life used speed factors (or weapon type vs armour type) in any game I've run or played.
> 
> Random initiative each round, however, always has been and always will be hard-coded into the system.




Amazing how the dart discussion is like something that almost never came up pre 3.x.  Darts were risky because u really wanted a melee weapon just in case. So it was normally staff or dagger. You had a chance of taking a critter out at 1st level with a lucky hit. The dagger you could throw twice in a round, but could also be used at range. Sure you might end up fighting and ogre. But there were lots of very low hp critters like giant rats. Zombies, skeletons, goblins, kobolds that night have been taken out easier with a staff or dagger than a ranged dart. Sure the wizard tried to stay back. But we all knew the wizard was going to eventually end up in melee. And it was normally the fighter keeping the more power badass away from the weaker pc’s. 

This theory crafting is how the vast majority of games did not come close to happening. It just doesn’t simulate the typical encounters or the needs for it.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Amazing how the dart discussion is like something that almost never came up pre 3.x.




I was having that talk pre-Internet!


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I was having that talk pre-Internet!




We discussed the dart back then. We just found the dagger more useful because it could be used for melee or missile. And the staff was an equally good choice because of your chance of killing the lower hp critters in one hit. 

Dear god we tried to keep the critters off and he wizard if we could. But we were generally outnumbered. We really wanted to get surprise so we could at least soften them up some. 

Really at low level with the number of encounters surprise was king. It was great to have a sleep spell to hopefully bypass one encounter quickly. But that was it.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, I think it's a combination of trademark (yeah, branding matters) and continuity. What you call superficial commonalities are what, IMO, allow for D&D to be both diverse, and seemingly monolithic.
> 
> It's fascinating to me, because I think it would make a great business school exercise to look at D&D as an entity and brand that has continued throughout the years; how is it that people can have continuing conversations about things as varied as OD&D and 4e, B/X and 3e, all under the rubric of D&D.
> 
> ...




The reason I call them superficial is because they are widely shared with things that demonstrably aren't D&D.  Yeah, D&D used them first inside RPGs, but some of them predate RPGs altogether like the hit point concept.

I think prior to 3e, there was a much tighter set of things that could define D&D.  0e, 1e, 2e, Holmes, and BECMI were so close that one could take a product meant for one and use it directly in another almost without making a change.  Sure some things might feel a bit weird like how a 1e dragon seems to be a wimp in 2e compared to its cousins, but the numbers and effects still made sense.

3e changes mechanics, but tried to keep the same basic feel with some limited success.

4e tries to change feel, but keep enough mechanics. (This is not a slam.  It is an acknowledgement that 4e specifically tries to represent more modern sensibilities such as recovery, fast action, narrative flow in fights, reduced resource tracking, and reduced reliance on outside power such as item acquisition and NPCs.  Much of the same can be said for later products of 3.5, but 4e is where these foci became the base game.)

5e tries to winnow the changes in both 3e and 4e.

It's hard for all groups playing any one of the four sets to look at the other three and say "I see my game there."


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

Depending on edition and race in our games it was either darts or some weapon granted by the race.  I seem to remember using a crossbow for my dwarven wizard in 2E.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> There was so much variability, though.
> 
> ...was the dart thing more of a 2e thing? Maybe because I was playing in the sticks .... but darts weren't the weapon of choice for MUs in my neck of the woods.




It was for us: darts and staff, all the way.  The 3/round was a huge bonus in early game.  Limited damage didn't matter much because either it had a couple of hp and died or burning hands wouldn't have dropped it anyway.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> See, I'm concentrating on the last bolded bit, because that's where I disagree with you. And a big part of that is the DIY nature of a lot of D&D ... but ....
> 
> You can have a lot of different approaches to, for example, a standard 5e campaign; people running it "old school" (OD&D, Dungeon Crawl), people bringing in 1e/2e sensibilities, people adapting it to a more 3e crunch game, people running it as more of a scene-based 4e-style game, and so on.
> 
> ...




Sure it easy for any *particular *group to look at a *particular *other set and say "That's my game!"  It hard for *all *groups to look at *all *the other sets and say "That's my game!"


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I think the issue, IIRC, is that in 1e a MU only had one weapon proficiency until seventh level; if you chose "darts" at first level, you were 100% screwed because you never had any melee capability, darts were useless against opponents with armor, and you never found a magic dart.
> 
> In other words, better to have a useless dagger (melee and missile) o a useless staff (melee) than useless darts.




Who spent a proficiency on them? You took them and threw them with -5 to hit! 3 attacks at -5 beats 1 attack at base. The proficiency goes into staff because let's at least try to keep things past arm's length.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

I am with Nagol. For any answer to be useful I think it should distinguish Dungeons and Dragons from any number of other fantasy games. Is there a commonality that exists where the various editions are all Dungeons and Dragons, but where RuneQuest, Legend of the Five Rings, Exalted, and Numenera are not also Dungeons and Dragons besides what they say on the tin?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Imaro (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I am with Nagol. For any answer to be useful I think it should distinguish Dungeons and Dragons from any number of other fantasy games. Is there a commonality that exists where the various editions are all Dungeons and Dragons, but where RuneQuest, Legend of the Five Rings, Exalted, and Numenera are not also Dungeons and Dragons besides what they say on the tin?




With D&D being the first and influencing so many rpg's (as well as spawning a boatload of retro clones) I'd argue the only thing I can think of is the IP??  But even that has changed from edition to edition.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm sure haters have said things about 4E that are untrue. There was a lot of vitriol going around (and, apparently, still is). However, so far as I've seen on this thread, all of the allegedly untrue claims allegedly made by 4E haters exist only in the accounts of 4E defenders. This raises several questions most pressingly (a) _Are 4E defenders really the best source on the beliefs of 4E critics?_ and (b) _What's the point of bringing all this up now?_
> 
> (And, not to beat around the bush, I strongly suspect the answers to be (a) _Hell no_ and (b) _Because refighting old battles on our terms is a lot easier and more fun than seeking understanding of our opponents_.)




The answer is simply that we were accused of nonsense, so we defended ourselves. That is literally how this all started. Your judgmental garbage isn’t especially informative or constructive.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 19, 2019)

I really like what 13th age has done. But I would really like to see what someone could do rewriting 4E with completely different fluff and not making it sound like a technical manual for a video game. Change the language and redo the tags. Fix a couple bugs. Make it feel like literature instead of a tech manual.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Honestly?  The most likely culprit is simply presentation.  4e powers look samey because they were formatted in a very specific way.  So, yeah, it's easy to get the perception that they are all the same.  5e powers are written in natural language paragraphs, so, in order to actually know what the powers are, you actually have to read the paragraphs.  And, since we're wired to read that way anyway, it flows naturally.
> 
> IOW, the perception is based on presentation, not actual fact.



This exactly, like I’ve been saying for pages. 

The reality is that the perception of all powers being effectively the same is a false perception created by misguided presentation. 

Pointing that out isn’t any kind of denial of people’s experiences. It’s just correcting a factually false statement.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Imaro (Sep 19, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I really like what 13th age has done. But I would really like to see what someone could do rewriting 4E with completely different fluff and not making it sound like a technical manual for a video game. Change the language and redo the tags. Fix a couple bugs. Make it feel like literature instead of a tech manual.




Have you looked at the Essentials books?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I really like what 13th age has done. But I would really like to see what someone could do rewriting 4E with completely different fluff and not making it sound like a technical manual for a video game. Change the language and redo the tags. Fix a couple bugs. Make it feel like literature instead of a tech manual.



Yep. Unformat the powers, rewrite them so each one is written out in prose like other dnd editions and other games, convert keywords into the things they are shorthand for where it can reasonably be done, and you’ve got the same game with a completely different look and feel. 

I mean, I’ve never seen any 4e hater complain that the Battle Master Fighter’s maneuvers are “samey”.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, I’ve never seen any 4e hater complain that the Battle Master Fighter’s maneuvers are “samey”.




False equivalency there... no one claimed the 4e Wizard's powers are samey with the 4e Wizard's powers...


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Eric V (Sep 19, 2019)

"IOW, the perception is based on presentation, not actual fact. "

That makes sense to me.

If one's complaint is that powers are too "samey" though (and, in some cases, like simple power upgrades, the case could be made), and the person who makes that complaint _doesn_'t have similar complaints about champions, barbarians, rogues, etc.?  

That I don't get.  At all.  It tells me the factor at play is not "sameness."


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> _sigh_
> 
> One more time.
> 
> ...




I'll add that although I don't share the sentiments about Fighters and Wizards, etc., I also don't think those sentiments are invalid.  If you want a game where Fighters can do amazing, superhero stuff like jump over smallish buildings or whatever without using any "magic", I get that.  Not my aesthetic, but that's a valid desire, and I can see why 5e wouldn't deliver.

What I object to is exactly what you are describing: with a disingenuous guise of sober objectivity, this nonsense about the "Primacy of Magic" translates to, "The rest of you obviously want martial characters to be sidekicks to the Wizards, because really the ONLY difference between 4e and other editions is that martial characters were just as important."

Really it's equivalent to my own accusation of long ago, when I first learned what Warlords are all about, which Tony has _never_ let me forget even though I have publicly retracted it, that people who want to play such a class must really just want to boss other people around.

Sure, _some_ people probably want magic to always be "better" than mundane.  And I'm sure _some_ people's fantasy in fantasy roleplaying is give everybody else orders.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Actually, I don't think that's useful. That is the bane of understanding.
> 
> Why? Imagine you're thinking of a product in any other field - from a Rolex watch, to a Jaguar car; there are certain aspects and commonalities that Rolex will share with Patek Phillip watches (and other watches), and that Jaguars will share with other luxury cars; in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a single "thing" (other than the branding) that always differentiates them.
> 
> ...




If we're going to look for commonalities that are so broad that completely separate entities such as Earthdawn or Harnmaster fit within, then what we're looking at is a bigger tent.

If your product has changed so much over the years that aficionados of yesteryear don't recognize your current product unless they see the trade dress (I'm looking at you Jaguar!) then perhaps you don't have a point of market differentiation and are relying entirely on brand.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Imaro said:


> With D&D being the first and influencing so many rpg's (as well as spawning a boatload of retro clones) I'd argue the only thing I can think of is the IP??  But even that has changed from edition to edition.




And that's what the other threads like this that I've participated in seem to recognize as they peter out.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep. Unformat the powers, rewrite them so each one is written out in prose like other dnd editions and other games, convert keywords into the things they are shorthand for where it can reasonably be done, and you’ve got the same game with a completely different look and feel.
> 
> I mean, I’ve never seen any 4e hater complain that the Battle Master Fighter’s maneuvers are “samey”.




Sigh.  No you don't.  You have a fantasy game of action and adventure, sure.  But it isn't the same.  I've had this discussion up and down a few threads with a few people and don't want to hash it out again, but you really don't have the same game.  Can some people play it the same as they previously played?  Mostly.  Would I play it the same? No.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> _sigh_
> 
> One more time.
> 
> ...




That's not what people are doing here, though.  I understand you're mad, but that isn't a reflection of the conversation.  Your example isn't comparing things, trying to tease out differences,...yeah. :/

I really don't think it's about preferences.  
It's not about whether people liked the game or not, played it, whether it was successful financially, etc.
It's a weird (and apparently contentious) sociological exercise, I suppose: Why did 4e get the "Not D&D" tag?

Plenty of people dislike every other edition, but, interestingly, 4e is the only one that people said "wasn't D&D."

Why?  That's an interesting question to me (and, I'm guessing, others).  Purely from a sort of "scholarship about the history of the game" kind of way.  And a thread about "What is the Essence of D&D?" seems like a natural place for it to come up.  Identify the factors that caused people to say "Not D&D" and one is closer to answering the question in the beginning of the thread, no?

The "Primacy of Magic" thesis is an attempt to identify this factor.  One can engage with this thesis completely independently from whether or not one likes 4e, or indeed, Dungeons and Dragons as a whole.

I sort of feel the thesis has legs, based on how the designers of 5e made certain decisions, but I do feel it's a bit incomplete (though the formatting discussion above is rounding things out, IMO). Problem I am seeing in the thread though, is people making arguments about why they didn't like 4e, and get angry when the "Primacy of Magic" thesis is brought up.

But the thesis isn't trying to explain why people didn't _like _4e; it's trying to explain why it "wasn't D&D." So responses of "My group hated 4e and it had nothing to do with magic" isn't addressing things. Loving or hating 4e isn't the issue; it's an investigation of how it "wasn't D&D."

I am sorry people are getting so upset, though.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> But it's not the case with D&D; again, I'd point out that, for the most part, and for most people, there is a commonality of lineage. Which is pretty impressive.




I quibble with "most".  Some people see a commonality al the way from 0e to 5e.  Some people see a commonality up until there's a break (typically 3e,r 4e, or both).  Some of them see a return to commonality with 5e, but certainly not all.  I doubt it's even most.

I tend to treat each game as separate and unique starting with 2e.  That's where sufficient lore and mechanical changes occurred that as a DM I'd have to stick-handle an adventure to make it have the same feel as prior.  3E was very different.  3.5E felt like someone's house rules grafted onto 3E with some fixes and unfortunately a complete reversion of errata (terrible QA).  4e was different enough that although I test drove running it and playing in a game, it was unable to dislodge any of my go-to games for genre/feel where I felt it had strength.  My 5e experience is similar to 4e, OK game, but I have better options for when I want to run something where it would be strong.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Eric V said:


> That's not what people are doing here, though.  I understand you're mad, but that isn't a reflection of the conversation.  Your example isn't comparing things, trying to tease out differences,...yeah. :/
> 
> I really don't think it's about preferences.
> It's not about whether people liked the game or not, played it, whether it was successful financially, etc.
> ...




There are a bunch of differences outside the banal one of presentation.  Any and/or all of which would contribute to it feeling like not-D&D.  Unfortunately, humans tend to be inarticulate especially when dealing with the "why" of feelings.  And each human has a different response strength for each difference.  In effect, 4e managed to hit a critical mass of people saying "this doesn't feel right" which is also somewhat self-reinforcing.  What I find more interesting is watching those groups where 4e was a success and seeing the differences in playstyle compared to what I expect a D&D game (as opposed to an Ars Magica game, Fantasy Hero game, or Runequest game) to be like.  Some of the differences are obvious, others less so.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 19, 2019)

Another possibility the Primacy of Magic theory continues to overlook is that it didn't feel like D&D to different people for different reasons.  So different people, different reasons but those different reasons creating a common feeling of disconnect.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> _sigh_
> 
> One more time.
> 
> ...




That isn’t the same thing. The reply isn’t about bags of nuts. The reply is literally to explain that flying isn’t dangerous, it’s fine to not do things that scare you, but you should know that walking down the street is vastly more dangerous than flying.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

T


Nagol said:


> Sigh.  No you don't.  You have a fantasy game of action and adventure, sure.  But it isn't the same.  I've had this discussion up and down a few threads with a few people and don't want to hash it out again, but you really don't have the same game.  Can some people play it the same as they previously played?  Mostly.  Would I play it the same? No.



he options would all do the same things as before. I think you may have misunderstood what I was talking about? Maybe you missed what I was directly replying to?


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> T
> 
> he options would all do the same things as before. I think you may have misunderstood what I was talking about? Maybe you missed what I was directly replying to?




That context makes much more sense, yes!  4e with a different presentation would play like 4e does.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Point me to where I used the word "free".



...technicalities... ;P







TheCosmicKid said:


> The Character Builder was definitely available outside of a subscription for most of the time I was playing 4E.



You could pirate it, or you could get a subscription, cancel it, and keep using the offline builder until the next update.  That's not exactly 'available outside a subscription' that's "there were ways around paying for the subscription."



lowkey13 said:


> (as a general rule, I am in favor of people's happiness, so long as it doesn't involve hurting other people or Paladins).



 I'm not surprised to see you exclude Paladins from the category of "people," but it's really charitable of you to object to hurting them, in spite of that. 

(Oh, you meant  "...doesn't involve Paladins or hurting other people" didn't you?  But, no that sounds like it implies Paladins are people.   English is such an imprecise language.  It should be possible clearly deny Paladins their humanity /and/ assert protectiveness of actual people, in concise, pithy prose that flows naturally.  ::sigh:: even informal writing is such a challenge...  "...doesn't involve Paladins or hurting actual people?"  Yeah, that works.)



> But it's maddening seeing people translate their preferences into this weird pseudo-logic.



Are you acquainted with the translation of preference into pseudo-logic like "dissociated mechanics?"  I mean, that's the low-hanging fruit among many possible examples from the edition war.  Upthread there's also the tortured logic of "martial powers are non-Traditional magic!"   And whether you choose to openly blame both sides, or pick on one, the edition war does kinda demolish the idea that the essence of D&D is some Continuity of experience & positive, or even productive, conversation among everyone in the Big Tent.  Let alone that the Big Tent refers to everyone out there, when the metaphor was about including the whole, then divided community of past/current D&D fans...(and still divided, judging by the denial, attacks, and re-cycled edition war talking points now overwhelming this thread)

(BTW, I have heard some opinions that have made me doubt the Primacy of Magic as Essence of D&D: there have been a couple of posts that imply the preference is broader than that, that a game (or any other medium) wouldn't be /fantasy/ without the Primacy of Magic.  My impression of the genre was formed based on myth/legend and pulp/S&S and 60/70s High Fantasy & Howard pastiche, so Harry Potter doesn't really seem like legit fantasy to me, precisely because it's so magocentric, but if D&D has been part of a groundswell of a Magic-uber-alles sub-genre, then, well, the Primacy of Magic isn't the Essence of D&D, it's just a minimum requirement for any TTFRPG emulating that 'new'* sub-genre.)



> Can you tell it's maddening? That I am .... maddened?



The tenor of your madness does seem to shift when you're on the topic.  It's more a pleasant and amusing antics sort of madness in most threads.







* funny how something that's been going for decades can feel 'new' when you get old.  Not funny 'getting old is funny! ha-ha! I'm having so much fun!' but, "funny, I wonder how long I'd need to be a resident of Oregon...."


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

To answer the question for me the essence of Dungeons and Dragons is dungeon crawling, skilled play of the fiction including unfettered use of player knowledge, and asymmetric information or fog of war.

To me 2nd Edition railroads, 3rd Edition adventure paths, 4th Edition scene framing, and 5th Edition heroic fantasy do not feel like Dungeons and Dragons. Except 2nd Edition they are all good games in their own right.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 19, 2019)

That is a tough one. I think one of the key things that makes D&D, D&D is that you roll up a character, you pick from an easy selection of classes and you go off to adventure then level up as you gain XP. The core ability scores are a big part of that, levels are a big part of that, HP are a big part of that, myriad dice are a big part of that, etc. 

I also think there is a strong Medieval-Fantasy aesthetic and a kind of taco bell, mix and match these different core ingredients to make something new. So you have all these essential races, tropes, adventure types, and locations that many GM can use to populate a world and have players explore.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

If primacy of magic or specific races or monsters or any of that was what made D&D what it is, then several games would qualify as D&D.

Which perhaps for some people it does.  I don't think of WOW as D&D but it relies heavily on magic, has dungeons, dragons, orcs, dwarves and elves.  They even have gnomes that aren't of the garden statue variety.

So I look at the commonalities.  We roll funny polyhedral pieces of plastic to resolve attempted actions that may fail.  Wizards casts spells, clerics (for the most part) beat up people and cast spells but don't beat them up quite as efficiently as fighters.  You have options for fighters that don't involve magic.  Thieves Rogues are sneaky bastards that would rather not be in a straight up fight.  Paladins annoy @lowkey13 because he won't admit they're really his favorite class.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Fixed it!
> 
> Paladins need to be beaten like any rented donkey.*
> 
> ...




So what you're saying is that you want a piece of paladin ass and that you're into S&M?  That does explain a lot.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Are you acquainted with the translation of preference into pseudo-logic like "dissociated mechanics?"  I mean, that's the low-hanging fruit among many possible examples from the edition war.




I am.  I most associate it with Emerikol, although maybe others talk about it.  It's more than just HP/meat, if I understand it.  It's a basic "all metagame mechanics are bad", with an example being limited-use martial powers.  E.g., if a Fighter can swing his sword in a circle and hit every target within 5', it requires metagame mechanics to limit how frequently he can do that.

And I agree with you: it's preference dressed up as theory, and it's nonsense. 

And, for what it's worth, I think this whole complicated theory you've developed (not just "Primacy of Magic" but also your rationalizations for why "superhuman" is clearly delineated from "supernatural", etc.) is more of the same: preference dressed up as theory, to give it an air of objective truth.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

Oofta said:


> If primacy of magic or specific races or monsters or any of that was what made D&D what it is, then several games would qualify as D&D.




I rarely agree with you, but I've been thinking this same thing.  Sure, magic (primary or otherwise) is an _essential_ ingredient of D&D, but if that, by itself, is the "essence" then a lot of games would be D&D.  Or even be _more_ D&D than D&D is.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> To answer the question for me the essence of Dungeons and Dragons is dungeon crawling, skilled play of the fiction including unfettered use of player knowledge, and asymmetric information or fog of war.



 Sounds like a fair summation of old-school.



Elfcrusher said:


> rationalization for why "superhuman" is clearly delineated from "supernatural"



adjective: supernatural
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

adjective: superhuman; adjective: super-human
having or showing exceptional ability or powers.
"the pilot made one last superhuman effort not to come down right on our heads"

A human being can't jump over a castle wall.  But, jumping over a castle wall doesn't defy scientific understanding or the laws of nature - you could calculate exactly the physics-sense work a creature doing based on it's mass, etc...
...it's just beyond what a human being can do.

Denial of that delineation is tortured logic & rationalization.

Not that something can't easily be both:   if you're imbued with superhuman strength by the celestial agent of a divine being, for instance.   And, yes, things can  certainly be supernatural, but not superhuman.  Levitating a feather, for instance.  A lot of things you could do with the Prestidigitation cantrip, really.



> To me 2nd Edition railroads, 3rd Edition adventure paths, 4th Edition scene framing, and 5th Edition heroic fantasy do not feel like Dungeons and Dragons. Except 2nd Edition they are all good games in their own right.



Wow, that is just /packed/.  So much sentiment, so few words.   I can get excluding 2e & all WotC eds from 'really D&D'  OSR purist stuff, the Old Ways are the Best.  I can even kinda sorta empathize a little.  But 2e, 3e, & 5e were generally accepted as D&D by fans, and 5e is the come-back king.  Whatever Essence may exist among all those editions, and 0e/1e/(h/m/rb)B(X)ECMI^RC, would have to be something more (or less) than the old-school playstyle.



lowkey13 said:


> I have a vague recollection of it from other threads; is this related to the Hit Points are / aren't meat? Or the Warlord powers? Or something. There's, like, 50 or so ongoing debates that I have trouble keeping track of.



 It's like what's under the gnomish paladin's armor:  best not to know.  Really, that goes for most re-hashed edition-war 'debates.'


> Just like you can bring a gnome to a garden party, and then you can leave him there and never return so he dies alone and miserable.



 Die?  Or turn into a kitschy lawn ornament?



> I don't think asserting primacy of magic is particularly useful; I think magic (like, say, "SWORD") is a necessary ingredient of any TTFRPG, and of D&D. It's pretty much hard-baked in.



Presence of magic might be a necessary ingredient for 'fantasy' - or not, sometimes magic can be pretty questionable, even turn out to be tricks or technology, and still feel a lot like fantasy (even if it shades into science-fantasy, like Darkover, where psionics stands in for magic).  Of course, D&D shades into science fantasy, anyway.  Primacy of Magic is hardly universal in the broader genre - stereotypically, the heroic warrior, barbarian or knight in shining armor defeats the evil sorcerer/wizard/god-being through strength, courage, faith*, etc - and/or true love, depending on sub-genre.










* I probably shouldn't get into the assertion that the D&D treatment of the divine denies faith or trivializes RL religious beliefs - besides, it really does cut across /all/ editions.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I am.  I most associate it with Emerikol, although maybe others talk about it.  It's more than just HP/meat, if I understand it.  It's a basic "all metagame mechanics are bad", with an example being limited-use martial powers.  E.g., if a Fighter can swing his sword in a circle and hit every target within 5', it requires metagame mechanics to limit how frequently he can do that.
> 
> And I agree with you: it's preference dressed up as theory, and it's nonsense.
> 
> And, for what it's worth, I think this whole complicated theory you've developed (not just "Primacy of Magic" but also your rationalizations for why "superhuman" is clearly delineated from "supernatural", etc.) is more of the same: preference dressed up as theory, to give it an air of objective truth.




I have a different definition: a disassociated mechanic is where a person at the table takes an action that affects the in-game world without a corresponding in-game action occurring or where such an in-game action is a post-hoc justification for the event.

Swinging your sword and hitting a lot of people?  Interesting manoeuvre!  Totally associated.
Playing a Whimsy card (Unexpected Ally) and saying "The person walking into the tense bar is a great friend and decent at bar fights!"  Totally disassociated.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> The Paladin says, "Beat me, beat me!"
> 
> I reply, "No."




Tease.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Oh boy.
> 
> You're not getting it, are you?



The two are entirely different.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

@Tony Vargas

It is not that the old ways are the best ways. Just that I view the more modern versions as fundamentally different games. Almost all of them happen to be very good games that I enjoy playing and running. 

Except 2nd Edition and its GM as storyteller ethos. I hate like @lowkey13 hates gnome paladins who dual wield rapiers.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I have a different definition: a disassociated mechanic is where a person at the table takes an action that affects the in-game world without a corresponding in-game action occurring or where such an in-game action is a post-hoc justification for the event.




I think it's a different flavor, or the inverse, of the same thing: i.e. not taking an action (in-game) because you've used the daily resource (out-of-game).

Magic gets a pass because magic.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I have a different definition: a disassociated mechanic



 Everyone did.
But, on the one side, they /always/ applied to martial characters getting, well, much of anything, and rarely to anything else, no matter how precisely it met the definition (which would be continually, revised, often even in a circle).  

The whole thing started with a complaint about martial dailies.  The side-bar explanation in the book was that they were exceptionally taxing, one Comeback Strike and you couldn't do another until you'd taken a long rest.  That was objected to as unrealistic, because, how can you be too tired to do Comeback Strike, but still fresh enough to do Thicket of Blades?  So, an alternate, unofficial rationale:  that daily exploits, as the name kinda implies, are circumstantial tricks that you can pull off, with luck, /once/ in the course of an adventuring day.  /That/ was used as the basis for coining Dissociated Mechanics.  The official 'exhausting' rationale is not dissociated, just unrealistic. 



Campbell said:


> It is not that the old ways are the best ways. Just that I view the more modern versions as fundamentally different games. Almost all of them happen to be very good games that I enjoy playing and running.
> Except 2nd Edition and its GM as storyteller ethos. I hate like @lowkey13 hates gnome paladins who dual wield rapiers.



So, in a humorous, endearing way.  (Quite a trick, when you think about it.)


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I think it's a different flavor, or the inverse, of the same thing: i.e. not taking an action (in-game) because you've used the daily resource (out-of-game).
> 
> Magic gets a pass because magic.




I don't think magic gets a pass from being disassociated.  As a DM  I like disassociated mechanics for the players: it gives them a way to  have authorship in the game outside their direct characters.  As a player I despise disassociated mechanics that I can use or that can affect my character, regardless of power source.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I don't think magic gets a pass from being disassociated.  As a DM  I like disassociated mechanics for the players: it gives them a way to  have authorship in the game outside their direct characters.  As a player I despise disassociated mechanics that I can use or that can affect my character, regardless of power source.




By "getting a pass" I was referring just to the limited use per day aspect of spellcasting, not that it gets a pass in general.  Maybe that's still dissociative for you, but that's all I meant.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I can't believe I had to explain the concept of, "Don't tell other people why they do and don't like things." We've beaten this Paladin to death.



Yet, still, the whole kerfuffle fuffling your thread is not about dislike, but about identity:  4e being "Not really D&D" in some valid sense, needn't be about dislike.  Often closely associated with it, sure, but not resting solely on it (and, if it does rest solely on dislike, frankly, not relevant to what the Essence of D&D might be).


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

So I think why the not Dungeons and Dragons bit stings so much is because there is an undercurrent that questions the game's legitimacy and it's very existence. Like the world would be a better place if it never happened. It is basically saying to fans you should not have the things that make you happy. 

The whole split the fan base thing has similar implications. It is basically saying be happy with what you got and do not desire more than what you are given. It feels pretty crappy.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> By "getting a pass" I was referring just to the limited use per day aspect of spellcasting, not that it gets a pass in general.  Maybe that's still dissociative for you, but that's all I meant.




The authors try to associate limited use per day for magic, or at least wave their hands in that direction.  It works, kinda, if you don't squint or stare too long or think about it too hard simply because humans have no direct experience how being able to prepare a few words and gestures with a bit of sulphur + guano creates nearly instantaneous 1,000 degree temperatures in a large sphere on demand would feel.  So made up limits are more acceptable because we can't say otherwise.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yet, still, the whole kerfuffle fuffling your thread is not about dislike, but about identity:  4e being "Not really D&D" in some valid sense, needn't be about dislike.  Often closely associated with it, sure, but not resting solely on it (and, if it does rest solely on dislike, frankly, not relevant to what the Essence of D&D might be).




A good friend of mine mused that 4e would probably have been able to find a decent niche as a fantasy action adventure RPG except that it had the D&D label.  He thought the game played fine, just different.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> A good friend of mine mused that 4e would probably have been able to find a decent niche as a fantasy action adventure RPG except that it had the D&D label.  He thought the game played fine, just different.



Maybe, though the niches available for TTRPGs that aren't D&D are /extremely/ small, with D&D as the gatekeeper of the hobby.



lowkey13 said:


> And I will say again, people have told you. In this thread. The only people that ascribe to the "Primacy of Magic" are people that 1) like 4e, and 2) do not claim that 4e isn't D&D.



So, it's not that there's anything wrong with the idea, just with the people who articulated it?

I mean, is what I outlined as the Primacy of Magic lacking in 4e?  Yes.  Absent from any other Edition of D&D?  No.
That's a correlation - with the edition war, the gap in that continuity you posited. 
I've admitted, that's all it is, a correlation. 
I'm sure there are others.



> It's a theory about preferences in search of proof, made worse by attributing it to others who have expressly and repeatedly told you that it is not the case.



Seriously, a lot of posts have started with "I have to disagree about the Primacy of Magic..." and then go on to express perspectives that are /entirely consistent with it/.



Campbell said:


> So I think why the not Dungeons and Dragons bit stings so much is because there is an undercurrent that questions the game's legitimacy and it's very existence. Like the world would be a better place if it never happened. It is basically saying to fans you should not have the things that make you happy.
> 
> The whole split the fan base thing has similar implications. It is basically saying be happy with what you got and do not desire more than what you are given. It feels pretty crappy.



 That's fair.  If everything you thought /was/ D&D was suddenly trodden under foot by a new edition, it could seem that way, too - like an existential threat rather than just a new option* or iteration.

(Though, didn't you just in essence say that nothing since 1e has been D&D?)










* and, really, most past editions of D&D are readily available in a cloned form, anyway.  Hackmaster, OSR, PF1 (though, yeah, that last is no longer supported, huh?).


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

I get preferring a more direct correspondence between the mechanics and what is happening in the narrative, but I kind of find it an odd hill to die on if you are a Fifth Edition fan.

The game is full of this stuff. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian I currently play is mechanically speaking filled to the brim with these sorts of mechanics.

He's so much fun to play, but the decisions I make in combat have very little to do with the decisions he would be making in the narrative.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Wow. You're just not getting the analogy, are you? Okay.
> 
> _Person A says. "I won't fly because flying is dangerous! It terrifies me."
> 
> ...



Oh  lord.

I understood the analogy. I am saying that the analogy doesn’t fit, and you’ve misrepresented my replies in this thread.

Edit: and again, I didn’t get involved in this debate until after someone started making false accusations about the behavior of people who like and defend 4e. 

Also also, even oofta has admitted in his rewording of his position that he wants a DnD to feel like it’s practically a different game when playing wizards vs fighters. 

Note also that I am not even one of the people arguing that the supremacy of magic is the key difference, so you don’t seem to have even really read my posts before constructing your analogy, you’ve just decided that all 4e fans in the thread are making the same argument, when in fact we are not.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I get preferring a more direct correspondence between the mechanics and what is happening in the narrative, but I kind of find it an odd hill to die on if you are a Fifth Edition fan.
> 
> The game is full of this stuff. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian I currently play is mechanically speaking filled to the brim with these sorts of mechanics.
> 
> He's so much fun to play, but the decisions I make in combat have very little to do with the decisions he would be making in the narrative.




The difference is that ancestral barbarians are explicitly calling on supernatural abilities, the literal spirits of their ancestors.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Just pointing out that you may not notice that you are literally and candidly stating that people tell you that you are incorrect, but that you ignore what they say and choose to believe it fits into your theory, regardless of what they said.



_sigh_ No, that's not what I said. Please read that again.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> All editions have had disassociated mechanics since OD&D and, _inter alia,_ saving throws?



That is true.
And, it will get you /nowhere/.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> A good friend of mine mused that 4e would probably have been able to find a decent niche as a fantasy action adventure RPG except that it had the D&D label.  He thought the game played fine, just different.



A lot of folks say this. It’s weird to me, because for me 3.5 felt less like classic dnd than 4e, and 4e felt about the same as 5e, in terms of how we played it. 

There’s a lot going on there. Beyond the class structures bothering people, and the presentation, and the (false but strong) impression that the game didn’t support RP, there are also social dynamics. Folks want to think themselves wholly autonomous, but humans simply aren’t that. Part of our minds live in the social interaction with others. Full stop. How we see the world is informed by our social groups and by our perception of how social groups we don’t like interact with the world, and by all kinds of other social intricacies. 

IOW, on top of reasons related directly to the game, things like group expectations, social group critical mass of feeling something is off (a weird sort of social avalanche), etc, turned people off the game.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> ? Why is this even a conversation?
> 
> All editions have had disassociated mechanics since OD&D and, _inter alia,_ saving throws?



 There are a lot of things that are simplified or exaggerated in D&D in order to make the game work.  If someone tries to club you to death you have AC and HP to counter it. Saving throws represent an instantaneous reflex action.

What I was trying to get at - and may be totally missing the point - is that fighter swings a sharpened bit of steal at something and either does damage or not.  The physical act of swinging a sword is directly associated to damaging the target if it connects.

Magic and the supernatural don't work that way.  With magic you mumble some words and throw around some smelly components and suddenly there's fire.  With barbarians you are calling upon supernatural forces, whether that's a totem or ancestral spirits to aid you in battle.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> A lot of folks say this. It’s weird to me, because for me 3.5 felt less like classic dnd than 4e, and 4e felt about the same as 5e, in terms of how we played it.



 Though you may not have meant it this way:  that is a /ringing/ endorsement of 5e!  
How'd you pull it off?

(I don't suppose you used the tactical module?)


----------



## Oofta (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> the (false but strong) impression that the game didn’t support RP




Once again, stating your opinion as fact.  I found that 4E dampened RP ... and honestly I can't really point to a single reason why.  All I can tell you is that it was a very common sentiment and something I noticed in my own games.  In part it was probably because after low levels combat took so long that it sucked up all the oxygen in the room, and all the time available to play.

Either we were all being mind controlled by the anti-4E illuminati or maybe there's something to it.  Since I don't believe in mind control or the illuminati, the simpler solution is just that 4E didn't simply didn't work for a lot of people even if it worked for you. 

In any case, it's still just an opinion.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Nope.  I guess it is a common house rule.  It's one shot period unless you don't hit your minimum or change your Int.  Gaining spells per level doesn't come in until 3e.  That's probably another house rule to help out magic-users.



1e DMG p. 39 - "Spells beyond those at start" - "... To those acquired, the magic-user will add 1 (and ONLY 1) spell when he or she actually gains an experience level. ..." - I knew this was in there somewhere. 

As for the one-shot-only bit, that only applies to the initial by-level roll-through and not to spells found later on scrolls or in captured spellbooks etc.

So, if during the initial roll-through of 1st-level spells you blew Sleep (or had reached your minimum before even getting to spells starting with 'S') you couldn't learn it then - but if you found it on a scroll later and still had headroom below the max allowable you could copy it into your book and learn it, if the dice were willing.

It's not the clearest of explanations (not unusual for 1e!), but it's in the PH p. 10 under "Intelligence".


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Oofta said:


> There are a lot of things that are simplified or exaggerated in D&D in order to make the game work.  If someone tries to club you to death you have AC and HP to counter it. Saving throws represent an instantaneous reflex action.




Except when they don't.  The classic "chained to a rock when the dragon breathes on you but you save anyway by huddling in a slight curve you wouldn't have noticed otherwise" is straight from the 1e DMG..



> What I was trying to get at - and may be totally missing the point - is that fighter swings a sharpened bit of steal at something and either does damage or not.  The physical act of swinging a sword is directly associated to damaging the target if it connects.
> 
> Magic and the supernatural don't work that way.  With magic you mumble some words and throw around some smelly components and suddenly there's fire.  With barbarians you are calling upon supernatural forces, whether that's a totem or ancestral spirits to aid you in battle.




The prep combine with the words and smelly stuff are directly associated with the fire.  We can see the correlation even if our brains do not understand the causation beyond "He's a wizard kill him first!" and "Don't let him wave his hands at you!".

I don't know the ancestral barbarian at all, I assume the ancestors get to make decisions (player input goes to them) if the PC and player must become out of sync.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

I do not think something should get a free pass just because it involves a supernatural element. When I play my Barbarian I make decisions that my character does not make. I decide when the spirits act. They only protect my allies and not me. There is daily rationing on rage that is never explained. Why do I get my Constitution modifier to AC?

 These things kind of bother me when I think about them. Then I remember how fun it is to play.

It's not just this stuff. It includes things like short and long rests, hit dice, Superiority Dice, Bardic Inspiration, Action Surge, Second Wind, Sorcery Points, and a number of other mechanics that provide no view into what is happening narratively.

I shut my brain off and enjoy the game, but this stuff is like there man and sometimes it like gets to me.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> 1e DMG p. 39 - "Spells beyond those at start" - "... To those acquired, the magic-user will add 1 (and ONLY 1) spell when he or she actually gains an experience level. ..." - I knew this was in there somewhere.
> 
> As for the one-shot-only bit, that only applies to the initial by-level roll-through and not to spells found later on scrolls or in captured spellbooks etc.
> 
> ...




Nice catch!  I  shall have to find out why I'm not getting it!  _edit_ D'oh! It's in the house rules.  "M-Us do not get spells as they level,.  You need to find or create them normally."

We read "Acquisition of Heretofore Unknown Spells" means "spells that are added to the game that aren't on the standard spell list, but you found a copy anyway" (like Detect Secret Doors on my list).  You can try to learn them even if you no longer get to roll on the standard table so long as you have head room.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Once the player blows his chance, the player cannot learn that spell EVER unless it is required to fulfill the minimum number of spells (IOW, they can't learn it from a later scroll gaining a level).
> 
> PHB 10, see "Charm Person" example.




Or their Int changes!  You can't steal my dream!


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Definitely not Warlord pizza.




Better than seafood pizza.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Take that back! I had the BEST seafood pizza the other night.




Heretic.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Take that back! I had the BEST seafood pizza the other night.




"Best seafood pizza"  That's... a pretty low bar.  Like buried in the stone beneath the lowest mine on the planet bar.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> As for the one-shot-only bit, that only applies to the initial by-level roll-through and not to spells found later on scrolls or in captured spellbooks etc.
> It's not the clearest of explanations (not unusual for 1e!), but it's in the *PH p. 10* under "Intelligence".





lowkey13 said:


> Once the player blows his chance, the player cannot learn that spell EVER unless it is required to fulfill the minimum number of spells (IOW, they can't learn it from a later scroll gaining a level).
> 
> *PHB 10*, see "Charm Person" example.



 At least we don't see this sort of thing too much with the later eds.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> At least we don't see this sort of thing too much with the later eds.




And that's one of the reasons Wizards start to get out of control in later eds.  Rather than effectively being a class with a very limited semi-random selection of powerful spell lists, they became a class where spell lists can be optimised and curated even if it takes a while.

2e started it with the reroll every level until your succeed.  3e said just take the darn spell already!

I get it.  Limitations and restrictions aren't fun.  They can have value (and actually be fun as you try to creatively get around them).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Wait, are you saying that I am ignoring WHAT YOU ARE SAYING in order to KEEP ARTICULATING MY OWN THEORY OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!?!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> Weird, huh?



You may be conflating my posts with the posts of other people. 

Please don’t do that.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I mean, is what I outlined as the Primacy of Magic lacking in 4e?  Yes.



No.

It just manifests in a different way.

In 0-1-2-3e and to some extent 5e what's magic vs what's mundane is almost always fairly obvious.  Anyone in the game can see or read or play through something and (with rare exceptions) say about any given element "that's magic" or "that's not magic".

4e very much blurred this distinction by adding and codifying so-called "supernatural" powers for martials, monsters, etc.  These powers, to some including me, appear to be simply magical (as in non-mundane) abilities put under a different label; meaning that magic becomes if anything more pervasive - if also more subtle - through 4e than any other version of D&D.

Which means yes, the primacy of magic is a (not the, but a) core essence of D&D across all versions.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> And that's one of the reasons Wizards start to get out of control in later eds.  Rather than effectively being a class with a very limited semi-random selection of powerful spell lists, they became a class where spell lists can be optimised and curated even if it takes a while.
> 
> 2e started it with the reroll every level until your succeed.  3e said just take the darn spell already!
> 
> I get it.  Limitations and restrictions aren't fun.  They can have value (and actually be fun as you try to creatively get around them).




I largely agree.

Pathfinder 2 attacks this from a slightly different angle. Spells have a listed rarity. By default Common spells can be freely taken at level up. Uncommon and Rare spells by default must be discovered through play. Nearly every Wizard can cast Fireball, but much fewer have access to spells like Scry and Teleport.

This allows the GM to control access, but also to give out meaningful treasure to spell casters if the wish.

Something like this could definitely be implemented in 5e. It would just require curating the spell list.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Though you may not have meant it this way:  that is a /ringing/ endorsement of 5e!
> How'd you pull it off?
> 
> (I don't suppose you used the tactical module?)



Oh I absolutely meant it that way. 5e, AFAICT, is more than half a successful foray into applying all of the crucial parts of 4e with a presentation that makes happy those who didn’t like 4e, both those who can tell you quite clearly why and those who have trouble articulating exactly why. 

In that regard (and that regard only) I’d say it’s the best edition of dnd. It can feel like playing dnd no matter what dnd you want it to feel like, as long as you go into it recognizing that your own biases play a role in how a game feels. Even without considering that factor, it’s my (very close) second favorite edition. 

Hell, I’ll be a heretic here and say that 4e and 5e are the only editions that I’d consider “good games” without the aid of nostalgia to tip the scales. I enjoyed playing 2e, but I’d not call it a good game the standard of TTRPGaming right now. 5e? Good by nearly any standard. 

Even by balance standards, though I know you disagree with me there. 


Oofta said:


> Once again, stating your opinion as fact.  I found that 4E dampened RP ... and honestly I can't really point to a single reason why.  All I can tell you is that it was a very common sentiment and something I noticed in my own games.  In part it was probably because after low levels combat took so long that it sucked up all the oxygen in the room, and all the time available to play.
> 
> Either we were all being mind controlled by the anti-4E illuminati or maybe there's something to it.  Since I don't believe in mind control or the illuminati, the simpler solution is just that 4E didn't simply didn't work for a lot of people even if it worked for you.
> 
> In any case, it's still just an opinion.



In order to not support RP, it would have to make RP difficult even for people who enjoyed the game and dove fully into it for several years. It didn’t. 

So, it had some barriers, and I _suspect_ that these have to do with having a presentation people consciously and/or subconsciously associate with video games and wargames and other games that don’t involve RP, but the game has a ton of elements that support and encourage RP. What you’re describing is those elements not doing the job for you, which is different from the game not having those elements. 



lowkey13 said:


> Take that back! I had the BEST seafood pizza the other night.




Seafood pizza is top notch, and I really wish I lived in a town that had literally any of it anywhere within an hour’s drive. 

I gotta pass over the Sierra Nevadas to get seafood on my pizza. 

But when I visit family on the coast, or go to the south, oh man it’s on. 

Spicy Cajun shrimp and gator pizza is seriously out of this world amazingly good.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I largely agree.
> 
> Pathfinder 2 attacks this from a slightly different angle. Spells have a listed rarity. By default Common spells can be freely taken at level up. Uncommon and Rare spells by default must be discovered through play. Nearly every Wizard can cast Fireball, but much fewer have access to spells like Scry and Teleport.
> 
> ...




That's not a bad way to handle it.  It gives the PCs yet another type of goal which is always good.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Once the player blows his chance, the player cannot learn that spell EVER unless it is required to fulfill the minimum number of spells (IOW, they can't learn it from a later scroll gaining a level).
> 
> PHB 10, see "Charm Person" example.



That's referring to the initial roll-through.  And yes, it says there that  the spell can never be learned thereafter...except that clause is directly contradicted a few paragraphs hence under "Acquisiton of previously unknown spells".

Ah, Gygax...


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> That's referring to the initial roll-through.  And yes, it saysthere that  the spell can never be learned thereafter...except that clause is directly contradicted a few paragraphs hence under "Acquisiton of previously unknown spells".
> 
> Ah, Gygax...




Ah, but you see that spell was not heretofore unknown.  It's known and unknowable to the PC.  Finding a copy of Nagol's Pleasing Persona  which in almost all ways acts like Charm Person, means you now have a heretofore unknown spell to check!


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

I have had an epiphany. The logic of the Primacy of Magic camp holds water after all; they have just made one simple error: the true essence of D&D lies in the _Primacy of Burgling_.

For every edition, the one absolutely necessary member of an adventuring party has been the thief/rogue. Dungeon crawling has simply not been possible without one. You could scrape by without a warrior, or a mage, or a healer, but without a rogue, locks and traps and secret doors simply become impassable. In 1E and 2E, only thieves/rogues have access to the skill system which allows them to tackle these challenges. Even in 3E, which opened up the skill system to every class, the skills for disarming traps and picking locks were capped for non-rogues -- uniquely so, that's how important this primacy is. And it clearly isn't just an arbitrary mechanical limitation. The rogue requirement naturally goes back to the very roots of the genre in Tolkien's _Hobbit_, in which Thorin and Company go through considerable trouble to recruit a burglar for their cause.

But then along came 4E. And Thievery became merely another skill. Now anyone could open locks, disarm traps, and even _pick pockets_ just as well as a rogue. Were that not enough, the skill challenge system encouraged players to overcome obstacles as a party, gaining successes without using the Thievery skill at all! And, lo and behold, 4E was a highly divisive edition frequently accused of being "not D&D". Now, this connection between 4E changing burgling and 4E getting hated on is just a correlation I'm observing. I'm not saying that the Primacy of Burgling is the essence of D&D, except for the times when that's exactly what I said. And I'll acknowledge that nobody in this thread  actually on the "4E is not D&D" side has made a case for the Primacy of Burgling. But, as has been frequently been asserted already, the cases they _do_ make are factually incorrect and/or don't make any sense, so that makes Primacy of Burgling the winner by default.

Now, some of you may observe that in 5E, just as in 4E, thieves' tools proficiency is available to any character. But if you think about it the way I do, 5E handled this proficiency in a different way that preserves the Primacy of Burglary rather than blowing up my theory. You see, the only backgrounds that offer thieves' tools proficiency are Criminal and Urchin. 5E backgrounds are effectively a low-key multiclassing system, so these can be thought of as rogue "level 0s". Thus, even though you don't actually need to be in the rogue class anymore, 5E is still saying that, in essence, in order to burgle you have to be a burglar. 5E also left the skill challenge system by the wayside; clearly the developers thought that contributed to the problem as well. So the Primacy of Burgling is alive and well in 5E, and 5E is received as being "D&D" again. More correlation!

There you have it. All the evidence for the Primacy of Burglary being the essence of D&D, nothing but cold, hard facts. If you have any questions about the case I made, feel free to ask them and I will be happy to explain to you what you're really thinking and why it supports this theory too.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> No.
> It just manifests in a different way.



 Ok, that's interesting, and thank you for not pre-emptively invoking the shield of opinion...


> In 0-1-2-3e and to some extent 5e what's magic vs what's mundane is almost always fairly obvious.  Anyone in the game can see or read or play through something and (with rare exceptions) say about any given element "that's magic" or "that's not magic".



I can think of a couple grey areas, mostly around what's affected by anti-magic:  psionics - magic or not?  and which spell-effects go up against magic resistance.  But, yeah, generally, it's not hard to infer.  Spells are obviously explicitly magical, as are, well, 'magic items.'  Some Monk might be a grey area, too, a bard's singing, etc...



> 4e very much blurred this distinction by adding and codifying so-called "supernatural" powers for martials, monsters, etc.



 4e included keywords that very explicitly called out powers as having a specific source.  Most of them - Arcane, Divine, Primal, Psionic, Shadow, Elemental - were explicitly supernatural.  One, Martial, was not.

When it came to monsters, though, source keywords were often omitted.  So you may have a point there, if that's what you're going to focus on...



> These powers, to some including me, appear to be simply magical (as in non-mundane) abilities put under a different label



 Whether you take a power labeled 'Martial' as such, and are upset that it rival a magical power of the same type/level/recharge-rate, or discount the martial label because the power 'appears magical to you,' you're objecting on the lack of a clear gap between the mundane and the magical. 
In the former case, the mundane rivals the magical, erasing that gap, in the latter, the mundane, itself, is erased, removing even the possibility of a gap.  







> meaning that magic becomes if anything more pervasive - if also more subtle - through 4e than any other version of D&D.
> Which means yes, the primacy of magic is a (not the, but a) core essence of D&D across all versions.



 Magic being pervasive works /against/ the Primacy of Magic, because it becomes fungible and ordinary - mundane in the sense of everyday experience.  While 4e class powers didn't do that (unless source keywords are willfully misinterpreted or ignored), 4e magic items /did/, contributing to the pervasive feeling that "magic wasn't really magical" and undercutting the Primacy of Magic.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I largely agree.
> 
> Pathfinder 2 attacks this from a slightly different angle. Spells have a listed rarity. By default Common spells can be freely taken at level up. Uncommon and Rare spells by default must be discovered through play. Nearly every Wizard can cast Fireball, but much fewer have access to spells like Scry and Teleport.
> 
> ...



A long time ago I tried something like this with Cleric spells, the idea being to shake things up such that not all Clerics of the same type (or even to the same deity) would necessarily have the exact same spell list.

Some spells were common to all, some were uncommon (a Cleric would get about half of these), and some were rare (a Cleric would only get one or two of these).  Each level-up you'd get another uncommon or two and a rare from spells of your castable level or lower; eventually a high-enough-level Cleric (as in stratospheric!) would have them all.

Net result: an overall failure.  Added way too much player-side complication to be worth it.  Abandoned for subsequent campaigns.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> 4e very much blurred this distinction by adding and codifying so-called "supernatural" powers for martials, monsters, etc. These powers, to some including me, appear to be simply magical (as in non-mundane) abilities put under a different label; meaning that magic becomes if anything more pervasive - if also more subtle - through 4e than any other version of D&D.




Is it magical to take single handily take out a platoon? Or to go toe to toe with a T-Rex? Cause high level Fighters can do that.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Ah, but you see that spell was not heretofore unknown.  It's known and unknowable to the PC.  Finding a copy of Nagol's Pleasing Persona  which in almost all ways acts like Charm Person, means you now have a heretofore unknown spell to check!



As with so many things in 1e, I guess it comes down to how the DM interprets the phrase "previously unknown".

Does it mean "previously unlearned"?
Does it mean "previously never heard of at all"?

I've always read it as the former; you seem to be reading it as the latter, and in typical 1e fashion either interpretation is arguably correct.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I have had an epiphany. The logic of the Primacy of Magic camp holds water after all; they have just made one simple error: the true essence of D&D lies in the _Primacy of Burgling_.
> 
> For every edition, the one absolutely necessary member of an adventuring party has been the thief/rogue. Dungeon crawling has simply not been possible without one. You could scrape by without a warrior, or a mage, or a healer, but without a rogue, locks and traps and secret doors simply become impassable. In 1E and 2E, only thieves/rogues have access to the skill system which allows them to tackle these challenges. Even in 3E, which opened up the skill system to every class, the skills for disarming traps and picking locks were capped for non-rogues -- uniquely so, that's how important this primacy is. And it clearly isn't just an arbitrary mechanical limitation. The rogue requirement naturally goes back to the very roots of the genre in Tolkien's _Hobbit_, in which Thorin and Company go through considerable trouble to recruit a burglar for their cause.
> 
> ...




Not bad...but dungeon crawling wasn't necessary for it to be D&D.  As well,_ Find Traps_ and _Knock _did wonders to replace the thief.

Those are spells, right...?


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Eric V said:


> Not bad...but dungeon crawling wasn't necessary for it to be D&D.  As well,_ Find Traps_ and _Knock _did wonders to replace the thief.
> 
> Those are spells, right...?



Obviously dungeon crawling was necessary for it to be D&D. I mean, it's right in the name. And if your DM only included _one_ trap or lock in the dungeon, that was their own damn fault.

Also, 5E nerfed _find traps_ and _knock_. Reinforcing the Primacy of Burgling yet again!


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I can think of a couple grey areas, mostly around what's affected by anti-magic:  psionics - magic or not?  and which spell-effects go up against magic resistance.  But, yeah, generally, it's not hard to infer.  Spells are obviously explicitly magical, as are, well, 'magic items.'  Some Monk might be a grey area, too, a bard's singing, etc...



Psionics and Bard singing mostly fall under magical for me, for these purposes.

Monks are indeed a gray area.



> 4e included keywords that very explicitly called out powers as having a specific source.  Most of them - Arcane, Divine, Primal, Psionic, Shadow, Elemental - were explicitly supernatural.  One, Martial, was not.
> 
> When it came to monsters, though, source keywords were often omitted.  So you may have a point there, if that's what you're going to focus on...
> 
> Whether you take a power labeled 'Martial' as such, and are upset that it rival a magical power of the same type/level/recharge-rate, or discount the martial label because the power 'appears magical to you,' you're objecting on the lack of a clear gap between the mundane and the magical.



Exactly, and my point is that the mundane has been made magical.



> In the former case, the mundane rivals the magical, erasing that gap, in the latter, the mundane, itself, is erased, removing even the possibility of a gap.   Magic being pervasive works /against/ the Primacy of Magic, because it becomes fungible and ordinary - mundane in the sense of everyday experience.



In the game world, yes.  But compared to the real world - which is the comparison most people are likely to use when asking "is this magic?" - it's not mundane at all.  And that pervasiveness of magic in itself makes magic prime.



			
				MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> Is it magical to take single handily take out a platoon? Or to go toe to toe with a T-Rex? Cause high level Fighters can do that.



In real life a highly skilled warrior could take out a platoon (if all involved were unarmed).  The presence of the T-Rex is, if not magical, certainly fantastic; which shifts the boundaries somewhat and makes real-world comparisons difficult - to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever taken on a T-rex in combat.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Eric V said:


> Not bad....



 Though meant humorously, it's a fair stab at "Niche Protection is the Essence of D&D."
And, Niche Protection sure seems like a prominent feature of D&D, if one that eroded over time.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Oh I absolutely meant it that way. 5e, AFAICT, is more than half a successful foray into applying all of the crucial parts of 4e with a presentation that makes happy those who didn’t like 4e, both those who can tell you quite clearly why and those who have trouble articulating exactly why.
> 
> In that regard (and that regard only) I’d say it’s the best edition of dnd. It can feel like playing dnd no matter what dnd you want it to feel like, as long as you go into it recognizing that your own biases play a role in how a game feels. Even without considering that factor, it’s my (very close) second favorite edition.
> 
> Hell, I’ll be a heretic here and say that 4e and 5e are the only editions that I’d consider “good games” without the aid of nostalgia to tip the scales.



 I'd say that's being charitable to both editions. 4e didn't remove /all/ the perennial problems with D&D, and it had a few gaping holes, at times.  5e, obviously, intentionally restored many perennial issues, with great success - and /with/ 'nostalgia' (or some more acceptable term for appreciating the game as it was back in the day) to tip the scales, is a very enjoyable game for doing so.



> I enjoyed playing 2e, but I’d not call it a good game the standard of TTRPGaming right now. 5e? Good by nearly any standard.
> Even by balance standards, though I know you disagree with me there.



 D&D stacks the deck against itself when it comes to balance.  If you wanted to rate balance in TTRPGs on a scale of 1 to 10, you'd have use decimal points to differentiate most editions of D&D.



> In order to not support RP, it would have to make RP difficult even for people who enjoyed the game and dove fully into it for several years. It didn’t.



 What, really, would be a barrier to RP?  I mean, what in the actual mechanics or content of an RPG, could do that?  (For that matter, what really /supports/ RP?  I'd say being able to build a character as close to your vision of it as possible, and be able to play it in a way that conveys that vision, while remaining viable in the 'game' aspect and also not rendering anyone esle's vision non-viable in that same sense. That might be part of it.)



> I _suspect_ that these have to do with having a presentation people consciously and/or subconsciously associate with video games and wargames and other games that don’t involve RP



 Like MMORPGs?  (Never played one, but do they really not involve RPGs?   Have they been sued for false advertising yet?) 


> but the game has a ton of elements that support and encourage RP. What you’re describing is those elements not doing the job for you, which is different from the game not having those elements.



 ...I guess... a little different.  Still curious what those elements, are, exactly. 

Often, when people talk about an RP element in an RPG (ignoring the whole thing /is/ an RPG), they're talking about some kind of carrot or stick to reward good RP or punish bad, typically with the DM judging which is which.  Inspiration, in 5e, is an example of an RP carrot. 
Personally, I don't actually find those helpful.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> But compared to the real world - which is the comparison most people are likely to use when asking "is this magic?" - it's not mundane at all.  And that pervasiveness of magic in itself makes magic prime.



I mean, I suppose that's one possible criterion - that anything unrealistic must, perforce, be magical.   

But, no, the way I described the concept of the Primacy of Magic, pervasiveness undermines it - especially if taken to the extreme of erasing the mundane against which it should be contrasted. 

Pervasiveness of magic undermining it's feel is also one of the few arguments I hear against 5e:  at-will cantrips making magic too available.  



> In real life a highly skilled warrior could take out a platoon (if all involved were unarmed).  The presence of the T-Rex is, if not magical, certainly fantastic; which shifts the boundaries somewhat and makes real-world comparisons difficult - to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever taken on a T-rex in combat.



Fantastic, but not magical/supernatural is a good point.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> See, I'm concentrating on the last bolded bit, because that's where I disagree with you. And a big part of that is the DIY nature of a lot of D&D ... but ....
> 
> You can have a lot of different approaches to, for example, a standard 5e campaign; people running it "old school" (OD&D, Dungeon Crawl), people bringing in 1e/2e sensibilities, people adapting it to a more 3e crunch game, people running it as more of a scene-based 4e-style game, and so on.
> 
> ...




But, of course, only those similarities that give you warm and fuzzy feelings.  A similarity that somehow you find offensive (for reasons that I cannot fathom) is edition warring and to be entirely discounted.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I was having that talk pre-Internet!



On Alarums and Excursions?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2019)

Imaro said:


> Another possibility the Primacy of Magic theory continues to overlook is that it didn't feel like D&D to different people for different reasons.  So different people, different reasons but those different reasons creating a common feeling of disconnect.




What are those different reasons?  Can you enumerate them please?  Because from my perspective, the "it didn't feel like D&D" generally falls under a couple of reasons and most of them can be linked pretty clearly to the Primacy of Magic.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> On Alarums and Excursions?




Mostly face to face, some on fidonet.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> What are those different reasons?  Can you enumerate them please?  Because from my perspective, the "it didn't feel like D&D" generally falls under a couple of reasons and most of them can be linked pretty clearly to the Primacy of Magic.




Off the top of my head and by no means complete and certainly not in any priority order:

a laser-like focus on combat pillar
the ebb and flow of combat -- the narrative of the PCs getting pushed down, rallying and coming back for a win is pretty deeply baked in
the additional restrictions wrt operational movement, planning, and investigation, both magical and slightly less magical
the commonality of magicks previously kept to higher level use (Misty Step for one)
square circles and short hypotenuses 
abilities exclusively existing as combat assets
reduced reliance on external resources
reduced value of magic items and thus reason to explore


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> a laser-like focus on combat pillar




First edition with tie in of experience point gain with non-combat ....  conflict.  This is actually "mostly" a DM side feature not a player one however.

In fact I would say skill challenges and the encouragement to allow very empowered uses of skills, call that a mistaken impression...


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> No.
> 
> It just manifests in a different way.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I think @Oofta hit upon what @Tony Vargas was aiming toward a few pages back. 

The magic classes need, for some segment of the player base, to be playing a different game from the mundane classes. They need to run on a different chassis, approach the game differently, and that needs to pervade all major facets of the game, from presentation, to gameplay, to how the narrative interacts with player decisions, for the game to feel like dnd. 

I definitely don’t need that specific split, but because I do need something like that split between individual classes (which is why I’ve never viewed fighter as a worthwhile class on any level before 4e) and different ways of building each class, I can sympathize. 

I need to be able to make two rogues and have them play differently, which only 4e and 5e have ever done, IMO. The class table looking the same doesn’t matter at all to me, because a Swashbuckler and a Thief simply do different things in nearly any scene in the game, and even why they do the same they approach differently. Same deal means that a melee pure DPR rogue and a ranged secondary control rogue in 4e might as well be two different classes for me. Because the formatting is just dressing, to me. It doesn’t matter. It’s wholly irrelevant the second I’ve printed my character sheet out. 

If someone needs rogues and wizards to be build using different tools and run on different chassis with different engines, 4e ain’t gonna work no matter how different the actual gameplay outcomes of two different powers are. Flaming Sphere isn’t anything like Come and Get It in terms of what happens in the narrative or the mechanics of the game, but because they’re formatted the same, they fail the above test. I’m perfectly happy to argue about the accuracy of terminology in order to get closer to what point someone is trying to make, but since it offends others here apparently, I give up.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> the ebb and flow of combat -- the narrative of the PCs getting pushed down, rallying and coming back for a win is pretty deeply baked in




 They actually didnt do that as well as i would have liked  

I had some ideas for things like desperation moves you could only access when bloodied... to make that rallying look more over the top.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Mostly face to face, some on fidonet.



A&E was the gaming forums for many of us. I actually contributed to the Zine doing cover art as well as a few articles. Which were basically ended with back and forth mini conversations between contributors .... a lot less speedy than the forums and a reason to have typing skill


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> What are those different reasons?  Can you enumerate them please?  Because from my perspective, the "it didn't feel like D&D" generally falls under a couple of reasons and most of them can be linked pretty clearly to the Primacy of Magic.




Maybe that's because you see a conspiracy where there isn't one.  Because AEDU was an attempt to standardize and thus balance the classes, not liking AEDU must really be about not liking the balance, which means....PRIMACY OF MAGIC!

But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Ha! A good seafood pizza rocks.



Tolerance of pineapple pizza I hear is lagging....


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> But not Papa John's. That's the Paladin of Pizzas. _ugh_



Used to like it but the guy who runs it ruined that...


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> You have to read it in _pari mutuel. _
> 
> "it is possible to acquire knowledge of additional spells *previously unknown* as long as this does not violate the maximum number of spells which can be known."
> 
> ...




My M-U went lightning specialist because I couldn't learn Fireball or Wall of Fire!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Though meant humorously, it's a fair stab at "Niche Protection is the Essence of D&D."
> And, Niche Protection sure seems like a prominent feature of D&D, if one that eroded over time.
> 
> I'd say that's being charitable to both editions. 4e didn't remove /all/ the perennial problems with D&D, and it had a few gaping holes, at times.  5e, obviously, intentionally restored many perennial issues, with great success - and /with/ 'nostalgia' (or some more acceptable term for appreciating the game as it was back in the day) to tip the scales, is a very enjoyable game for doing so.



 I despise nostalgia. I genuinely view it as a poison in our social nature; something we should be taught to sublimate and hold in low regard. 

5e is fun as hell without any nostalgia. 



> D&D stacks the deck against itself when it comes to balance.  If you wanted to rate balance in TTRPGs on a scale of 1 to 10, you'd have use decimal points to differentiate most editions of D&D.



 Couldn’t possibly disagree more. Or, well, I guess I only care at all about roughly 3 editions, and even then only really 4e and 5e, but still. 4e and 5e are very close to each other, but no other edition comes close on the scale. 



> What, really, would be a barrier to RP?  I mean, what in the actual mechanics or content of an RPG, could do that?  (For that matter, what really /supports/ RP?  I'd say being able to build a character as close to your vision of it as possible, and be able to play it in a way that conveys that vision, while remaining viable in the 'game' aspect and also not rendering anyone esle's vision non-viable in that same sense. That might be part of it.)
> 
> Like MMORPGs?  (Never played one, but do they really not involve RPGs?   Have they been sued for false advertising yet?)
> ...I guess... a little different.  Still curious what those elements, are, exactly.
> ...



eh, I don’t care much about this particular argument. IMO having lore in the entry for every single option in the game promotes role playing, for a start.

 As does making out of combat challenges have more mechanical weight, and keeping the binary result paradigm to simple checks.

 Skill challenges alone helped turn “Garthok moves x [movement] and then attacks using [ability or weapon]/ I want to roll to intimidate the Duke” players into players who inhabit their characters and spend the entire session paying attention and thinking in the “voice” of their character about what’s going on. 

The powers themselves also [try to] encourage thinking about how your character moves, fights, defends, and views the battlefield. IOW, they encourage and support roleplaying in combat. 

The thing is, no mechanics can _succeed_ at generating roleplaying, for every player. But even if we could somehow prove that 4e mostly failed at this, and that’s why it divided people (even tho they were divided before the PHB even came out), it wouldn’t mean that 4e doesn’t support RP. It would just mean they failed to engage most people with the game to the degree they needed to. 



Nagol said:


> Off the top of my head and by no means complete and certainly not in any priority order:
> 
> a laser-like focus on combat pillar
> the ebb and flow of combat -- the narrative of the PCs getting pushed down, rallying and coming back for a win is pretty deeply baked in
> ...



So, this is what I mean about presentation. 

What laser-like focus on combat? Are skills, utility powers, rituals, magic items with no direct combat use (or movement stuff that clearly has use just as much in as out of combat), feats that do social or exploration/travel stuff, the mountains and mountains of lore in every single book and mag issue, skill challenges, etc all somehow focused on combat in a way that I missed? 

What abilities are only usable in combat? Damaging powers? Even if we ignore that you can absolutely use those out of combat, how is that different from other editions? 

Again, I’m not saying you’re wrong to have seen these things this way, I’m just saying that this perception is the result of presentation, not the actual nature of the things in question. 

Thus my theory that the essence of DnD for many/most is at least half presentation and socially shared acceptance. Another significant factor is magic feeling as different as possible from the mundane. Make magic a set of skills with basic uses laid out that you have to “stunt” with just like physical skills and attacks in order to do wild stuff, and it probably won’t feel like dnd to most folks.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> What are those different reasons?  Can you enumerate them please?  Because from my perspective, the "it didn't feel like D&D" generally falls under a couple of reasons and most of them can be linked pretty clearly to the Primacy of Magic.




In other words you've already decided what the answer is... got it, and no I don't feel like wasting my time enumerating them for you.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> You know, maybe there's some crossover between pizza essentialism and D&D essentialism.
> 
> _thinking_
> 
> ...




Oh man, tacos mariscos is life! 

First time I ever had seafood pizza was in Lafayette Louisiana, and ive never looked back since. 


Garthanos said:


> Tolerance of pineapple pizza I hear is lagging....



Ugh. Some people wouldn’t know good pizza if it beat them up and stole their wallet for pizza money. 


lowkey13 said:


> As I say, let a Million Pizza Pies bloom, from Pineapple to Seafood, from Margherita to Capricciosa, from New York to Deep Dish.
> 
> But not Papa John's. That's the Paladin of Pizzas. _ugh_




My only contention here is that since Paladins are good, the comparison can not be true. 

Surely Papa John’s is the rust monster of pizza?


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The magic classes need, for some segment of the player base, to be playing a different game from the mundane classes. They need to run on a different chassis, approach the game differently, and that needs to pervade all major facets of the game, from presentation, to gameplay, to how the narrative interacts with player decisions, for the game to feel like dnd.



Setting aside the satire: seriously do consider the question of rogues. I think you are sniffing around a real conclusion, but I don't think magic vs. nonmagic is the key distinction here. In "true D&D", the D&D in our nostalgia goggles, yes, the wizard is playing a different game than the fighter. But the rogue is playing a different game than the fighter too. And the cleric is playing a different game than the wizard. This diversity of the Core Four is, obviously, something that the 4E devs were aware of and tried to formalize with the class role system. But just as obviously, they missed the mark there for many players. Rogues' combat math says "striker", but since they use the same resource system as fighters, the decisions players are making are more similar to fighters, and so they _feel_ more similar to play.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> You know, maybe there's some crossover between pizza essentialism and D&D essentialism.
> 
> _thinking_
> 
> ...




Well if you aren’t getting your pizza from Pizza Hut you aren’t playing right.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I despise nostalgia. I genuinely view it as a poison in our social nature; something we should be taught to sublimate and hold in low regard.



I obviously get nostalgia tweaks ... which drive me to insanity like discussing AD&D mages throwing darts

And I found it a bit of a thrill when i figured out a martial practice to support the really weird old Barbarian that hated magic items. (and how well that integrated with the rest of the development)


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Each pizza place has an optimal order I am a pizza optimizer 
Pizza hut barbeque pizza with cheese bites crust
Dominoes pizza - 5 cheese pizza (delectible)
Valentinos - Special 
Godfathers - Taco Pizza


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 19, 2019)

Just because people like something doesn’t mean it’s nostalgia. Many people never stopped playing ad&d and becmi. Why concert their campaigns and characters. They have the tools to play their game. And some mechanics from that era are better for certain playstyles. Especially those that love save or die among other things.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> And some mechanics from that era are better for certain playstyles.



Simultaneous action resolution instead of chess game turn taking! was a win ok... I let it go to the side but would love to have that restored in a more organized fashion.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> You have to read it in _pari mutuel. _
> 
> "it is possible to acquire knowledge of additional spells *previously unknown* as long as this does not violate the maximum number of spells which can be known."
> 
> ...



In other words, interpreting "previously unknown" as meaning "never heard of it".  OK, that's valid; though not jhow I've ever interpreted it.

I'll get back to the rest in a bit...


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Imaro (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> What laser-like focus on combat? Are skills, utility powers, rituals, magic items with no direct combat use (or movement stuff that clearly has use just as much in as out of combat), feats that do social or exploration/travel stuff, the mountains and mountains of lore in every single book and mag issue, skill challenges, etc all somehow focused on combat in a way that I missed?
> 
> What abilities are only usable in combat? Damaging powers? Even if we ignore that you can absolutely use those out of combat, how is that different from other editions?
> 
> Again, I’m not saying you’re wrong to have seen these things this way, I’m just saying that this perception is the result of presentation, not the actual nature of the things in question.




I can only speak for myself when it comes to this, but it wasn't presentation that decided this for my group it was the sheer amount of time combats (as suggested by the encounter guidelines) took at low level and continued to increase as we went up in level.  Our games, through no fault of our own were focused on combat because we had a limited amount of time to play and combat ate up the lion's share of it.  And I'm talking trying to do 2 maybe 3 combats in a 4 hour period.  This is the main difference my players (mostly casual) see between 4e and the rest of D&D, that the majority of our time was spent on a grid moving minis around in battle.  It's why they view it as board gamey, samey (continuous calling out of mostly your best at-will) and pulling the focus away from roleplaying.  We experienced this with no other edition (at least at low/mid-levels).  And this for us at least was what made it an outlier... not primacy of magic


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Setting aside the satire: seriously do consider the question of rogues. I think you are sniffing around a real conclusion, but I don't think magic vs. nonmagic is the key distinction here. In "true D&D", the D&D in our nostalgia goggles, yes, the wizard is playing a different game than the fighter. But the rogue is playing a different game than the fighter too. And the cleric is playing a different game than the wizard. This diversity of the Core Four is, obviously, something that the 4E devs were aware of and tried to formalize with the class role system. But just as obviously, they missed the mark there for many players. Rogues' combat math says "striker", but since they use the same resource system as fighters, the decisions players are making are more similar to fighters, and so they _feel_ more similar to play.



There is no version of dnd where I can see what you’re saying about the rogue and fighter playing a different game. 

Perhaps it’s been too long since I played ODnD? I didn’t enjoy it even as a kid, after all. I like roleplaying in spite of my friends wanting to use dnd to do it, until 2e. 

4e and 5e are the only numbered editions of dnd where I can see much difference between the two classes. I mean, the rogue had some inaugural abilities, but was absolutely playing the same game, while the wizard really wasn’t. 

And I wasn’t employing any satire. That’s what was said. The mundane classes need to feel like basically a different game from the magic classes.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

> •a laser-like focus on combat pillar



 While 'pillar' was coined for the Next playtest, D&D has /always/ been accused of being too focused on combat.  It was, afterall, a wargame, the combat chapter has generally been the largest (rivaled only by spells, which were super-powerful in combat), skills were virtually absent the first 25 years.  3.5 didn't much change that.  Skills, yes, nice addition, good first step, but completely binary, everything was resolved by a single check - or, if really 'complex' a repeated check.   4e broke rituals out from combat spells, and introduced Skill Challenges which finally weighted non-combat encounters the same as combat, and gave them a resolution framework that could draw the whole party into a no-combat scene, and, less dramatically, group checks, which finally let a party perform whole-party, skill-based actions without virtually guaranteed failure. 
5e didn't completely un-do all that, it re-integrated rituals back into the spell lists, but didn't have them use slots, and it did away Skill Challenges, but kept group checks, /and/ it added downtime, and has some rules for exploration & interaction that go beyond single-character/single-check pass/fail tests.

So, focus on combat was really up to the DM & his group, in 4e, moreso than any other prior ed, which, at least, 5e took a stab at, too.



> the ebb and flow of combat -- the narrative of the PCs getting pushed down, rallying and coming back for a win is pretty deeply baked in



Familiar from 3.5 - at least, it seemed like 3.5 combats often went that way for the group I played it with the most.  I suppose it was lost once you got into 'rocket tag' territory. Conversely, I recall a lot of 'grind' in old-school combats that went south.



> the additional restrictions wrt operational movement, planning, and investigation, both magical and slightly less magical



 No restrictions, but fewer built-in benefits from combos like scry/buff/teleport, sure.  Something else 5e hasn't entirely abandoned.


> the commonality of magicks previously kept to higher level use (Misty Step for one)



Prior ed's teleports were longer distance and less restricted than that specific, racial power.  Aside from that, most pivotal effects like flight, invisibility, and long-distance/beyond l-o-s teleport were pushed to significantly /higher/ level.



> square circles and short hypotenuses



 Simplified square-counting, making faster/simpler combat.



> abilities exclusively existing as combat assets



 There was significant siloing of combat & non-combat.  What that did, was allow non-combat resources to be used more freely as such, and made it practical to greatly reduce the quantity of combat-available resources (spells in particular). 



> reduced value of magic items and thus reason to explore



 Very much so.  Magic items may have ballooned in nominal price, but the utility they delivered was essentially base-line - the most critical, keeping up attack & defense, being easily replaced with Inherent Bonuses.



doctorbadwolf said:


> I despise nostalgia. I genuinely view it as a poison in our social nature; something we should be taught to sublimate and hold in low regard.



I cannot understand that attitude.  But, hey, it's your attitude, 'tude at it in good health and enjoy your always-fresh-and-new games.  I can see the appeal in that, too.

Maybe, if I live long enough, I'll become nostalgic for people hating on nostalgia?



> 5e is fun as hell without any nostalgia.



Oh, it's not /hell/ without any nostalgia.  Purgatory, maybe...



> I guess I only care at all about roughly 3 editions, and even then only really 4e and 5e, but still. 4e and 5e are very close to each other, but no other edition comes close on the scale.



If the other one is 3e, yes, it's off whatever scale you're measuring the balance gulf between 4e & 5e against.  3e & 4e are, ironically, the outliers, balance-wise.  4e is often called 'balanced' or 'too balanced.'  Both are exaggerations, IMHO.



> IMO having lore in the entry for every single option in the game promotes role playing, for a start.



"lore" to me suggests setting information & tie-ins.  Or do we just mean fluff/flavor text?  Either way, if they're not flexible, they can limit character concept/realization.



> As does making out of combat challenges have more mechanical weight, and keeping the binary result paradigm to simple checks.



I can see how weightier out-of-combat resolution would give more opportunities for RP, since you're expanding the range of play.



> Skill challenges alone helped turn “Garthok moves x [movement] and then attacks using [ability or weapon]/ I want to roll to intimidate the Duke” players into players who inhabit their characters and spend the entire session paying attention and thinking in the “voice” of their character about what’s going on.
> The powers themselves also [try to] encourage thinking about how your character moves, fights, defends, and views the battlefield. IOW, they encourage and support roleplaying in combat.



 Oh, that's starting to sound like "fiction first?"



> So, this is what I mean about presentation.
> Thus my theory that the essence of DnD for many/most is at least half presentation and socially shared acceptance. Another significant factor is magic feeling as different as possible from the mundane. Make magic a set of skills with basic uses laid out that you have to “stunt” with just like physical skills and attacks in order to do wild stuff, and it probably won’t feel like dnd to most folks.



 OK, yeah, that sounds plausible.  'Presentation' always felt like an excuse to me, like most gamers either play the game at such a casual level they hardly interact with the presentation of the rules, or they dive so deep into the rules in search of pearls of system-mastery that they transcend the presentation.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I'm telling you this as a friend.
> 
> You may want to re-evaluate your life-choices if you have optimized your fast food pizza.




You must play 4E and aren’t a real d&d player.  Come back when u learn how the game is really played


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I don't even know if I'm a real pizza eater anymore?
> 
> ....maybe they're all just unfolded calzones?




Well. As a 2E player there is an optional rules that allows calzones.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I despise nostalgia. I genuinely view it as a poison in our social nature; something we should be taught to sublimate and hold in low regard.
> 
> 5e is fun as hell without any nostalgia.
> 
> ...




Take a look at the 1st level spell list my 1e Magic-user has.  11 spells.  1 mandatory, 3 random assignments.

1 attack spell.  I got that one randomly at 1st level.  

For my 1st 3 levels, all I had was a subset of those 11 spells.  At 3rd, I think I had 5? in my spell book.

Do you know how any time I cast magic missile in those 3 levels? Once..  More often than not I had no more than one memorized.

By 3rd level, how many combat abilities would my Wizard have in 4e?  How many of those can be optionally swapped out for additional utility abilities?


Our credo is "If we're fighting, something has already gone wrong."


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I don't even know if I'm a real pizza eater anymore?
> 
> ....maybe they're all just unfolded calzones?



Nah, there are differences between pizza and calzones beyond folding.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I'm telling you this as a friend.
> 
> You may want to re-evaluate your life-choices if you have optimized your fast food pizza.



I am certain I left out a few Zios pizzeria in Omaha - vegetarian with those nifty tomato slices 

I kind of do it with any eating place... though

Amu Manu - Tan Tan Men 
Bisonwitches - Wisconsin Cheese bread bowl soup and half a Rueben sandwhich.... oooooh yeh
Kelleys fish market (Walleye sandwich to die for)


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Nah, there are differences between pizza and calzones beyond folding.



 Lazzaris Calzones yush... and they certainly are different


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Take a look at the 1st list list my 1e Magic-user has.  11 spells.  1 mandatory, 3 random assignments.



I have characters with far more than a dozen rituals in 4e... 

and um yeh that can be at low level by end game those are really cheap


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Woah!
> 
> Not to put words in your mouth (or food) but are you saying that you are doing some CharOps on your dining choices?



If I am spending money on the silly stuff it seems appropriate to buy the right edition ;P


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Just because people like something doesn’t mean it’s nostalgia. Many people never stopped playing ad&d and becmi. Why concert their campaigns and characters. They have the tools to play their game. And some mechanics from that era are better for certain playstyles. Especially those that love save or die among other things.



I’m trying to figure out if this is a response to me or not. I certainly didn’t suggest anything of the sort. There’s old stuff I like. Nothing wrong with that. Even @Tony Vargas seems to have interpreted hating nostalgia as...hating anything old? 

Idk folks, that simply ain’t what those words mean. 

Nostalgia isn’t “liking stuff that happens to be old.” It is “liking stuff because its from a time or setting that you view through a positive associative lense, such as your childhood or a relationship that you recall fondly.”

It’s pop culture traditionalism. Traditions that create positive things when applied to our lives are good. Those that don’t should be burnt and forgotten outside of cautionary tales. Sticking to something because your grandmother did it is bad for society, IMO. 

Anyway, nostalgia is off topic. Sorry I brought it up!



Imaro said:


> I can only speak for myself when it comes to this, but it wasn't presentation that decided this for my group it was the sheer amount of time combats (as suggested by the encounter guidelines) took at low level and continued to increase as we went up in level.  Our games, through no fault of our own were focused on combat because we had a limited amount of time to play and combat ate up the lion's share of it.  And I'm talking trying to do 2 maybe 3 combats in a 4 hour period.  This is the main difference my players (mostly casual) see between 4e and the rest of D&D, that the majority of our time was spent on a grid moving minis around in battle.  It's why they view it as board gamey, samey (continuous calling out of mostly your best at-will) and pulling the focus away from roleplaying.  We experienced this with no other edition (at least at low/mid-levels).  And this for us at least was what made it an outlier... not primacy of magic




If you’ll excuse a nitpick, and forgive me the contradiction as someone who has a burning hot hatred of nitpicking in general, that does rather seem like combat length created the perception that the game is laser focused on combat.

Which is totally valid! But it isn’t exactly a whole different game when you play with the less meaty monsters of later 4e, and hand the players with analysis-paralysis issues and the players who can’t improv if there are defined ability widgets (both perfectly valid issues with 4e that essentials sought to fix while leaving the basic game alone for those of us who lacked those issues) an essentials class so they have 1 encounter power they can use 7 times. It speeds up combat dramatically, though. 

Some of us kept fights fairly short by rarely fighting to the death (losing side flees or surrenders rather than being slaughtered), not using standards ever and only using brutes if they are the centerpiece of the fight, and cutting nearly all monster HP in half from the start, but damage vs hp math in 4e is simply wrong. They screwed it up. Full stop. 

But! I am 90% sure that I could run a handful of 4e games for you and your group that would be chock full of roleplaying. We had many whole story arcs that feature maybe 3 fights over the course of 5-8 sessions. And if I can get some of my players improvising in 4e, I can get anyone doing it. 

The problem, IMO, is that 4e _looks_ so combat centered, and deals with combat so differently in terms of designing a fight, and gets the math so wrong on HP vs damage, that these things compile to cause many groups to expect to be able to run x fights per session and still have time to RP out of combat, but then be unable to do so.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 19, 2019)

Hey @Tony Vargas  the stuff you "quoted" me on isn't actually from me.  Just a heads up.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

When some of us mention 4e didnt balance the utility of caster style characters and non caster style ones, perfectly rituals and the extreme and eventually kind of cheap functionality MOST ALL OF IT not combat they are part of it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> There is no version of dnd where I can see what you’re saying about the rogue and fighter playing a different game.



Back in the day, the fighter stomped around in heavy armor and traded damage with all comers, and died in honest combat, so the casters could live on.  The thief skulked about listening at doors, meticulously searching every square inch of dungeon for traps, and died, so the fighter & casters wouldn't get caught in said traps or surprised by monsters.

OK, yeah, I was going for contrast, but there was a definite similarity.



> 4e and 5e are the only numbered editions of dnd where I can see much difference between the two classes. I mean, the rogue had some inaugural abilities, but was absolutely playing the same game, while the wizard really wasn’t.
> And I wasn’t employing any satire. That’s what was said. The mundane classes need to feel like basically a different game from the magic classes.



OK, that's convincing, but it does open up the question of what's the point of playing two different games at the same time like that.  I mean, it's not something we see done in the context of gaming, more generally.  (Not even the same thing as the 'game within a game' conceit. It's like, we'll play chess, while you play checkers on the same board.)


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Take a look at the 1st list list my 1e Magic-user has.  11 spells.  1 mandatory, 3 random assignments.
> 
> 1 attack spell.  I got that one randomly at 1st level.
> 
> ...



I’m quite confused. 

First of all, purely combat abilities you will have less, but...ya know...rituals and skills. 
And 4e wizards can swap spells from their spellbook. Tome Wizards can even do some swapping during a short rest. And you don’t have to swap combat powers for non-combat powers. You get non-combat abilities separate from the combat ones. No need to choose one or the other. Every day you can do both. Always. 

Other wizards just spammed magic missile all day long, btw. Meanwhile we had campaigns where fighting was always the last resort in 4e, and campaigns where it was step one in other editions. 

I don’t even know what in my post this was a response to, though?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Eric V said:


> Hey @Tony Vargas  the stuff you "quoted" me on isn't actually from me.  Just a heads up.



Sorry.  It's like, multi-quote finally works, but I'm so used to it not working, that all the stupid user tricks I'm used to using to get around it are getting me into trouble.

I'll try to figure out the correct attribution and remove your name in the mean time.

Thanks


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Back in the day, the fighter stomped around in heavy armor and traded damage with all comers, and dying in honest combat, so the casters could live on.  The thief skulked about listening at doors, meticulously searching every square inch of dungeon for traps, and dying, so the fighter & casters wouldn't get caught in said traps or surprised by monsters.
> 
> OK, yeah, I was going for contrast, but there was a definite similarity.
> 
> OK, that's convincing, but it does open up the question of what's the point of playing two different games at the same time like that.  I mean, it's not something we see done in the contest of gaming, more generally.  (Not even the same thing as the 'game within a game' conceit. It's like, we'll play chess, while you play checkers on the same board.)




It isn’t my argument, so I’m not much inclined to try and defend it. 

I was told that this was the issue. The heart of what 4e lacked, and why “all classes feel the same”, was that in other editions the magic classes and mundane classes have little similarity of play experience. 

I think it’s a strange thing to want in a game, but at least it seems accurate to what the different editions actually _do, _so far as I can tell.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> If you’ll excuse a nitpick, and forgive me the contradiction as someone who has a burning hot hatred of nitpicking in general, that does rather seem like combat length created the perception that the game is laser focused on combat.
> 
> Which is totally valid! But it isn’t exactly a whole different game when you play with the less meaty monsters of later 4e, and hand the players with analysis-paralysis issues and the players who can’t improv if there are defined ability widgets (both perfectly valid issues with 4e that essentials sought to fix while leaving the basic game alone for those of us who lacked those issues) an essentials class so they have 1 encounter power they can use 7 times. It speeds up combat dramatically, though.
> 
> ...




Funnily enough I kept all my 4e Essentials books and it is actually the only version of 4e I'd run now. Don't tend to discuss it much though since fans of  classic 4e tend to dislike at the least (and more often than not hate) that era of 4e.

It's funny I sometimes wonder if more of them had been supportive of Essentials whether 5e would have come as soon as it did.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I am certain I left out a few Zios pizzeria in Omaha - vegetarian with those nifty tomato slices
> 
> I kind of do it with any eating place... though
> 
> ...



Zio's just ain't what it used to be, unfortunately.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 19, 2019)

Imaro said:


> Funnily enough I kept all my 4e Essentials books and it is actually the only version of 4e I'd run now. Don't tend to discuss it much though since fans of  classic 4e tend to dislike at the least (and more often than not hate) that era of 4e.
> 
> It's funny I sometimes wonder if more of them had been supportive of Essentials whether 5e would have come as soon as it did.



Oh my friend you’re in welcoming company with me on that point. I love Essentials. 

I don’t tend to play E classes much, except for the executioner and hexblade, but I love how much easier running 4e for some of my friends for with Essentials, and I really wish that we’d got to see version of the game that created a more fluid ability to mix the design conceits of it and classic 4e. 

I would love to see a 4e PHB but with the ability to just pick the same encounter power several times (or treat encounter and daily power uses like 5e spell slots), and even pick a passive feature instead of a new power, etc. to the point where I could make a full on Slayer Fighter with 1 encounter power I use several times and no daily powers, or a full PHB style Fighter with several options in each power slot and few passive abilities.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Zio's just ain't what it used to be, unfortunately.



I admit I was reaching to remember that one ... been years


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I was told that this was the issue. The heart of what 4e lacked, and why “all classes feel the same”, was that in other editions the magic classes and mundane classes have little similarity of play experience.
> I think it’s a strange thing to want in a game, but at least it seems accurate to what the different editions actually _do, _so far as I can tell.



 It's also just a broader than the Primacy of Magic, because it just requires different, not superior.  Casters could be terribly hosed basket cases rapidly aging into cadavers, going insane, and/or mutating into blobs of protoplasm, all for casting esoteric spells that have little actual value outside of getting the world destroyed or keeping some other mad nigh-blob-of-protoplasm from getting the world destroyed, while non-casters get to be Big Damn Heroes, trouncing incane cultists, wizened cadavers, and blobs of protoplasm into, well, less animate cadavers and pools of protoplasm, by the dozens.  They'd be playing two different games.  
Conversely, under this supposition, 4e could have made martial characters be utterly inferior, but as long as they still got the same number of powers &c as casters, it would still have felt 'samey,' and been problematic.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I would love to see a 4e PHB but with the ability to just pick the same encounter power several times (or treat encounter and daily power uses like 5e spell slots), and even pick a passive feature instead of a new power, etc. to the point where I could make a full on Slayer Fighter with 1 encounter power I use several times and no daily powers, or a full PHB style Fighter with several options in each power slot and few passive abilities.



Would've been well w/in the design space. The problem with getting to pick the same encounter or daily power several times is, of course, that all the powers have to be meticulously balanced, rather than just the power choices of a single class/level.   Sleep, for instance, if you have a wizard who can take the same daily more than once, it'll likely be Sleep 3 times, plus whatever he can contrive to grant save penalties, and anything he can do to cheese up a 4th casting of it.   
So, a specific power multiple times, instead of choosing from among the listed power:  like ePower Attack.  That could've been quite workable.
Reducing build & play complexity without sacrificing viability.  And, if you ever got bored with it, you could turn in one of your uses of the default power for something else.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m quite confused.
> 
> First of all, purely combat abilities you will have less, but...ya know...rituals and skills.
> And 4e wizards can swap spells from their spellbook. Tome Wizards can even do some swapping during a short rest. And you don’t have to swap combat powers for non-combat powers. You get non-combat abilities separate from the combat ones. No need to choose one or the other. Every day you can do both. Always.
> ...




I know you get separate combat powers.  That's the point.  I had a single combat power I almost never used.  I had a bunch of utility powers.  In 4e, I'd have more combat powers and fewer utility powers because there is a focus on combat in 4e unlike 1e.  The expectation of combat -- and the balancing of characters for it -- is a feature of the system.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I have characters with far more than a dozen rituals in 4e...
> 
> and um yeh that can be at low level by end game those are really cheap




And my character now has several dozen and at least a few combat abilities.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> And my character now has several dozen and at least a few combat abilities.



There are hundreds of rituals with no significant limit on learning them (except the classic is the DM providing access)  and they do not compete with those combat abilities. Additionally by end game the Wizard will have 14 slot limited fast castable utility ones that you can select up to seven from.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> There are hundreds of rituals with no significant limit on learning them (except the classic is the DM providing access)  and they do not compete with those combat abilities. Additionally by end game the Wizard will have 14 slot limited fast castable utility ones that you can select up to seven from.




The reason I'm bringing this up is doctorbadwolf was arguing 4e doesn't have a focus on combat compared to 1e.  How may combat abilities does a 3rd level Wizard have? I had 0 -- a single daily I effectively replaced with utility.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

4e did not support accountants and bookkeepers compendium wrt non-combat... ie The DM is asked I am going to use that profession in my characters background and earn as much money as I can in the next 6 months. The DM basically just wings it.  Now a party of rogue character personalities  working a crowd might very well end up a skill challenge.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 19, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Just because people like something doesn’t mean it’s nostalgia.



 I think it's more when people like something old & busted, because “its from a time or setting that you view through a positive associative lense, such as their childhood or a relationship that they recall fondly.”

And there's nuth'n wrong with that.



Nagol said:


> The reason I'm bringing this up is doctorbadwolf was arguing 4e doesn't have a focus on combat compared to 1e.  How may combat abilities does a 3rd level Wizard have?



Depends. Does he memorize Sleep, Sleep & Web?  Or Hold Portal, Charm Person & Fools Gold?  Has he found a Wand of Fireballs or one of Metal & Mineral Detection?
Conversely, all the Fighter's class abilities are combat abilities, until, perhaps, 9th level, though, there's really not much along the lines of /abilities/ in owning your own money-pit, there are non-combat concerns.



Nagol said:


> I know you get separate combat powers.  That's the point.  I had a single combat power I almost never used.  I had a bunch of utility powers.



Sure, because you were a mage, and you faced the choice of learning one sort of spell or another, and you went for an extreme focus.  If you'd been a fighter, you'd've been all combat and no utility.  A Thief, more utility than combat - but not really enough of either to get by.
Now, if you'd been in a combat-heavy campaign with the same character, under the same system, making the same choices, you'd've hosed yourself.  If you were in a non-combat-heavy game, you'd've been outperforming a less focused mage.


> In 4e, I'd have more combat powers and fewer utility powers



Well, you might, via rituals have even more utilities in addition to having more combat spells, because wizards still made out, that way - but the best of them probably wouldn't be as impactful, and other characters who really wanted to same utility could've gotten scrolls.
Because 4e made a first, inauspicious, attempt at balancing the as-yet-unarticulated 'pillars' individually, so the campaign could focus on any or two or all of them, either overall, or differently over time.   Instead of balancing classes across all pillars, so that any campaign that deviated from the assumed spread would see some dominating and other languishing.
It didn't do it /well/ but it tried.

Something else that 5e didn't entirely abandon:   You can't generally trade in your skills for combat options, and non-combat rituals don't cost slots.  So there's  a bit of silo'ing, there, too.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 19, 2019)

Nagol said:


> The reason I'm bringing this up is doctorbadwolf was arguing 4e doesn't have a focus on combat compared to 1e.  How may combat abilities does a 3rd level Wizard have? I had 0 -- a single daily I effectively replaced with utility.



4e has huge amounts of non-combat abilities which do not compete with gaining combat ability...  I saw non-combat things being ignored even though they would interesting in 1e all the time.  Not because some player only wanted to fight but because other stuff was competing with things people saw as necessary.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 4e did not support accountants and bookkeepers compendium wrt non-combat... ie The DM is asked I am going to use that profession in my characters background and earn as much money as I can in the next 6 months. The DM basically just wings it.  Now a party of rogue character personalities  working a crowd might very well end up a skill challenge.




And?  We are an adventuring group with a focus on getting the treasure, leaving the danger. Getting into fights was dangerous and we work (overly) hard to avoid/minimize/overwhelm opposition.  We use as many external replaceable resources as we can, investigate thoroughly, take as few risks as we can get away with, and fight as little as possible.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I know you get separate combat powers.  That's the point.  I had a single combat power I almost never used.  I had a bunch of utility powers.  In 4e, I'd have more combat powers and fewer utility powers because there is a focus on combat in 4e unlike 1e.  The expectation of combat -- and the balancing of characters for it -- is a feature of the system.



I never reference 1e, far as I can recall. If I did, I doubt it was to compare combat focus. 
I had much more non-combat abilities on my 4e wizard than combat ones. Not to mention the rather robust skill system, and improvised uses of combat powers. 



Nagol said:


> The reason I'm bringing this up is doctorbadwolf was arguing 4e doesn't have a focus on combat compared to 1e.  How may combat abilities does a 3rd level Wizard have? I had 0 -- a single daily I effectively replaced with utility.



 I didn’t compare editions, you did. I also said 4e isn’t laser focused on combat, and that it devotes rather a lot of the system to out of combat.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> And?  We are an adventuring group with a focus on getting the treasure, leaving the danger.




Chases and escapes are great skill challenges and 4e rewards experience points based on how challenging they are.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Additionally there is no blip we escape instantly spell ... people with skills will actually get to use them.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I think it's more when people like something old & busted, because “its from a time or setting that you view through a positive associative lense, such as their childhood or a relationship that they recall fondly.”
> 
> And there's nuth'n wrong with that.
> Sure, because you were a mage, and you faced the choice of learning one sort of spell or another, and you went for an extreme focus.  If you'd been a fighter, you'd've been all combat and no utility.  A Thief, more utility than combat - but not really enough of either to get by.
> ...




Not true.  The fighters sacrificed a few of the weapon proficiency slots for extra non-proficiencies.  They've picked up a smattering of magic items that help them extend into the investigative/stealthy sections, and one is becoming a Bard.  Their henchmen also help broaden their options.

If I were in a combat-heavy campaign, I'd probably not care/not notice 4e's focus on combat!  But,  I'm not and I do.

And the utiliities are nowhere near as impactful at mid-levels and higher because the game engine was built that way.

And the fact it doesn't do it well is a turn-off.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> And?  We are an adventuring group with a focus on getting the treasure, leaving the danger. Getting into fights was dangerous and we work (overly) hard to avoid/minimize/overwhelm opposition.  We use as many external replaceable resources as we can, investigate thoroughly, take as few risks as we can get away with, and fight as little as possible.



We played that way on one of our 4e campaigns. It’s fun. 

And everyone, even the mundanes, has plenty to contribute to those challenges. 

Capers are really fun in 4e. 

I also played bloodthirsty games in older editions. 

Turns out every edition supports both.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> And the utiliities are nowhere near as impactful at mid-levels and higher because the game engine was built that way.




Um...huh? This is exactly opposite what I experienced with utility powers in 4e at all levels of play.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Not true.  The fighters sacrificed a few of the weapon proficiency slots for extra non-proficiencies.



Excuse me? NWP = 2e... right?
Oh, dungeoneer's survival guide?   Really kinda terrible, IMHO.  D&D didn't even start to get skills right until 3.0.
I'd say 'not worth it,' except proficiencies were pretty nearly worthless, anyway - they were backup for when the DM got hinky and placed a powerful magical weapon that wasn't a longsword.


> And the utiliities are no where near as impactful at mid-levels and higher because the game engine was built that way.



Nod, all spells were taken down a number of pegs, in general - and rituals and items were 'nerfed,' out-of-combat, relative to how overwhelming spells used to be, because there was a /greater/ focus on non-combat, via skill challenges, even being weighted the same as encounters.  Non-combat got more structure, more participation from all players, more emphasis, than any other edition.  Leaving utility spells as problem-solved grenades would have reduced that focus.


> And the fact it doesn't do it well is a turn-off.



It's better than not doin' it at all.  Even if there's not much hope it'll continue to improve.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Um...huh? This is exactly opposite what I experienced with utility powers in 4e at all levels of play.





Really?  As impactful as dimension door and teleport?  As impactful as 1e's wall of stone?  As impactful as Clairvoyance and Magic Mirror?

Utilities were toned down specifically to allow more action adventure style stuff to go on.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> We played that way on one of our 4e campaigns. It’s fun.
> 
> And everyone, even the mundanes, has plenty to contribute to those challenges.
> 
> ...




So does The Fantasy Trip, but it's another game I don't bother running.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Excuse me? NWP = 2e... right?
> Oh, dungeoneer's survival guide?   Really kinda terrible, IMHO.  D&D didn't even start to get skills right until 3.0.
> I'd say 'not worth it,' except proficiencies were pretty nearly worthless, anyway - they were backup for when the DM got hinky and placed a powerful magical weapon that wasn't a longsword.
> Nod, all spells were taken down a number of pegs, in general - and rituals and items were 'nerfed,' out-of-combat, relative to how overwhelming spells used to be, because there was a /greater/ focus on non-combat, via skill challenges, even being weighted the same as encounters.  Non-combat got more structure, more participation from all players, more emphasis, than any other edition.  Leaving utility spells as problem-solved grenades would have reduced that focus.
> It's better than not doin' it at all.  Even if there's not much hope it'll continue to improve.




1e. 

Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeon Survival Guide


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> We played that way on one of our 4e campaigns. It’s fun.
> 
> And everyone, even the mundanes, has plenty to contribute to those challenges.
> 
> ...



And everyone including non caster heroes I think referring to martial types as mundane.... is a problem it reinforces the purported awesome of other worldly types at their expense LOL


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 20, 2019)

i really like 2E proficiency better than 5E skills. But the worse thing that happens with skills or proficiencies is when they get used for routine tasks instead of difficult things. Climb a tree, big deal.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Excuse me? NWP = 2e... right?
> Oh, dungeoneer's survival guide?   Really kinda terrible, IMHO.  D&D didn't even start to get skills right until 3.0.
> I'd say 'not worth it,' except proficiencies were pretty nearly worthless, anyway - they were backup for when the DM got hinky and placed a powerful magical weapon that wasn't a longsword.
> Nod, all spells were taken down a number of pegs, in general - and rituals and items were 'nerfed,' out-of-combat, relative to how overwhelming spells used to be, because there was a /greater/ focus on non-combat, via skill challenges, even being weighted the same as encounters.  Non-combat got more structure, more participation from all players, more emphasis, than any other edition.  Leaving utility spells as problem-solved grenades would have reduced that focus.
> It's better than not doin' it at all.  Even if there's not much hope it'll continue to improve.




Nod.  Participation in all SC is a nice inclusive terrible idea.  4e also had TERRIBLE math in the skill challenges when I looked at it.  It took, what, 4 iterations to become passable?  I did the math originally, and couldn't stop giggling over how unlikely a group was to succeed and then there were the examples!  Auto-fail! on top of terrible chances, built-in auto fail!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Really?  As impactful as dimension door and teleport?  As impactful as 1e's wall of stone?  As impactful as Clairvoyance and Magic Mirror?
> 
> Utilities were toned down specifically to allow more action adventure style stuff to go on.



AH! Your wording made me think that you were saying that 4e's utility abilities lost power as one leveled up. I won't bother to look up those spells in 1e. As I've said before, I don't really care about the particulars of past editions. I don't play a new DnD with a running comparison commentary of past editions, so when we have moved to a new edition, I tend to just let my mind erase past edition details as useless data clutter. 

That all said, you can teleport across the world in 4e. It's a ritual. I don't recall what level it becomes available, but it's in there somewhere. Oh, you can also use the Arcana skill to manipulate a teleportation portal or circle to send you to a different location than the one intended, or even sabotage it for the next person who uses it! 

I think Clairvoyance in some form exists in 4e, but I never played a divination focused caster in any edition.

But, back to the actual topic, those spells changed in every edition. 4e isn't the standout because it changed how powerful some spells are.


Nagol said:


> So does The Fantasy Trip, but it's another game I don't bother running.



No clue what that is. Also not sure what this comment has to do with the text it replies to? 
You seemed to be suggesting that 4e didn't support play that avoids combat and seeks to "get the treasure and leave the danger". I explained how it does support that style of play, and reiterated the point that all editions of dnd can be played anywhere on the spectrum from no combat ever to nothing but combat.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> i really like 2E proficiency better than 5E skills. But the worse thing that happens with skills or proficiencies is when they get used for routine tasks instead of difficult things. Climb a tree, big deal.



I damn near drowned because my DM had zero guidelines for a routine tasks and didn't know how to swim... I will take skills and movement guidelines any day of the week


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Nod.  Participation in all SC is a nice inclusive terrible idea.  4e also had TERRIBLE math in the skill challenges when I looked at it.  It took, what, 4 iterations to become passable?



 It wasn't a terrible idea, just a terrible  initial implementation, a prime example of a genuinely-broken rule.  SCs got /easier/ the higher the complexity and the greater the supposed challenge!  OOPS!
It over-compensated with the first update, and was useable after that.  The RC version was comparatively polished, even.  It aimed higher and improved more in two years than D&D had in the previous 30.  (I mean, you're willing to credit the desultory NWP system to 1e, when that was /9 years/ into it's run, and fairly obscure, but want to judge 4e SCs by their state at release, not even a few months in?  If you did that to 1e, you'd judge it based on the MM, alone.)
But it was never developed to anywhere near potential.

Oh, wait, or do you mean getting the whole party engaged in a challenge instead of one specialist character dominating play outside of combat was a terrible idea?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

And I just want to reiterate again because it came up _again_ in a post I largely ignored a couple pages back (a couple hours ago). 

I do not subscribe to and have not ever argued in favor of the "primacy of magic" hypothesis. My closest guess as to the OP, insofar as it seems to work for a majority of players, is a combination of; 

-familiar presentation that feels like something you can read for pleasure

-familiar tropes and player and DM options

-the ability to play anything from big damn heroes to scrungey hobos taking jobs to get by in a world that doesn't give a damn and never will (at least at lowish levels)

-a collection of terms and names that have solidified as necessary over the course of several editions, with some appearing later than others in the history of the game

-(the most variable factor IME) magic and mundane _feeling_ very different in both presentation and actual play results. 

-big shrug it's all art not science we will never know for sure. 

That's about it.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Oh, wait, or do you mean getting the whole party engaged in a challenge instead of one specialist character dominating play outside of combat was a terrible idea?



Like the 5e I instant "I escape all of us"  and dont have to worry about the slot lost because it doesnt take one till after I decide its what I really need.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> couldn't stop giggling




Do you really not see at all how stuff like this makes it seem like you never interacted with 4e in a way that included giving it anything like a chance, in the first place? It really comes across like you just...decided it was garbage before you even read anything in the book, and went from there.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

5e people were complaining about Ranger abilities undermining huge amounts of the challenge of travel... LOL - I read that and thought isnt that just a win... like a teleport.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> -the ability to play anything from big damn heroes to scrungey hobos taking jobs to get by in a world that doesn't give a damn and never will (at least at lowish levels)



 (Well, the former at high level and the latter at low, at least) 
But, 5e, having finally divorced magic items, and thus character wealth, entirely from advancement, really enables the latter to an unprecedented degree, and at all levels.

Think about it, in 4e & 3e you have wealth/level.  In 4e, you can turn on inherent bonuses, say screw magic items, be as stingy as you like with treasure - but, the sheer overwhelming ultra-competence of high-level skill bonuses will make the idea of the world treating them as nobodies pretty strained.  In 3e, you also nominally have that option, though it's less practical, and, again, high skill checks let the PC shine, and, in fact, /literally make money/ (XOMG! You can, like, make an honest living!)  Prior to 3e, magic items were necessary for general functionality in play, and treasure was inconsistently tied to xp/levels in a variety of ways, PCs might be rich, or they might have gold slip through their fingers by the ton, but they'd never be hardscrabble mercenaries their whole career, and, indeed, were expected to be come lords, and land-holders and guild-masters and the like.

In 5e, a high-level PC does not have useful civilian skills - or any skills - amazingly far in advance of an ordinary, particularly skilled professional.  But they do have tons of hps.   So, if poverty-stricken, the mercenary life is a natural.  OK, casters may, depending on the details of the setting, be able to parlay spells into gold in any number of ways.  But, also posit a world where honest folk are suspicious/hostile of magic, and, again, it's start blowing things up for those who need merks, or starve.  It's really kinda an accomplishment.

Though, TBH, I've yet to try running anything of the sort, nor seen or heard of anyone else doing so, it's a style/sub-genre that is now more doable than ever before.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I explained how it does support that style of play, and reiterated the point that all editions of dnd can be played anywhere on the spectrum from no combat ever to nothing but combat.



I designed a non-combatant princess build for the warlord class and sure in combat it held its own/weight by inspiring allies and the like dodging behind an ally which coincidentally gives the ally an extra attack opportunity but yes the character never hit anyone except ineffectually (giving allies more opportunities coming to the rescue) and was great with rituals and large numbers of skills and picked explicitly for that. So even if the rest of the party was in to combat you weren't a third wheel


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Do you really not see at all how stuff like this makes it seem like you never interacted with 4e in a way that included giving it anything like a chance, in the first place? It really comes across like you just...decided it was garbage before you even read anything in the book, and went from there.



Sounds like he read the book, once.  Possibly before the ink dried. (another thing laughably wrong with 4e that got better fairly quickly)
The initial SC rules really were stand-out, obviously, mathematically, borked.



Garthanos said:


> I designed a non-combatant princess build for the warlord class and sure in combat it held its own/weight by inspiring allies and the like dodging behind an ally which coincidentally gives the ally an extra attack opportunity but yes the character never hit anyone except ineffectually (giving allies more opportunities coming to the rescue) and was great with rituals and large numbers of skills and picked explicitly for that. So even if the rest of the party was in to combat you weren't a third wheel



Yeah, and it even got intentional support, later.  As did the pacifist cleric build, though it was a little.... IDK... technical about it's pacifism.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sounds like he read the book, once.



Eh, they may have read and played a good bit for all we know, but comments like that certainly don't suggest they did so with anything approaching an open mind. 

btw, 5e and 4e both let you be big damn heroes or scrungey hobos at low levels. I specified lowish level for a reason.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> btw, 5e and 4e both let you be big damn heroes or scrungey hobos at low levels. I specified lowish level for a reason.



4e, 1st level = 'Heroic' Tier
5e, 1st level = 'Apprentice' Tier

I know, they're just labels, but in both cases they're fairly accurate ones.

But the 5e capacity to fairly seamlessly run a party as nameless hardscrabble adventurers just fighting for their next meal, /their entire careers/, is really something.  I mean, you want gritty, there's some grit.  And it's not like it's entirely alien to genre, either.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 20, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I damn near drowned because my DM had zero guidelines for a routine tasks and didn't know how to swim... I will take skills and movement guidelines any day of the week




You misunderstand. I mean routine tasks don’t need a task. They pass. Done without even proficiency. I don’t play d&d to pass a check swimming across a pond. Maybe rapids.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Think about it, in 4e & 3e you have wealth/level.  In 4e, you can turn on inherent bonuses, say screw magic items, be as stingy as you like with treasure - but, the sheer overwhelming ultra-competence of high-level skill bonuses will make the idea of the world treating them as nobodies pretty strained.



4e characters do eventually become generally competent enough that missing the kick ass would be hard pressed indeed.  But you could say adventurer acrobatics is not entertaining with acrobatics for instance. And patching your allies wounds has nothing to do with doing midwifery and similar limits and all that takes is DM decisioning


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> You misunderstand. I mean routine tasks don’t need a task. They pass. Done without even proficiency. I don’t play d&d to pass a check swimming across a pond. Maybe rapids.



Oh certainly just like you do not roll to walk  unless you have awesome hips you must show off


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e, 1st level = 'Heroic' Tier
> 5e, 1st level = 'Apprentice' Tier
> 
> I know, they're just labels, but in both cases they're fairly accurate ones.



Sure but you can with not more than flavor work turn down the volume at level 1 - players on board not picking certain style of abilities.  But yes the descriptive labels do work pretty well in default.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2019)

More on this...


lowkey13 said:


> However:
> _Chance to Know Each Listed Spell _pertains to the percentage chance the character has by reason of his or her intelligence to learn any given spell in the level group. The character may select spells desired in any order he or she wishes.* Each spell may be checked only once.* Percentile dice are rolled, and if the number generated is equal to or less than the percentage chance shown, then the character can learn and thus know that spell (it may be in his or her spell books - explained hereafter). Example: A character with an intelligence of 12 desires to know a charm person spell that he finds in a book or scroll, percentile dice are rolled, but the number generated is 52, *so that spell is not understood and can not be used by the character *



At that time. Nothing is said (either way) about later attempts at a different level, at different intelligence, or even just off of a different scroll.



> Now, read the Minimum Number of Spells:
> 
> Example: The magic-user mentioned above who was unable to learn a charm person spell also fails to meet the minimum number of spells he or she can learn. The character then begins again on the list of 1st level spells, opts to see if this time charm person is able to be learned, rolls 04, and has acquired the ability to learn the spell. If and when the character locates such a spell, he or she will be capable of learning it.



This is still only referring to that initial roll-through*.



> Together, they mean that you get one shot to learn a spell; if you fail, you can never learn it again unless you increase your intelligence or fail to have the minimum number of known spells.



I don't read it that way.

* - this initial roll-through is something we've never done, as it in fact turns out to be an unnecessary and redundant step (actually, come to think of it the whole idea of minimum knowable per level is redundant).

At first level you get Read Magic (automatic) plus one random spell off each of the three lists as shown in the DMG (I almost always give a 5th completely random spell, this is a DMG option).  That's it.  After that, there's no need to roll comprehension until-unless a new spell is encountered - be it on a scroll, in a spellbook, traded from another MU, or wherever - at which point if the player/PC decides to try to understand/learn the spell a roll is given.

So, if a MU starts out with Read Magic, Charm Person, Hold Portal, Identify and Featherfall then later encounters Magic Missile on a scroll and tries to copy/learn it, only then is a roll made to comprehend MM.
Let's say her max limit is 9 spells per level; she gets MM, so now she's at 6 firsts - lots of headroom.  

Next adventure she finds a scroll that has Nystul's Aura, Detect Magic, Tenser's Disc, Mending, and Write.  She can only end up learning three of those before she hits her ceiling, and might even want to leave a spot open in case she ever finds this Sleep spell she keeps hearing about.  So she prioritizes the five on the scroll, and starts studying and copying.  She blows Detect Magic, then succeeds on Write and Tenser's Disc and is at 8 spells known.

Now, she's got a choice to make: does she keep that last spot open for Sleep, or does she go for Mending right now?


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Do you really not see at all how stuff like this makes it seem like you never interacted with 4e in a way that included giving it anything like a chance, in the first place? It really comes across like you just...decided it was garbage before you even read anything in the book, and went from there.




I grokked the rules.  I ran several sessions.  I played in others.  Frankly I don't care how it appears to you.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 20, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Oh certainly just like you do not roll to walk  unless you have awesome hips you must show off



Lol. I am waiting for the dm to make me mama a check to walk across the lawn on a calm summers day. Hurricane yes.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 20, 2019)

My problems is I kinda like having most skills divorced from level. You can be a kickass weapon Smith or linguist at level 1. That’s what I like anyway.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> My problems is I kinda like having most skills divorced from level. You can be a kickass weapon Smith or linguist at level 1. That’s what I like anyway.



 That is swimming against the class/level current a bit.  Make a check.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> What laser-like focus on combat? Are skills, utility powers, rituals, magic items with no direct combat use (or movement stuff that clearly has use just as much in as out of combat), feats that do social or exploration/travel stuff, the mountains and mountains of lore in every single book and mag issue, skill challenges, etc all somehow focused on combat in a way that I missed?



I'm not the person who posited this idea but I'll take a stab at answering anyway:

Not that they're always used for this, but skill challenges in 4e can take what in prior editions would have potentially been half a session's worth of exploration, dice rolling, resource attrition, and maybe mapping and concatenate it down to a ten-minute affair where the players say how they're approaching said challenge, some dice are rolled, success or failure is declared, and on we go.  (my go-to example for this is the sandstorm scenario in Marauders of the Dune Sea - the module says to just run it as a skill challenge, where doing it the long (i.e. 0-1-2e) way could provide hours of potential fun and entertainment)

Ditto for social challenges.  All the role-playing and conversation can, if desired, be neatly streamlined down to a goal, an approach, and some dice.

And what does all this streamlining accomplish?  It lets you get back to combat sooner!   Thus, it feels like the game is focused on combat because that's what you're doing (and what the system seems to expect you to be doing) most of the time at the table.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> My problems is I kinda like having most skills divorced from level. You can be a kickass weapon Smith or linguist at level 1. That’s what I like anyway.



Primarily having that kind of skill as defined background options was the primary 4e take too - not linguist but I think that was an error given how the rest of the system works .  I think looking at the skills on the player sheet as Adventurer Skills puts a different cast on it really. But they did say if you want to step it up a notch for that weapon smith they introduced Martial Practices one of which included that smithing so good your items were "magic" and that was tied to level.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> It wasn't a terrible idea, just a terrible  initial implementation, a prime example of a genuinely-broken rule.  SCs got /easier/ the higher the complexity and the greater the supposed challenge!  OOPS!
> It over-compensated with the first update, and was useable after that.  The RC version was comparatively polished, even.  It aimed higher and improved more in two years than D&D had in the previous 30.  (I mean, you're willing to credit the desultory NWP system to 1e, when that was /six years/ into it's run, and fairly obscure, but want to judge 4e SCs by their state at release, not even a few months in?)
> But it was never developed to anywhere near potential.
> 
> Oh, wait, or do you mean getting the whole party engaged in a challenge instead of one specialist character dominating play outside of combat was a terrible idea?




I judge every game in front of me based on what's in front of me.  I wasn't willing to wait on tenterhooks for 4e to fix its math and judge it then.

Single character domination a la Cyberpunk's Decker is a terrible idea.  Getting every member involved regardless of their preferences and specialities is a bad idea.  Sometimes the best role is not to participate  Skill challenges are by-and-large a fine idea that has roots or similarities in a lot of different systems.  I think the enforced static nature of the opposition coupled with the relatively narrow band of 2x success/1x failure structure limited their potential usefulness.  I think they needed a lot more helpful examples and potentially instructions for DMs new to the concept especially with guidance about how to manipulate the fiction to account for incremental successes and failures and stake setting.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Ditto for social challenges.  All the role-playing and conversation can, *if desired*, be neatly streamlined down to a goal, an approach, and some dice.



A skill challenge is time agnostic in more than one sense you can work through minor details people still want to experience and enumerate (sometimes finding ones that are actually major and call for a redirection of the challenge) and only log the major ones.... as being the significant progress.
Its often an in the background thing my playes sometimes asked me wait are we in a skill challenge (or the one interested in DMing did)


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Or sometimes like them Chase scenes its obvious in your face... with moment by moment actions yielding obvious benefits.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sounds like he read the book, once.  Possibly before the ink dried. (another thing laughably wrong with 4e that got better fairly quickly)
> The initial SC rules really were stand-out, obviously, mathematically, borked.
> 
> 
> Yeah, and it even got intentional support, later.  As did the pacifist cleric build, though it was a little.... IDK... technical about it's pacifism.



I read the books enough to grasp all the math and how the system operates: I won't run any system until I get that down (and I've run a lot of systems).  I ran several sessions.  I played in others.  This was right was the books were published, yes.  It's not like I liked the system enough to care what happened after I put the books in the pile of "systems I own but don't use"


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> make me mama a check to walk



also a funny typo I assume


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Oh certainly just like you do not roll to walk  unless you have awesome hips you must show off



Dunno 'bout you, but after enough beer I _definitely_ need a roll to walk!


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Dunno 'bout you, but after enough beer I _definitely_ need a roll to walk!



 I don't have a walking problem I walk I fall down no problem... and in modern style, doesn't hurt much all them temp hit points so just wash rinse and repeat.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

also known as an affliction


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> I'm not the person who posited this idea but I'll take a stab at answering anyway:
> 
> Not that they're always used for this, but skill challenges in 4e can take what in prior editions would have potentially been half a session's worth of exploration, dice rolling, resource attrition, and maybe mapping and concatenate it down to a ten-minute affair where the players say how they're approaching said challenge, some dice are rolled, success or failure is declared, and on we go.  (my go-to example for this is the sandstorm scenario in Marauders of the Dune Sea - the module says to just run it as a skill challenge, where doing it the long (i.e. 0-1-2e) way could provide hours of potential fun and entertainment)
> 
> ...



I get where you’re coming from. However. 

All of that is true of having nothing in place to complicate those challenges mechanically, though. 

Not having a system beyond “set dc, make roll” can also (IME just as easily) lead to the same sort of “mechanics first questions later” play. Ultimately all any system can do is encourage. It can’t force RP.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Second row or even third is fine dart range .... in fact people whine when a fighter tricks someone into moving 10 feet



Why do you think you will always be fighting in the middle of a narrow passage?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2019)

I was going back and forth as to whether to weigh back in or not.  But, what the hell.  Might as well.

Ok, I'm going to try to lay this out as clearly as I can.  

*Evidence of Primacy of Magic Being Essential to D&D.  *

((Caveat - being essential to D&D does not preclude it from being present or even essential in other games.  Just that without the primacy of magic, it no longer is D&D))

1.  The perception of 4e D&D not being D&D.  While there are arguably additional factors as to why some might perceive 4e as not being part of D&D, one of those factors unarguably IS the fact that magic was made less "magical".  There are numerous quotes, even in this thread, that support this.  

2.  Every edition of D&D has increased the caster's options and efficacy.  A Basic/Expert Magic User had a choice of 12 spells/spell level and only 6 or 7 levels of spells.  A cleric had 6.  An AD&D MU has more options at 1st level than existed in the entirety of Basic/Expert, never minding cleric and druids.  2e added to this list and added specialist wizards which had more spells per day.  3e added to the list, added stat bonuses to all casters for per day spells, AND added easily craftable magic items like scrolls and wands.  5e has removed the memorization requirements for casters, granted them more spells per day, granted them unlimited cantrips and added in Rituals which are unlimited as well (although costing in time).  At no point, other than in 4e, was a caster reduced in options from the edition previous.

3.  The perception that anything that cannot be explained must be done with magic.  Thus, the example of a rogue jumping using only skill vs a wizard using a Jump spell.  A rogue jumping further than an Olympic athlete is verbotten while a wizard is perfectly acceptable.  Or, a rogue falling off a cliff using acrobatics to not take damage is also impossible, while a wizard doing it at 1st level is perfectly acceptable.  So on and so forth.

4.  Simple word count.  This hasn't been brought up, I don't think, but, even in 3e, you could write everything in the PHB that applied to a fighter on a dozen pages at most.  Just the spell descriptions, not even the rules regarding spells, in my 3.5 PHB is over a hundred pages long.  Or, put it another way, it takes more page count to describe all the spell options in 3.5 D&D than the entirety of the Basic/Expert ruleset. (an exaggeration, true, but, not much of one)  Even in 5e, which tones down magic from 3e, still has 70 PAGES of spell effects.  That's still longer than the entire Basic ruleset.  And, of course, this does not count magic items.

5.  Every edition has added more magical goodies to each of the classes.  Paladins and Rangers in AD&D gained spells at what 8th level (ish).  In 3e, that went down to about 4th level.  Now, they gain spells from 2nd level.   We have flying barbarians, monks capable of directly casting spells, and, of course, the hybrid archetypes which grant casting to fighters and rogues.  There is no longer any class in the game that cannot gain spell casting if the player chooses.  

So, in conclusion.  It's not just about the perception of 4e not being D&D.  That was simply one piece of evidence.  If we want to look at what is essential to people for something to be considered D&D, then, well, it's not unreasonable to look at what isn't considered D&D.  The notions that this is somehow some sort of edition warring or whatnot are perceptions that, IMO, exist more in the critic's mind than in what's actually been presented.  It ignores the other evidence which aren't related at all to 4e but on a recognition of trends within the design of D&D.  

Like I said way back when, many pages ago, it's no secret why the 5e development team made 5e the way it is.  It's not a huge cognitive leap to see that the magic level of D&D has risen every edition.  Are other things essential to D&D?  Quite possibly.  I'm not arguing that they aren't.  I AM arguing that the Primacy of Magic is one of the main ingredients of D&D and without that, any game would be perceived as "not D&D".


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 20, 2019)

if


Garthanos said:


> also a funny typo I assume



darn spell correct


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 20, 2019)

There are no perfect games with perfect math. If there is one why is anyone playing this one. What one person hates about a game another loves. That’s just the way it is. I love Vancian magic. Others don’t. I don’t like the way damage scales in 5E for spells. Others do. I hate concentration. Others love it.  No one is wrong. It’s just some people like chocolate and some don’t. Believe it or not some people don’t want classes balanced around dpr.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 20, 2019)

@Tony Vargas

I probably phrased what I said upthread the wrong way. Basically when I say to myself "Let's play or run Dungeons and Dragons" my brain thinks Moldvay B/X. Modern iterations of the game offer fundamentally different play experiences to the point where I do not see them as the same game. I do not like particularly care what they are called and I cherish the existence of many of them. Fifth Edition would not be half as good if Fourth Edition never existed. It also helped broaden my experience of what a roleplaying game could be.

I do think running ACKS, Stars Without Number or Godbound despite the massive changes in the poetry layer (setting) feel a lot more like Moldvay than modern versions of the game.

On an unrelated tangent I need to track down a reference, but I am pretty sure Rob Heinsoo at one point said that there was internal division on balancing the wizard with the fighter with core members of the design team being vehemently opposed. So at least within Wizards of the Coast the primacy of magic was a very real concern.I do not think it tells the whole story, but there are definitely some people who want to keep the fighter and rogue definitely mundane.

There is also a fair bit of hand wringing over this on the Paizo boards. Pathfinder 2 is a game that definitely directly associates everything directly to the fiction, maintains structural differences between casters and martial classes, and has no abstract martial resources. All limited use abilities are either emphatically supernatural or make your character fatigued. Many of the more abstract resources have simply been removed. Rage is now at will and lasts for a minute or until no enemies can be perceived, but cannot be used for a minute afterwords or while fatigued. Like Bruce Banner in the Marvel movies they are always angry.

Still there are definitely people who are not happy that martial characters just do some things better than spell casters. They basically curated the spell lists to make each type of spell caster a specialist in certain areas, made it so some spells that use to obviate other characters give wizards a chance to replace them, but are better off cast on dedicated specialists, and made some things that were automatic more uncertain. They also defined niches for skills so they could do some things spells can not while spells can do some things skills cannot. They have also made many spells like Scry and Teleport Uncommon, meaning they require GM permission to get or need to be found through play. Basically they have attempted to balance martial classes  with spell casters while retaining structural differences.

As an example Medicine is great for post fight recovery, but takes significant time to use. It can also remove the wounded condition. Heal on the other hand provides great spike healing and can absolutely rib through Undead and if specced right Demons. There is a place for both.

Some people are very unhappy about this. Very very unhappy. I am loving it. It's a great dungeon crawler. Things are more uncertain and tense. I am actually looking forward to playing casters more because there is more drama to playing one, but some folks definitely want the magic to be more powerful and martial characters to be less powerful.

I do think the fact that Fourth Edition was not very well suited for dungeon crawls or attrition fights does have a lot to do with its reception. Not being good at the foundational activity of the brand is not a good look. It's a great game for heroic fantasy, but scrounging in the muck with oozes, traps, and rust monsters really is not its forte. Modern versions of the game have moved away from dungeon crawls, but usually at least will have some short ones.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 20, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I grokked the rules.  I ran several sessions.  I played in others.  Frankly I don't care how it appears to you.



That’s apparent. It’s also appear to you don’t care whether your posts are dismissive and condescending.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> That’s apparent. It’s also appear to you don’t care whether your posts are dismissive and condescending.





I am not the one assigning motivations and levels of experience to others.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> There are no perfect games with perfect math. If there is one why is anyone playing this one. What one person hates about a game another loves. That’s just the way it is. I love Vancian magic. Others don’t. I don’t like the way damage scales in 5E for spells. Others do. I hate concentration. Others love it.  No one is wrong. It’s just some people like chocolate and some don’t. Believe it or not some people don’t want classes balanced around dpr.





Anyone who hates chocolate and doesn't have a medical justification, is obviously wrong.  If they do have a medical justification then it's just a very sad situation.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I am not the one assigning motivations and levels of experience to others.



Neither did I, so....okay?


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Neither did I, so....okay?




Orly?



doctorbadwolf said:


> Do you really not see at all how stuff like this makes it seem like you never interacted with 4e in a way that included giving it anything like a chance, in the first place? It really comes across like you just...decided it was garbage before you even read anything in the book, and went from there.





doctorbadwolf said:


> Eh, they may have read and played a good bit for all we know, but comments like that certainly don't suggest they did so with anything approaching an open mind.
> 
> btw, 5e and 4e both let you be big damn heroes or scrungey hobos at low levels. I specified lowish level for a reason.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> There are no perfect games with perfect math. If there is one why is anyone playing this one. What one person hates about a game another loves. That’s just the way it is. I love Vancian magic. Others don’t. I don’t like the way damage scales in 5E for spells. Others do. I hate concentration. Others love it.  No one is wrong. It’s just some people like chocolate and some don’t. Believe it or not some people don’t want classes balanced around dpr.



But, again, no one is arguing this.

No one is arguing that one edition or one game is better than another.  

This isn't about edition warring, despite multiple attempts to paint it as such.  It really isn't.

I posted five or six bits of evidence above.  THAT'S what we're talking about.  Was anything I listed particularly contentious?  Was I mistaken?  Am I misinterpreting things?  Did I present nonfactual information?  

All this back and forth about edition minutia is so irrelevant.  NO ONE is judging here.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 20, 2019)

Campbell said:


> @Tony Vargas
> 
> 
> 
> On an unrelated tangent I need to track down a reference, but I am pretty sure Rob Heinsoo at one point said that there was internal division on balancing the wizard with the fighter with core members of the design team being vehemently opposed. So at least within Wizards of the Coast the primacy of magic was a very real concern.I do not think it tells the whole story, but there are definitely some people who want to keep the fighter and rogue definitely mundane.




Found this: FATAL & Friends 2014-15: The Neverending Storygame - The Something Awful Forums


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Which, more or less is how those other threads I pointed out way up in post 708 went off the rails too.
> 
> You get some superficial commonalities: trade dress, sacred cows (stat names, hit points, etc.) that ended up being shared with items that are demonstrably aren't D&D (I'm referring to independent things from other publishers like Heroquest, Runequest, Chivalry & Sorcery -- not any specific edition of D&D).
> 
> What we have never achieved is finding enough commonality inside even a few editions of D&D to set it apart from say Earthdawn.  That's mainly because there aren't enough commonalities to our methods of playing D&D to come to agreement for what that means.




I think the problem is that no individual idea is unique to D&D.  What makes D&D, D&D is how the game takes all of those ideas and presents them.  The mix that we know and love is D&D, while a different mix is Call of Cthulhu.  Why a lot of people say 4e did not feel like D&D to them is that it altered too much of how D&D traditionally presented its ideas and felt like a new game to a lot of people.  To others, it wasn't changed enough to feel like a new game.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> No. I've never heard one anyone who uses the Intelligence Rules playing that way; otherwise, why bother with the chance to learn the spell if you had an infinite number of times?
> 
> _Chance to Know Each Listed Spell _pertains to the percentage chance the character has by reason of his or her intelligence to learn any given spell in the level group. The character may select spells desired in any order heor she wishes. *Each spell may be checked only once.*
> 
> Not sure how much more clear "may be check only once" can be.



I agree with you on what the rule is.  However, we did have a house rule that allowed retries if you gained intelligence or a level.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 20, 2019)

I think for a lot of people what I think of as the poetry layer (the fictional stuff that sit below the game) is the game to them. They only really care about the game in terms of how it makes them feel about the poetry layer. The poetry layer is like critical and essential, but when discussing games I am primarily concerned with how the GM and other players are making their decisions, what their goals are for play, and like the things we actually do at the table.

In my mind a story focused Second Edition DM has a lot more in common with a Vampire Storyteller than they do with a Moldvay B/X referee. Like we can have discussions about some setting stuff, but when we get down to technique if you bring up concerns about meta-gaming, fudging dice, story arcs, and villains my referee brain is going to be like "We're not talking about the same game *at all*".


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Still there are definitely people who are not happy that martial characters just do some things better than spell casters. They basically curated the spell lists to make each type of spell caster a specialist in certain areas, made it so some spells that use to obviate other characters give wizards a chance to replace them, but are better off cast on dedicated specialists, and made some things that were automatic more uncertain. They also defined niches for skills so they could do some things spells can not while spells can do some things skills cannot. They have also made many spells like Scry and Teleport Uncommon, meaning they require GM permission to get or need to be found through play. Basically they have attempted to balance martial classes  with spell casters while retaining structural differences.



 I'm going to make a prediction.  
I want preface it with the up-front admission that every prediction of this nature I have ever made was 100% wrong.  
If thats really representative of PF2 design philosophy, its doomed.  Languishing in obscurity ain't even in it.

Sounds like a decent game, though. 



> I do think the fact that Fourth Edition was not very well suited for dungeon crawls or attrition fights does have a lot to do with its reception.... Modern versions of the game have moved away from dungeon crawls, but usually at least will have some short ones.



 Thing is, 4e was fine for the story of a dungeon crawl, as it might be told in a book or movie.  Some atmospheric description, establishing shots, some tense moments, some pauses for character development, even.  Punctuated by some action scenes and important exposition.

What it leaves out? Video-game style pixel bitching.  5 1/2 hrs of an 8hr session consisting of the DM describing the dungeon while one really engaged player (admittedly, often, myself) maps it, and another really engaged player decides which way to turn and what door gets the "door drill" next, while anyone else still at the table (before mobile devices or even game boy)... well, recites Mony Python & the Holy Grail.... (When I finally watched a tape of MP&tHG, years later,  I realized I'd heard _every line_.)

....and, yeah, TBH,  I _miss_ that. (Even in 5e, 'cause I'm the DM, now, and the players all have effing phones, and if they do make amusing references, they're from some video game I never heard of).  I can actually empathize, a bit, with a hypothetical fellow grognard disappointed with the lack.

(...and, once again, I talk myself out of the very point I set out to make.)


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> What it leaves out? Video-game style pixel bitching.



What no pac man like covering all the dots to avoid missing something so you can get bigger eat the ghosts... err kill the monsters and move on the the next ahem level.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 20, 2019)

@Tony Vargas

In my case I am a neogrog. I came to the OSR via indie games a couple years back. My actual start was late Second Edition railroaded story play. Then Vampire played in the same vein. Third Edition also played in that same vein. Fourth Edition and exposure to indie games saved me from exiting the hobby. So maybe OSR hipster sums it up.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Orly?



“Your comments come across as having never given 4e a chance” does either thing you accused me of, how?

The other quoted comment explicitly chooses not to do either thing. I even contradicted someone who was assigning an experience level to you. 

Still, since my comments came across in a way that made you feel that way, I apologize.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Campbell said:


> There is also a fair bit of hand wringing over this on the Paizo boards. Pathfinder 2 is a game that definitely directly associates everything directly to the fiction, maintains structural differences between casters and martial classes, and has no abstract martial resources. All limited use abilities are either emphatically supernatural or make your character fatigued.



Encounter Exploits are the most utterly explainable of limited use and make more sense than general fatigue (hit points cover general fatigue if you want to use that  == simpler fatigue rule to me) ... and the martial exploits are straight forward. You could call exploits Tricks and Strains. Tricks are what they sound like a maneuver which is dependent on deception and surprise once the trick has been seen it can certainly be attempted at-will but it's generally so unlikely to work unless your enemies are well literally dumb as hell zombie types most won't attempt it.  There might even be a trick that utterly counters another trick and its called "Well I have seen that one" but this is probably NPC territory (players may get one free use of "Well I have seen that one" against their own allies)  A strain may be just like the above. But is more flexible more recovery times are possible it might be a moderate rest, or a daily or even a deep strain which causes an affliction. Strains often apply to more than one exploit in effect you can only use one of those exploits before the recovery, sure I can do a sudden sprint or a mighty leap or full extension (those are three encounter based skill utilities selected from 4e)  but I strain a specific muscle/muscle group or the like and that inhibits the repetition this extreme kind of move.   4e lets the player decide why... and leaves improvising repetition up to DM adjudication, while empowering the player to say here I do this awesome thing. Sometimes tricks are also categories of tricks so if someone sees you pull one they are forewarned of the possibility of the others. 4e didnt have that flexibility of categories but it makes sense... and is not exactly like a wizards ability to memorize different powers daily.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 20, 2019)

@Garthanos 

I was a 4th Edition fan for a long time. It is still a game I hold a deep regard for. I have made these arguments you are making now time and time again. I know how to justify it and make a coherent fiction out of it. I just like do not want to anymore. I prefer games where I do not have to make those justifications in my head. Exploits and Tricks served 4th Edition well. I am just not looking for that game. Not like knocking it.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

Campbell said:


> . I prefer games where I do not have to make those justifications in my head. Exploits and Tricks served 4th Edition well. I am just not looking for that game. Not like knocking it.



I do not see it as justification pr a have to... but rather flexible fiction. And it empowers the players.

Encounter powers in spite of as I said being the most explainable got put aside in 5e in favor of "short rests" that are far narrower.  And also leaves for instance battlemasters rather unsatisfying... the lack of level gating on their abilities does too of course.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 20, 2019)

What I described could I think be ported fine in the more restrictive explicit style into Pathfinder or 5e - I actually am considering the allowing encounter powers in 4e to come in categories where you acquire one you might actually know 2 or 3 of that level but can use only 1 in a given encounter.

I left out the luck dependent concept because players manipulating their characters luck is one of those things that seems to upset grogs.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> *Evidence of Primacy of Magic Being Essential to D&D.  *
> 
> ((Caveat - being essential to D&D does not preclude it from being present or even essential in other games.  Just that without the primacy of magic, it no longer is D&D))
> 
> 1.  The perception of 4e D&D not being D&D.  While there are arguably additional factors as to why some might perceive 4e as not being part of D&D, one of those factors unarguably IS the fact that magic was made less "magical".  There are numerous quotes, even in this thread, that support this.



Made less "magical" perhaps, but not made any less important or pervasive.  Thus, in this way 4e is still very much magic-prime D&D.



> 2.  Every edition of D&D has increased the caster's options and efficacy.  A Basic/Expert Magic User had a choice of 12 spells/spell level and only 6 or 7 levels of spells.  A cleric had 6.  An AD&D MU has more options at 1st level than existed in the entirety of Basic/Expert, never minding cleric and druids.  2e added to this list and added specialist wizards which had more spells per day.  3e added to the list, added stat bonuses to all casters for per day spells, AND added easily craftable magic items like scrolls and wands.  5e has removed the memorization requirements for casters, granted them more spells per day, granted them unlimited cantrips and added in Rituals which are unlimited as well (although costing in time).  At no point, other than in 4e, was a caster reduced in options from the edition previous.



All more or less true; albeit with 4e's reduction of capabilities of pre-existing caster classes somewhat cancelled out by its making caster or caster-like classes a much higher perecntage of the total.



> 3.  The perception that anything that cannot be explained must be done with magic.  Thus, the example of a rogue jumping using only skill vs a wizard using a Jump spell.  A rogue jumping further than an Olympic athlete is verbotten while a wizard is perfectly acceptable.  Or, a rogue falling off a cliff using acrobatics to not take damage is also impossible, while a wizard doing it at 1st level is perfectly acceptable.  So on and so forth.



This runs face-first into your caveat above: it applies to just about the entirety of the medieval-ish fantasy genre, not just D&D.

Also, (other than 4e which has restrictions on uses of some non or quasi magical powers) a Thief can do fantastic-grade jumps or falls all day while a wizard can only do it up to the number of spells she has memorized that provide the ability.

Which brings up something else about caster-noncaster balance that hasn't really been hit yet: in most situations there's no limits on how many times a Fighter can swing her sword in a day, nor to how many walls a Thief can climb.  But pre-4e casters always had a set limit on how much they could do; and this provided a form of balance in situations where the DM pushed a party beyond the 5-minute workday paradigm.

With at-wills in 4e and cantrips in 5e, casters are now also unlimited; and that balance mechanism - such as it was - is no more.



> 5.  Every edition has added more magical goodies to each of the classes.  Paladins and Rangers in AD&D gained spells at what 8th level (ish).  In 3e, that went down to about 4th level.  Now, they gain spells from 2nd level.   We have flying barbarians, monks capable of directly casting spells, and, of course, the hybrid archetypes which grant casting to fighters and rogues.  There is no longer any class in the game that cannot gain spell casting if the player chooses.



Sad but true; though I don't recall 4e significantly altering this trend any.



> So, in conclusion.  It's not just about the perception of 4e not being D&D.  That was simply one piece of evidence.  If we want to look at what is essential to people for something to be considered D&D, then, well, it's not unreasonable to look at what isn't considered D&D.  The notions that this is somehow some sort of edition warring or whatnot are perceptions that, IMO, exist more in the critic's mind than in what's actually been presented.  It ignores the other evidence which aren't related at all to 4e but on a recognition of trends within the design of D&D.
> 
> Like I said way back when, many pages ago, it's no secret why the 5e development team made 5e the way it is.  It's not a huge cognitive leap to see that the magic level of D&D has risen every edition.  Are other things essential to D&D?  Quite possibly.  I'm not arguing that they aren't.  I AM arguing that the Primacy of Magic is one of the main ingredients of D&D and without that, any game would be perceived as "not D&D".



I'm not disagreeing at all that magic is A major essence of D&D.  It's only when you appear to suggest that magic is THE major essence of D&D that I look askance.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> No. I've never heard one anyone who uses the Intelligence Rules playing that way; otherwise, why bother with the chance to learn the spell if you had an infinite number of times?
> 
> _Chance to Know Each Listed Spell _pertains to the percentage chance the character has by reason of his or her intelligence to learn any given spell in the level group. The character may select spells desired in any order heor she wishes. *Each spell may be checked only once.*
> 
> Not sure how much more clear "may be check only once" can be.



Context, old chap; context.

The context of that passage is in reference to the (IMO redundant) initial roll-through of all the spells on reaching a new spell level (at 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc.).  Thus, saying each spell may be checked only once (_during this process!_) makes sense.

It is not in reference to spells found later; and suggesting this passage applies any other time than the initial roll-through is IMO a misreading of it when put in combination with the "later acquisition of spells" piece; though as I've already said, I can  certainly see how it could (and, obviously, has been) interpreted as you have done.

And you don't have an "infinite number of times" by any means: you've at best still only got one shot per level per spell, unless your Int changes which would give you, in effect, a bonus shot at each one.


----------



## Monayuris (Sep 20, 2019)

Interesting topic for a thread. I read quite of bit of this thread. I've been busy but I wish I had the time to respond sooner. Just seems like this thread has generated a lot of pointless bickering and edition warring.

To me, this primacy of magic thing is a red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do the essence of D&D. It is more of an implementation concern and not really about the essence of the game.

To me, the essence of D&D is the following:


You the player get to explore a fantastic world filled with dungeons, ruins, monsters and magic. Your character is an avatar/playing piece that allows you to insert yourself into this world.
Your character has abilities that help define its role and how you contribute in the game. Classes provide strong archetypes for what you do in the world.  The character class becomes a lens through which you see and interact with the fantastic world. Playing different character classes changes the lens and allows you to experience the game in myriad different ways.
The game is a cooperative event where you get to share an experience with other people and contribute to the success of the group.
The player at the table holds the power in a game, not the character. Character capability and player capability are two completely unrelated concepts. The character is just a playing piece for the player to exert their agency on the game.


If you asked me to describe a rules element that dictates the essence of D&D, I'd have to decline. Its not about the rules, its about the approach and the experience at the table as you play it.

I've played and run pretty much every edition of D&D ever released. I've enjoyed playing them all. I have my preferences and I try really hard not to talk in absolutes (I don't always succeed at this).

It is kind of frustrating to hear terms like "not D&D" or "its just a video game" or "only played because of nostalgia" or "it's just old and busted rules" for different versions of the game. I honestly don't care who plays what edition. I like the editions I like and I'm glad others like the editions they like. 

I really don't think the implementation really matters with regard to the essence of the game.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> /snip
> 
> Also, (other than 4e which has restrictions on uses of some non or quasi magical powers) a Thief can do fantastic-grade jumps or falls all day while a wizard can only do it up to the
> /snip




Nope, they can't.  The DM will either set the DC so high that the character fails, or will simply rule, "Nope, you can't do that".  So, our Thief will never do fantastic grade jumps.  Not without magical assistance.  Doesn't matter what level the thief is.  If the thief attempts something that is "not realistic" the DM will veto it.  

So, no, the Thief can't do things all day.  They can't do it at all.  The only edition that allowed them to do it at all got booted out of the D&D tent.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 20, 2019)

Didn't get booted out the tent collapsed.

 Thankfully other companies made better tents.


----------



## Monayuris (Sep 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Nope, they can't.  The DM will either set the DC so high that the character fails, or will simply rule, "Nope, you can't do that".  So, our Thief will never do fantastic grade jumps.  Not without magical assistance.  Doesn't matter what level the thief is.  If the thief attempts something that is "not realistic" the DM will veto it.
> 
> So, no, the Thief can't do things all day.  They can't do it at all.  The only edition that allowed them to do it at all got booted out of the D&D tent.



Why would you think this?

You are making an assumption about DM adjudication that matches your argument. For every reason you can think of that a DM would set the DC too high or flat out not let a thief do this, there is an equally likely reason that a DM would totally go with it.

Don't make assumptions on other game systems based on your own outlook.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Nope, they can't.  The DM will either set the DC so high that the character fails, or will simply rule, "Nope, you can't do that".  So, our Thief will never do fantastic grade jumps.  Not without magical assistance.  Doesn't matter what level the thief is.  If the thief attempts something that is "not realistic" the DM will veto it.
> 
> So, no, the Thief can't do things all day.  They can't do it at all.  The only edition that allowed them to do it at all got booted out of the D&D tent.



This is not a good-faith argument. This is a whine. Be better.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> Why would you think this?
> 
> You are making an assumption about DM adjudication that matches your argument. For every reason you can think of that a DM would set the DC too high or flat out not let a thief do this, there is an equally likely reason that a DM would totally go with it.
> 
> Don't make assumptions on other game systems based on your own outlook.






TheCosmicKid said:


> This is not a good-faith argument. This is a whine. Be better.




Oh please.  Don't be obtuse.  Heck, we had people IN THIS THREAD saying that a rogue jumping 60 feet would be impossible in their game without magic.  Too wuxia.  Doesn't fit with genre.  So, exactly how else am I supposed to interpret that?

Or, better yet, using the 1e or 2e ruleset, what roll would I make to jump 60 feet with my thief?  Or 5e for that matter?

You can call it a whine all you like, it's closer to a real world observation based on years of experience.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Oh please.  Don't be obtuse.  Heck, we had people IN THIS THREAD saying that a rogue jumping 60 feet would be impossible in their game without magic.  Too wuxia.  Doesn't fit with genre.  So, exactly how else am I supposed to interpret that?
> 
> Or, better yet, using the 1e or 2e ruleset, what roll would I make to jump 60 feet with my thief?  Or 5e for that matter?
> 
> You can call it a whine all you like, it's closer to a real world observation based on years of experience.



Forget about rogues, a wizard using the _jump_ spell can't cover 60 feet. These hyperbolic complaints aren't exactly dissuading me of my opinion re: whining. And I know I'm not going to have a constructive conversation about a proper balance point between wizards and rogues with someone who is clearly only interested in airing out years-old grievances. The best I can do is call out the attitude and hope that eventually you'll realize bitterness isn't a good look.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Forget about rogues, a wizard using the _jump_ spell can't cover 60 feet. These hyperbolic complaints aren't exactly dissuading me of my opinion re: whining. And I know I'm not going to have a constructive conversation about a proper balance point between wizards and rogues with someone who is clearly only interested in airing out years-old grievances. The best I can do is call out the attitude and hope that eventually you'll realize bitterness isn't a good look.




I get really, really tired of having to justify this sort of stuff over and over again.  It really, really begins to annoy me.

Jump allows you to jump TRIPLE your normal distance.  Granted, you'd need a STR of 20 to make 60 feet, but, 45 feet is easily doable.

So, ok, you are technically correct, and that's the best kind of correct to be.  

Howzabout you actually answer the question - what would the DC be for a rogue to jump triple his normal jumping distance?

 Or, in 2e or 1e, how would I go about adjudicating that?

Or are we going to continue pissing about with minutia?  Because, hey, that's always so much fun.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Forget about rogues, a wizard using the _jump_ spell can't cover 60 feet. These hyperbolic complaints aren't exactly dissuading me of my opinion re: whining. And I know I'm not going to have a constructive conversation about a proper balance point between wizards and rogues with someone who is clearly only interested in airing out years-old grievances. The best I can do is call out the attitude and hope that eventually you'll realize bitterness isn't a good look.





You can jump 60' with the Jump spell if you have Str 20.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Nope, they can't.  The DM will either set the DC so high that the character fails, or will simply rule, "Nope, you can't do that".  So, our Thief will never do fantastic grade jumps.  Not without magical assistance.  Doesn't matter what level the thief is.  If the thief attempts something that is "not realistic" the DM will veto it.
> 
> So, no, the Thief can't do things all day.  They can't do it at all.  The only edition that allowed them to do it at all got booted out of the D&D tent.



You say that as if it's an absolute, but we've both read DMs here say that they enjoy running fantastic games like that.  Others like me enjoy more realism.  To lump us all together like that not only makes no sense, it's wrong.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Oh please.  Don't be obtuse.  Heck, we had people IN THIS THREAD saying that a rogue jumping 60 feet would be impossible in their game without magic.  Too wuxia.  Doesn't fit with genre.  So, exactly how else am I supposed to interpret that?




Yep, and you know very well that over the years we've seen just as many other DMs say that they love running wuxia games.  



> You can call it a whine all you like, it's closer to a real world observation based on years of experience.



So this is a case of selective memory so you can be right?  Because I know you've been in threads and experienced DMs saying the opposite of what you are claiming.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I get really, really tired of having to justify this sort of stuff over and over again.  It really, really begins to annoy me.
> 
> Jump allows you to jump TRIPLE your normal distance.  Granted, you'd need a STR of 20 to make 60 feet, but, 45 feet is easily doable.
> 
> So, ok, you are technically correct, and that's the best kind of correct to be.




Actually, you were technically correct in that a wizard with a 20 strength can in fact jump 60 feet with the spell.  It will just pretty much never happen in game play. So you are the one who was technically correct, and that's the best kind of...  Oh, you were being sarcastic and you were not being the best kind of correct.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Actually, you were technically correct in that a wizard with a 20 strength can in fact jump 60 feet with the spell.  It will just pretty much never happen in game play. So you are the one who was technically correct, and that's the best kind of...  Oh, you were being sarcastic and you were not being the best kind of correct.




Jump is a touch spell.  Having someone in the party jump 60' is certainly quite within the realm of possibility.

I've also seen Wizards with 20 Str.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Jump is a touch spell.  Having someone in the party jump 60' is certainly quite within the realm of possibility.
> 
> I've also seen Wizards with 20 Str.



His claim was wizard, though, not "someone."  If we're talking "someone," then a 20th level barbarian with a 24 strength can go 72 feet.

I've personally never seen a wizard PC with a 20 strength and I've been playing regularly since 1983.  And in a wide variety of settings with a large variety of people.  I'm sure it happens, but it can't be common enough to leave the range of "technically correct."


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 20, 2019)

So is the complaint that allowing characters to jump superhero distances is gated behind the DM's adjudication, rather than behind a rule that the player can invoke?  Because either way if that's the kind of game you want the rules allow it.

So maybe the Essence of D&D is less about the mechanism (magic, supernatural, heroic, etc.) that explains the fiction, and more about who determines outcomes, the DM or the rules.  When you start codifying outcomes (also called "player empowerment", maybe?) it ends up _looking_ like the elevation of the mundane compared to the magical.  And what looks to some like "Primacy of Magic" is a side-effect, or a symptom, not the underlying principle.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 20, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> To me, the essence of D&D is the following:
> 
> 
> You the player get to explore a fantastic world filled with dungeons, ruins, monsters and magic. Your character is an avatar/playing piece that allows you to insert yourself into this world.
> ...



So Legend of the 5 Rings is a game where...

1. You the player get to explore a fantastic world filled with dungeons, ruins, monsters and magic. Your character is an avatar/playing piece that allows you to insert yourself into this world.
2. Your character has abilities that help define its role and how you contribute in the game. Classes provide strong archetypes for what you do in the world.  The character class becomes a lens through which you see and interact with the fantastic world. Playing different character classes changes the lens and allows you to experience the game in myriad different ways.
3. The game is a cooperative event where you get to share an experience with other people and contribute to the success of the group.
4. The player at the table holds the power in a game, not the character. Character capability and player capability are two completely unrelated concepts. The character is just a playing piece for the player to exert their agency on the game.

According to your post, Legend of the 5 Rings is D&D.  Is Legend of the 5 Rings D&D?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 20, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> His claim was wizard, though, not "someone."  If we're talking "someone," then a 20th level barbarian with a 24 strength can go 72 feet.
> 
> I've personally never seen a wizard PC with a 20 strength and I've been playing regularly since 1983.  And in a wide variety of settings with a large variety of people.  I'm sure it happens, but it can't be common enough to leave the range of "technically correct."




Eldritch Knight would be way more likely.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 20, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> Interesting topic for a thread. I read quite of bit of this thread. I've been busy but I wish I had the time to respond sooner. Just seems like this thread has generated a lot of pointless bickering and edition warring.
> 
> To me, this primacy of magic thing is a red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do the essence of D&D. It is more of an implementation concern and not really about the essence of the game.
> 
> ...




Nostalgia is just a back handed way of saying your game is inferior.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Nostalgia is just a back handed way of saying your game is inferior.



Nostalgia is a forehanded way of saying it's OK to get old - and that you kids'll never get it, until it's too late. 

However, your game (whatever it is? Whist*, perhaps?) probably _is_ inferior, or you wouldn't be so concerned about it being called 'nostalgic.'

;P


Monayuris said:


> To me, the essence of D&D is the following:
> 
> 
> You the player get to explore a fantastic world filled with dungeons, ruins, monsters and magic. Your character is an avatar/playing piece that allows you to insert yourself into this world.
> ...



Well, every edition of D&D certainly hits your points 1-4 with no problem (though point 4 in different ways, some of which seem to provoke some mutual antagonism - cf 'skilled play' vs 'metagaming' or  CaW/CaS)

But, 3 & 4 could apply to basically any RPG, 1 to most any FRPG, and 2 to any class-based RPG (which, admittedly, are mostly imitators of D&D so could be credibly going for it's 'essence.')

You've got a very wide net out, there, is all.







* it's a joke, see, cause that'd make you like 200


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> So maybe the *Essence of D&D* is less about the mechanism (magic, supernatural, heroic, etc.) that explains the fiction, and *more about who determines outcomes, the DM or the rules.*  When you start codifying outcomes (also called "player empowerment", maybe?) it ends up _looking_ like the elevation of the mundane compared to the magical.



That sounded like a good candidate to me, too.  Only issue is that 3.x/PF was every bit as player-empowering (more often, and more condescendingly, "Player Entitlement") as 4e, and the D&D/not-D&D split was between 'em.   
Also, depending on how an individual DM tended to rule, hard mechanics for a mundane/extraordinary task might look like the elevation of the mundane (if the DM was being very realistic/conservative) or, just as easily, like nerfing the non-magical heroes (if the DM was running a more wild/wahoo/Wuxia kinda campaign).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> That sounded like a good candidate to me, too.  Only issue is that 3.x/PF was every bit as player-empowering (more often, and more condescendingly, "Player Entitlement") as 4e, and the D&D/not-D&D split was between 'em.




Then I think we are on to something because I didn’t like 3.x, either. 



> Also, depending on how an individual DM tended to rule, hard mechanics for a mundane/extraordinary task might look like the elevation of the mundane (if the DM was being very realistic/conservative) or, just as easily, like nerfing the non-magical heroes (if the DM was running a more wild/wahoo/Wuxia kinda campaign).




Sounds like a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Then I think we are on to something because I didn’t like 3.x, either.



  Not shocked.   
There's a clear demarcation between TSR eds & 5e, which are very DM-centric, and the other WotC eds, which were very player-centric.   There's other ways you can slice the D&D cannon, too.  2e & 4e were more story-oriented than other editions, for instance.  2e-through-5e provided for more character customization.  1e, B/X & 3e could be particularly deadly, etc...  None of those really point to the difference in question being relevant to the essence of D&D, though, as you've got some clearly Really-D&D eds on both sides of each dividing line.


----------



## mrpopstar (Sep 20, 2019)

All I know is lowkey's Catra is amazing. I might need Adora as my avatar because I'm on the market for a new avatar and because obviously.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 20, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## mrpopstar (Sep 20, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> There is only Catra.
> 
> Accept no substitute.



I got you, Catra. I got you.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 20, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Sep 20, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> It's getting weird out there ...



Getting?  You're the one into getting spanked by a paladin.  Or something.

Oh wait, wrong thread!


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Jump allows you to jump TRIPLE your normal distance. Granted, you'd need a STR of 20 to make 60 feet, but, 45 feet is easily doable.



And you'd need to be a wood elf. Jumping that distance costs 60 feet of movement and also requires a 10-foot running start, so 70 feet total.

I'm helping!



Hussar said:


> Howzabout you actually answer the question - what would the DC be for a rogue to jump triple his normal jumping distance?



It's a leading and nonsensical question. We're looking at what a rogue can do "all day" versus what a wizard can do by expending daily resources. Whatever a rogue can do all day _is_ his normal jumping distance. And this has nothing to do with "fantastic" versus "realistic" expectations. If this were a wuxia game and the rogue's normal jumping distance were 60 feet, the _jump_ spell would still triple that. Would you then be asking snidely what the rogue has to do to jump 180 feet?


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2019)

Nagol said:


> You can jump 60' with the Jump spell if you have Str 20.



Which in 0-1-2e would make you a mighty uncommon wizard indeed.

Mighty uncommon anyone, for that matter.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> It's a leading and nonsensical question. We're looking at what a rogue can do "all day" versus what a wizard can do by expending daily resources. Whatever a rogue can do all day _is_ his normal jumping distance. And this has nothing to do with "fantastic" versus "realistic" expectations. If this were a wuxia game and the rogue's normal jumping distance were 60 feet, the _jump_ spell would still triple that. Would you then be asking snidely what the rogue has to do to jump 180 feet?



Or change Rogue/Thief to Monk.

Now we have a class that can (in all editions) do some pretty crazy jumping, running, and so forth; and (in most editions) keep doing it for as long as desired.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 20, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Campbell (Sep 20, 2019)

In the context of playing the game what a character can do all day hardly matters. What matters is what you can do when it matters in the critical moments.

In a game with significant attrition that can be when a Wizard is out of spells. I think when you reach a certain level it is probably fair for a rogue to be able to do more than what a Wizard can accomplish with a first level spell because those resources are not so relevant to play.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Which in 0-1-2e would make you a mighty uncommon wizard indeed.
> 
> Mighty uncommon anyone, for that matter.






Nah, you're multiclassed elven F/MU and have a Grldle of Giant Strength.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 20, 2019)

What is the essence of D&D? For myself, I know if when looking upon the core rules (making the essence subjective like art or porn). In my opinion, what I find as the essence can be expanded upon and stretched in supplementary settings and remain acceptable as D&D, but lose the essence of D&D if done in the core rules.  Al Qadim, Dark Sun, Ravenloft are, for instance, some of my favorite D&D settings. Planescape, Spelljammer, and Eberron, are legitmate D&D settings despite my dislike of them. Yet, a version of D&D building the core rules of an edition around any of these settings would lose the essence of D&D for me.
Despite my preference for many of the underlying mechanics of 3e, 4e, and 5e in comparison to TSR D&D, the fantasy that WOTC put on top of those mechanics lost the essence of D&D for me- even when considering that 3e used "Greyhawk" as its core setting and 5e uses the Realms (Then again, the essence of both settings to me was lost back in the 2e era).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 20, 2019)

I think I may have gotten a little too complicated and over-analytical with the Primacy of Magic...


Lanefan said:


> Made less "magical" perhaps, but not made any less important or pervasive.  Thus, in this way 4e is still very much magic-prime D&D.



 Important & pervasive, in this context, are opposed.  Magic was less important in 4e, because there were fewer absolutely vital things (like restoring hps in combat) that /only/ magic could do, and because one of the two traditional source of magic, items, was not just reduced in power, but made so ubiquitous and fungible that they became unimportant (and that can probably go for rituals, too, which became much more adventure-enabling, to the point that the DM would provide a ritual the party 'needed' to continue the adventure.)



> All more or less true; albeit with 4e's reduction of capabilities of pre-existing caster classes somewhat cancelled out by its making caster or caster-like classes a much higher perecntage of the total.



 Relative to the prior ed PH1, with 11 character classes, 7 of them with spellcasting ability (64%), 8 (73%) if you include any (SU)supernatural powers, at all, the 4e PH1 had 8 classes, 4 of them with spellcasting and/or supernatural abilities, 4 without.  50/50.  Now, if you include supplements, 3.5 added the Scout & Knight as non-supernatural, and myriad supernatural classes (not to mention PrCs), while 4e added /only/ supernatural classes, and mostly just subclasses in Essentials, so it would've gotten there eventually. 
Frankly, though, ubiquity is the enemy or importance, so it'd've gone even worse for 4e if it had gone all-supernatural.



> This runs face-first into your caveat above: it applies to just about the entirety of the medieval-ish fantasy genre, not just D&D.



Not true, until relatively recently, with the advent of Urban Fantasy & Harry Potter and the like, fantasy generally included both some magic (mostly in the hands of villains), usually without specific n/day requirements and not too varied a portfolio for any single practitioner, and extraordinary (superhuman, unrealistic) feats for the (typically martial) hero.  The cliché Conan pastiche with the barbarian fighting atop a pile of slain foes, for instance, completely implausible both in terms of getting the bodies piled up & fighting atop such an unstable surface, and in terms of somehow persuading enemies to climb said pile only to be added to it.



> Also, (other than 4e which has restrictions on uses of some non or quasi magical powers) a Thief can do fantastic-grade jumps or falls all day while a wizard can only do it up to the number of spells she has memorized that provide the ability.



That's a partial articulation of the Primacy of Magic, yes.  Magic faces at least some notional limitations (fewer with each passing edition, it seems), in return for being more potent when it really counts, making it more important than always-available mundane alternatives.



> With at-wills in 4e and cantrips in 5e, casters are now also unlimited; and that balance mechanism - such as it was - is no more.



 In 4e, of course, that balance-of-imbalances mechanism was unnecessary, AEDU meant every PC had a comparable number/power of limited & at-will resources.  Which was a huge part of the problem. 
In 5e, the balance-of-imbalances formula remains, just with casters thanks to at-will cantrips, having a higher at-will baseline, and, purportedly solves for 6-8 encounters & 2-3 short rests between long rests.  That said, at-will cantrips are mildly contrary to the Primacy of Magic, because they may be viewed as insufficiently superior to mundane alternatives (they don't run out of ammo and have a greater range of effects & damage types, but their actual DPR is less).



> Sad but true; though I don't recall 4e significantly altering this trend any.



It quite reversed the trend of adding 'more magical goodies' to each class.  It stripped the Ranger of his magical goodies, entirely, spread the Druids goodies over three sub-classes, introduced a new class with none, gave none to the Fighter & Rogue, and bumped full-casters down from dozens of spells/day with either the ability to change those spell up every day, or great control over how often they could re-cast a give spell, to 4/day & 4/encounter, each exactly once.  In opposition to that, Barbarians became Primal.  That's about it.



> I'm not disagreeing at all that magic is A major essence of D&D.  It's only when you appear to suggest that magic is THE major essence of D&D that I look askance.



  "A Major Essence of D&D" works.  I'd imagine D&D with no magic, and all, would be NOT-D&D, for instance.  So it'd be fair to say the Primacy of Magic could be necessary but not sufficient, to make something D&D.  You could paste D&D on the cover of Ars Magica, for instance, and, great game, all-in when it comes to the Primacy of Magic that it may be, I suspect it wouldn't pass for D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 21, 2019)

Wow, 7 straight posts directly addressing me and NOT ONE actually answering my question.

And I get accused of bad faith?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 21, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> There is only Catra.
> 
> Accept no substitute.




Sorry, @lowkey13, but, what is that from?  It does look very cool.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Sep 21, 2019)

QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7815108, member: 22779"]
Sorry, @lowkey13, but, what is that from?  It does look very cool.
[/QUOTE]
What @lowkey13 forgot to mention is that Catra is a chaotic evil Tabaxi.

Or is it just redundant to say that cats are chaotic evil?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 21, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Wow, 7 straight posts directly addressing me and NOT ONE actually answering my question.





Hussar said:


> Or, better yet, using the 1e or 2e ruleset, what roll would I make to jump 60 feet with my thief?  Or 5e for that matter?



Jumping? in 1e? Erm… er..  Stand up, go in the back yard, and show me how you jump?  2e... I guess there might have been an NWP that applied?  

Ah, 3e, conveniently, the DC is the number of feet you want to jump:  60!    Unless you do it without the 20' running start, then it's DC 120.  Still, should be able to cheese that up, somehow, at some level, this /is/ 3e. There's no speed erm limit, so you can use jump to override your speed (encumbrance! ha!), though if your speed is low, you take a penalty.

4e, aside from being in squares, similar to 3e, except you need to have the move available to go the distance you jump, but you can use two moves in a row.  There's some rogue utilities that help, starting at level 2, but not until the level 22 is there one likely to let you do it readily - eThieves don't get 'em, of course.

5e: no check!  all you need is a STR of 60!  And move of 60, because that bit works basically like 4e (though it's not clear you can use your move to Jump and Dash to continue the jump, if so, 30 does it)
Which, compared to the STR, should be easy.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 21, 2019)

Campbell said:


> In the context of playing the game what a character can do all day hardly matters. What matters is what you can do when it matters in the critical moments.



Depends.  Are you looking to play the hare (flash and dash until it runs out of steam) or the tortoise (which just keeps on going all day)?

Because I happen to remember who won that race... 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Wow, 7 straight posts directly addressing me and NOT ONE actually answering my question.
> 
> And I get accused of bad faith?



You might want to give post numbers on these, as of the 5 posts immediately above the one quoted, four are either direct replies to me or in relation to something I said, and the other is - somewhat amazingly - a direct answer to the question in the title of the thread.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 21, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Nostalgia is just a back handed way of saying your game is inferior.




Not really.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 21, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Jumping? in 1e? Erm… er..  Stand up, go in the back yard, and show me how you jump?  2e... I guess there might have been an NWP that applied?
> 
> Ah, 3e, conveniently, the DC is the number of feet you want to jump:  60!    Unless you do it without the 20' running start, then it's DC 120.  Still, should be able to cheese that up, somehow, at some level, this /is/ 3e. There's no speed erm limit, so you can use jump to override your speed (encumbrance! ha!), though if your speed is low, you take a penalty.
> 
> ...




Doing so well until that last one.  In 5e you can make an athletics check to "You try to jump an unusually long distance."  What does that mean?  I have no idea.  If you can always jump your strength, but not farther without some sort of roll, is 1 foot unusually long? 10 feet?  Double?  50% further?  No clue.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 21, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> "You try to jump an unusually long distance."  What does that mean?  I have no idea.



 Yup.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 21, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e, aside from being in squares, similar to 3e, except you need to have the move available to go the distance you jump, but you can use two moves in a row.  There's some rogue utilities that help, starting at level 2, but not until the level 22 is there one likely to let you do it readily - eThieves don't get 'em, of course.



The rogues double jump is high level if you choose it ( that 22 is perhaps a 5e ,16) but you can do your normal running jump without a run and possibly exceed your speed via skill power (and with a 1 square bonus via the power and possibly a good roll) early on even at level 2 -- its basically heroes who specialize can do a nice burst once per encounter and do the pretty extensive skill and attribute advancement in 4e even the baseline  is not static you get better. Paragon is one square farther. Epic ends at 2 squares farther.

And as for primacy of magic ? In 4e add on a pair of magic boots and get 3 squares more once per encounter (instead of 1 from the low level skill power). 

The 5e standing jump is more than a bit conservative aka mundane with nobody but the maximumly pumped barbarian reliably hitting olympic class standing jumps till level 20 and has been pointed out no clue what a skill check might do ... no shared expectations created.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 21, 2019)

At the end of the day unless you are willing to meaningfully design the noncombat prowess of martial characters while explicitly defining the noncombat prowess of spell casters you cannot have meaningfully balanced classes because the game design is not finished. It will be designed in motion. That is not necessarily like a problem. It's just a thing.

I do find it somewhat strange that one of the constant critiques of Fourth Edition was that the rules focused to much on combat when many fans were desperate for more noncombat stuff for fighters and rogues who are now told they cannot have noncombat stuff. Not like wrong. Just strange.

This division feels pretty unique to Dungeons and Dragons. When I look to the rest of my library including some fairly mainstream games like Vampire: The Requiem and Legend of the Five Rings 5th Edition it is not like a thing at all to treat noncombat as so fundamentally different for just one set of characters. This might be one of those essence of Dungeons and Dragons things that is actually fairly universal.

I will say that in the instance of there not being meaningful rules for noncombat things I prefer to simply rely on fictional positioning instead of semi-fungible skills.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 21, 2019)

Campbell said:


> At the end of the day unless you are willing to meaningfully design the noncombat prowess of martial characters while explicitly defining the noncombat prowess of spell casters you cannot have meaningfully balanced classes because the game design is not finished. It will be designed in motion. That is not necessarily like a problem. It's just a thing.
> 
> I do find it somewhat strange that one of the constant critiques of Fourth Edition was that the rules focused to much on combat when many fans were desperate for more noncombat stuff for fighters and rogues who are now told they cannot have noncombat stuff. Not like wrong. Just strange.




Why do you find it strange?  It's not like a critique of one game tells you anything about how people feel about another.  Likely, it just means the concerns are prioritised.



> This division feels pretty unique to Dungeons and Dragons. When I look to the rest of my library including some fairly mainstream games like Vampire: The Requiem and Legend of the Five Rings 5th Edition it is not like a thing at all to treat noncombat as so fundamentally different for just one set of characters. This might be one of those essence of Dungeons and Dragons things that is actually fairly universal.




Some games have specialists who are the only ones who can operate effectively inside a particular space: Cyberpunk's Deckers, for example. Other classed games, like Earthdawn, also have a category of classes who focus pretty strictly on combat and classes that more  broadly interact with the world.

Games that gate abilities in other ways than defined classes tend to not have such a distinction.



> I will say that in the instance of there not being meaningful rules for noncombat things I prefer to simply rely on fictional positioning instead of semi-fungible skills.




I dislike reliance on fictional positioning in the absence of meaningful rules or at least sufficient examples and precedent where a shared expectation of capability and probability can exist.  Explicit rules make the system easier to grok, helps identify the designers biases and expectations, and find edge cases where the model begins to break down.

Relying on fictional positioning alone tends to devolve into either Cops and Robber-style "I hit him, You totally missed!" as expectations and motivations of the participants diverge or into the Rule of Cool where abilities functions just well enough to keep the narrative flowing to meet a particular desire (which can be fun for a session or so, but I dislike for anything longer).  It also tends to rely too heavily on the judgement of the GM or equivalent whose job it is to update the fictional positioning to account for actions and results.

I find skill challenges still suffer from this though at least the demarcation of the end state helps prevent the "trophy is always just out of reach" anti-pattern DMs can fall into.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 21, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> The avatar? It’s from the Netflix reboot of She-Ra!




Last time I watched She Ra was the 1980s. 

Any good?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 21, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I dislike reliance on fictional positioning in the absence of meaningful rules or at least sufficient examples and precedent where a shared expectation of capability and probability can exist. Explicit rules make the system easier to grok, helps identify the designers biases and expectations, and find edge cases where the model begins to break down.
> 
> Relying on fictional positioning alone tends to devolve into either Cops and Robber-style "I hit him, You totally missed!" as expectations and motivations of the participants diverge or into the Rule of Cool where abilities functions just well enough to keep the narrative flowing to meet a particular desire (which can be fun for a session or so, but I dislike for anything longer). It also tends to rely too heavily on the judgement of the GM or equivalent whose job it is to update the fictional positioning to account for actions and results.
> 
> I find skill challenges still suffer from this though at least the demarcation of the end state helps prevent the "trophy is always just out of reach" anti-pattern DMs can fall into.




Isn't manipulating the fictional positioning\Gamemaster the essence of D&D though?


----------



## Nagol (Sep 21, 2019)

MichaelSomething said:


> Isn't manipulating the fictional positioning\Gamemaster the essence of D&D though?




It's the essence of all roleplaying, I suppose.  Games added rules so that some form of objective or shared measure replaces reliance on judgement alone to mitigate and alleviate differing expectations and interpretations..


----------



## Oofta (Sep 21, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Last time I watched She Ra was the 1980s.
> 
> Any good?



Not worth getting Netflix if you don't already have it good but I enjoyed it.

That may be simply a sign I'm immature.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 21, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Last time I watched She Ra was the 1980s.
> 
> Any good?



One of the better western cartoons out there tbh. If there is even 1 other thing on Netflix you are curious about, it’s good enough to justify getting Netflix for a month or two in order to binge it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 21, 2019)

MichaelSomething said:


> Isn't manipulating the fictional positioning\Gamemaster the essence of D&D though?



Fictional Positioning?" IDK
Manipulating or 'gaming' the DM was at least de-emphasized in 3.x/PF & 4e/E relative to 5e & TSR.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 21, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Fictional Positioning?" IDK
> Manipulating or 'gaming' the DM was at least de-emphasized in 3.x/PF & 4e/E relative to 5e & TSR.




4e had a lot in the little experience I had.  Just not in combat.  Reading the DM was great for skill challenges though.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 21, 2019)

Nagol said:


> 4e had a lot in the little experience I had.  Just not in combat.  Reading the DM was great for skill challenges though.



We've already established the your brief experience predated functional Skill Challenges, even the first round of updates they got.  
So that's plausible.  But not a representative fraction of even 4e's relatively short history. 

I assume you had more significant experience of 3e?  Gaming the DM was also less of an issue then - system mastery being the main thing - though if you could get the DM to allow in the right supplements for your build, that'd be worth it.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 21, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> We've already established the your brief experience predated functional Skill Challenges, even the first round of updates they got.
> So that's plausible.  But not a representative fraction of even 4e's relatively short history.
> 
> I assume you had more significant experience of 3e?  Gaming the DM was also less of an issue then - system mastery being the main thing - though if you could get the DM to allow in the right supplements for your build, that'd be worth it.




Supplement creep was terrible in 3.X.

I was playing in a campaign where a player persuaded the DM to effectively allow anyting WotC published and it ran several years.

My favourite character was Glanvar the 15th level Dream Dwarf Cleric 1 (Luck and Travel)/Wizard (Domain:Trasmutation) 4/Runesmith 3/Geometer 3/Fatespinner 2/Earth Dreamer 2 who wore armour, carried a Morningstar, and had triple digit hit points.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 21, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> We've already established the your brief experience predated functional Skill Challenges, even the first round of updates they got.



I can't believe it I didn't even get back into D&D till the second 4e DMG was already out...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 21, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I can't believe it I didn't even get back into D&D till the second 4e DMG was already out...



 That was barely over a year from release. And you missed out on having to try to make something of the borked original SC rules - and the shocking lack of gnomes...


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 21, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> That was barely over a year from release. And you missed out on having to try to make something of the borked original SC rules - and the shocking lack of gnomes...



Someone on here described how one could build a Monk via reflavoring another character class and I went ... wow a bit like Fantasy Hero got its Peanut Butter in the D&D chocolate. And I love Reeses  -> that said the actual release monk is pretty damn interesting


----------



## Campbell (Sep 21, 2019)

There was substantial DM judgement involved in running a skill challenge and handling noncombat resolution outside of skill challenges. Outside of rituals it was basically just the same for all characters. Making calls for what a wizard could accomplish with Arcana or what a Rogue could accomplish with Athletics were regular parts of play. When people start making noise about Fifth Edition giving the DM their power back I'm all like "Back? Where'd it go?"


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 22, 2019)

Campbell said:


> When people start making noise about Fifth Edition giving the DM their power back I'm all like "Back? Where'd it go?"



We argue over minutiae here it is what we do.  There are no longer a bunch of non-spell caster things where the DM didnt get to arbitrate the difficulty or just say no (Arguing one might say no to the application of a given utility power under a strange circumstance is missing the point). Even how far a jump as discussed in this thread beyond a reasonable base had some well defined answers. A DM can now just say no to 25 foot jump for a strength 20 character. See DM ultimate power restored (doesn't matter if big picture the DM in 4e is doing what they always have done with some extra tools and guidelines)


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 22, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Supplement creep was terrible in 3.X.
> 
> I was playing in a campaign where a player persuaded the DM to effectively allow anyting WotC published and it ran several years.
> 
> My favourite character was Glanvar the 15th level Dream Dwarf Cleric 1 (Luck and Travel)/Wizard (Domain:Trasmutation) 4/Runesmith 3/Geometer 3/Fatespinner 2/Earth Dreamer 2 who wore armour, carried a Morningstar, and had triple digit hit points.



That's excessive.  Supplement creep was only a problem if you were power gaming, though.  My group wasn't into that, so the supplements just allowed more and more different character concepts to be imagined and played.  They were a great boon until they just got so crappy that we stopped buying them.  I only had to ban the Nine Swords book.  That was just broken no matter which way you sliced it.


----------



## Monayuris (Sep 22, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> So Legend of the 5 Rings is a game where...
> 
> 1. You the player get to explore a fantastic world filled with dungeons, ruins, monsters and magic. Your character is an avatar/playing piece that allows you to insert yourself into this world.
> 2. Your character has abilities that help define its role and how you contribute in the game. Classes provide strong archetypes for what you do in the world.  The character class becomes a lens through which you see and interact with the fantastic world. Playing different character classes changes the lens and allows you to experience the game in myriad different ways.
> ...




Maybe? It borrows many of the same elements of D&D. So why wouldn't they share the same essence.


----------



## Monayuris (Sep 22, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> We argue over minutiae here it is what we do.  There are no longer a bunch of non-spell caster things where the DM didnt get to arbitrate the difficulty or just say no (Arguing one might say no to the application of a given utility power under a strange circumstance is missing the point). Even how far a jump as discussed in this thread beyond a reasonable base had some well defined answers. A DM can now just say no to 25 foot jump for a strength 20 character. See DM ultimate power restored (doesn't matter if big picture the DM in 4e is doing what they always have done with some extra tools and guidelines)



 Yes. I'm super happy that 5e turned to encouraging more DM authority.  It is a strength of the game.

To me, those extra tools and guidelines were helpful in the beginning but turned into straight jackets as I got more skilled in the game.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 22, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> Maybe? It borrows many of the same elements of D&D. So why wouldn't they share the same essence.



Because they are completely different games.  Legend of the 5 Rings is not even close to being D&D.  And the reason for that is because they present the same game elements in very different ways.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 22, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> Yes. I'm super happy that 5e turned to encouraging more DM authority.  It is a strength of the game.
> 
> To me, those extra tools and guidelines were helpful in the beginning but turned into straight jackets as I got more skilled in the game.



Thing is we were discussing how at a big level the level of adventure and broad challenge resolution that didnt change.

To me it means I have to adjudicate many many more actions and honestly making sure an improvised thing doesn't step all over things defined elsewhere in the system and is reasonably balanced with them is not exactly easy AND that is something DMs have demonstrably failed at since forever.

I have seen it on here with DM posters declaring near impossible difficulty for things that were demonstrably inferior to a situational level 1 spell... and another declared a slight variation of it as easy. *because one allowed a reaction to effectively be earlier rather than later. (the level one spell affected the entire party where as an acrobatic technique breaking an allies fall - or interrupting it entirely in the faster reaction case was declared EPIC). The it costs a resource how valuable is that cost????? is very good at hiding value. Its not generally even super valuable to be able to break fall "constantly" but stopping a party wide plummet from wrecking everyones day when you need it?. 4e provided consistency of resources that made it easier across the board for system design and dms like myself to adjudicate in improvised ways

To me they took away tools and made the DM job harder and force me to concentrate on "bit fiddling" instead of bigger picture things...no how far can the character jump (beyond and overly mundane basic amount) should not require I be hunting through monk specialty rules and spells to decide but for it to be balanced with the capabilities of the caster crowd it needs to take them into consideration that is why system answers seem better to me.

And unlike 3e the rules were concisely modular and clearly expressed so that again it was not DM spending his time looking up overly complex rules or interpreting many many paragraphs of natural language.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 23, 2019)

Campbell said:


> When people start making noise about Fifth Edition giving the DM their power back I'm all like "Back? Where'd it go?"



3.x/PF & 4e/E were oft-perceived as 'player entitled,' what with 3.x RaW uber alles zeitgeist and 4e wishlists  and whatnot.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 23, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Someone on here described how one could build a Monk via reflavoring another character class and I went ... wow a bit like Fantasy Hero got its Peanut Butter in the D&D chocolate. And I love Reeses  -> that said the actual release monk is pretty damn interesting



Monk is probably the best executed 4E class. The power system is a natural fit for those archetypical martial arts "call out your attack!" attacks, their movement actions are a unique twist that emphasizes how mobile you're supposed to be (in stark contrast to 3E's "always be full-attacking" design), and it just feels really satisfying to punch someone for free every turn with Flurry of Blows. I'd have gone with Strength and Dexterity as optional primaries and Wisdom as a mandatory secondary, but I understand that style of class design was out of favor by the PHB3.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 23, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Monk is probably the best executed 4E class.



Way too much competition for that for instance the damned if you do damned if you don't dynamic of the defender fighter was sweet.  You should look up HEMA the martial artists of europe were not engaged in "I hit it with my sword" -though they were misrepresented as such by the later renaissance types books have been found and  they had cool sometimes poetically named moves and were much more elaborate -- I somewhat recall reading one called boar racing downward or the like (I think that one was in German)  there was a Guard called the Fools Guard and so on -- in addition to other animal names. The teachers of these Knightly Arts called themselves the "Masters of Defense" - 1200 to 1500 CE at minimum, that they were dissed on by later fencing masters is kind of weird (In other parts of the world claiming older heritages is revelled in)






						Introduction to Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe
					

ARMA is an informal club of arms and armor enthusiasts and practitioners dedicated to exploring and reconstructing our Western martial heritage.



					www.thearma.org


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 23, 2019)

Wow.  I'm away for 2 days and....only 10 more posts?

Come on gang, there's life in that horse yet.  Really.  I saw it twitch.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 23, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Wow.  I'm away for 2 days and....only 10 more posts?
> Come on gang, there's life in that horse yet.  Really.  I saw it twitch.



You know where the gasoline is, if that's what you really want...




Garthanos said:


> Way too much competition for that



Well, there's some serious conflating of presentation/organization with mechanics with fluff to un-pack from the assertion, but, putting that aside, and putting aside stuffing the archetypal unarmed _martial artist_ into the psionic-striker box, the Monk was a pretty cool design, specifically the 'full discipline' mechanic gave it some fairly strong mobile-striker support. 

I know, that's a /lot/ to put aside, though.  

As off as the whole western-perception-of-eastern-martial-arts as unarmed may have been, the archetype could have yielded a martial class, and, considering going from arms-and-armor-using to unarmed would have conveniently reduced it's damage & AC potential, could've been a chassis mechanically suited to a controller.    Not like that's never come up.



> You should look up HEMA the martial artists of europe were not engaged in "I hit it with my sword" -though they were misrepresented as such by the later renaissance types books have been found and  they had cool sometimes poetically named moves and were much more elaborate...that they were dissed on by later fencing masters is kind of weird (In other parts of the world claiming older heritages is revelled in)



The Renaissance was really into antiquity, if some ancient Greek or Roman didn't endorse it...


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 23, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> and putting aside stuffing the archetypal unarmed _martial artist_ into the psionic-striker box



I ignored that idiocy and have undone it for all intents and purposes even adjusting the tools to help... making the Martial Artist class "martial" is an incredible no brainer. That said its mostly a flavor issue and/symbolic thing. Regardless the vividness of this martial artist is pretty damn cool and doesn't need to be asian in flavor either


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 23, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> As off as the whole western-perception-of-eastern-martial-arts as unarmed may have been, the archetype could have yielded a martial class, and, considering going from arms-and-armor-using to unarmed would have conveniently reduced it's damage & AC potential, could've been a chassis mechanically suited to a controller.    Not like that's never come up.



The multi-targeting is certainly in the monk... just need to allow those hits to do more disabling controller shots...  The ranger had feats which increased control _(sacrificing damage) seems reasonable to do something similar with a monk.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 23, 2019)

*Pressure Points feat (weakening)*
"Carefully striking their limbs at pressure points creating sublime pain in addition to physical impairment which interferes with concentration used in casting you weaken their subsequent attacks " reduce the damage of your martial strike by one die each target and target enemy is weakened save ends *(terrible language I know) 

Also too potent unless limited... perhaps once per encounter


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 23, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I ignored that idiocy and have undone it for all intents and purposes even adjusting the tools to help... making the Martial Artist class "martial" is an incredible no brainer. That said its mostly a flavor issue and/symbolic thing. Regardless the vividness of this martial artist is pretty damn cool and doesn't need to be asian in flavor either





Garthanos said:


> The multi-targeting is certainly in the monk... just need to allow those hits to do more disabling controller shots...  The ranger had feats which increased control _(sacrificing damage) seems reasonable to do something similar with a monk.





Garthanos said:


> *Pressure Points feat*
> "Carefully striking their limbs at pressure points creating sublime pain in addition to physical impairment which interferes with concentration used in casting you weaken their subsequent attacks " reduce the damage of your martial strike by one die each target and target enemy is weakened save ends *(terrible language I know)
> Also too potent unless limited... perhaps once per encounter




Yeah, definitely getting away from the Essence of D&D, there.  ;P


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 24, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, definitely getting away from the Essence of D&D, there.  ;P



Think so? I didnt even include damage on a miss...  in for a dime in for a dollar how about no saving throw?

*Pressure Points feat (slowing) *
"Carefully striking their lower limbs (or wings) with quick jabs you restrict the blood flow at pressure points reducing their mobility. "
Reduce the damage of your attack by 1 die... target hit is slowed till the end of your next turn.

Or just make it till end of fight for those not wanting to track stuff.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 24, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Thechers of these Knightly Arts called themselves the "Masters of Defense" - 1200 to 1500 CE at minimum, that they were dissed on by later fencing masters is kind of weird (In other parts of the world claiming older heritages is revelled in)



As with any field of study, advancement is inevitable. "Claiming older heritages" usually just means you're either lying or obsolete. In particular, there was a sea-change in European fencing with the advent of gunpowder and the evolution of the sword from battlefield weapon to effectively just civilian use. The knightly arts suited for fighting armored opponents with a broadsword were justifiably considered antiquated by those interested in murdering people in the streets with a rapier.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 24, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> As with any field of study, advancement is inevitable. "Claiming older heritages" usually just means you're either lying or obsolete.



Oh very much yes and the lying is very much definite  it's rather like acupuncture "ancient chinese secret. ... umm no not at all. Regardless it demonstrates a cultural distinction we almost had no accurate information of those earlier arts. Although growing out of an earlier heritage may not at all mean obsolete.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 24, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> You know where the gasoline is, if that's what you really want...




Actually, I don't.  I can't remember where I left my gasoline.

Oh, wait, I do know.  I gave it to the...


Spoiler: spoiler



WARLORD.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 24, 2019)

I love 2E rules for firing into melee. I wish they were still in place as it completely changes the flow of the game.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 24, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I love 2E rules for firing into melee. I wish they were still in place as it completely changes the flow of the game.




I don't care about realism for realism's sake, but I do like fairly simple rules that make for more complex tactical decisions.

That and I think archery is too good in 5e.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I do like fairly simple rules that make for more complex tactical decisions.
> That and I think archery is too good in 5e.



Arguably, archery (ranged options, in general) ended up 'too good' in 5e, _because_ 5e tried so hard to simplify & speed up combat.  Bring back old-school handling of cover & concealment, firing into melee, ranged attacking/casting _in_ melee, ranged weapons made-for-STR, etc... and you'd have less issue with ranged options being too good - and, more complex rules & slower combat...

...and, well, casting, being mostly at range, _not_ being 'too good,' which is at odds with the Essence of D&D.  ;P


----------



## Campbell (Sep 26, 2019)

Being able to use Dexterity to damage at range and for finesse weapons was a mistake. It makes Dexterity way too good.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Sep 26, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Being able to use Dexterity to damage at range and for finesse weapons was a mistake. It makes Dexterity way too good.



Not a problem unique to D&D, see every 90s RPG ever. Most games that have a "speed" trait have this problem. You couple dexterity's usage in determining armor class, order in combat and how it functions with finesse weapons in general and it's easily the game's best trait.  But yeah, agree.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 26, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Being able to use Dexterity to damage at range and for finesse weapons was a mistake. It makes Dexterity way too good.



Not to mention that someone with a 3 strength could use a longbow if they can lift it.  Longbows require significant strength.  I blame people conflating longbows with modern composite bows ala The Hunger Games.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Not to mention that someone with a 3 strength could use a longbow if they can lift it.  Longbows require significant strength.  I blame people conflating longbows with modern composite bows ala The Hunger Games.



Oh come on, don’t be silly. 

The “culprit”, insofar as one is needed, is simply that Dex and Strength aren’t wholly separate attributes, and they don’t map perfectly to muscle power and coordination. Nearly all Strength activities require Dexterity, and vice versa, but 5e isn’t, and shouldn’t be, concerned with the level of granularity required to model that directly. 

Instead, you are coordinated enough to use a great sword effectively even with a low Dexterity score, and strong enough to use a bow even with a low Strength score. Because it’s simple, and the game runs better this way.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Instead, you are coordinated enough to use a great sword effectively even with a low Dexterity score, and strong enough to use a bow even with a low Strength score. Because it’s simple, and the game runs better this way.



 Simple? Less complex, sure.  "Runs better?"  well, it runs a bit faster, perhaps, but archery being 'too good' and DEX is das uberstat argue not necessarily better.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Arguably, archery (ranged options, in general) ended up 'too good' in 5e, _because_ 5e tried so hard to simplify & speed up combat.  Bring back old-school handling of cover & concealment, firing into melee, ranged attacking/casting _in_ melee, etc... and you'd have less issue with ranged options being too good - and, more complex rules & slower combat...



3E had all that, and yet archery was even _more_ imbalanced, because archers were the ones who could reliably stand and full attack every round. And adding insult to injury, Rapid Shot had no melee equivalent unless you were a monk.

So (setting aside 4E because class powers mattered far more than any intrinsic virtues of archery or melee), 5E is in a bit of a "two steps forward, one step back" position here, as far as I'm concerned. And as you note, it's way easier to run, so maybe that last step is just sideways.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 26, 2019)

You are not really looking at meaningful difference in at the table complexity. All that stuff should be precalculated.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 26, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Ugh. Don't get me started.
> 
> Having an uberstat that:




INT and I think CHA can be used on a spell to do ANYTHING a spell can do at all.... hurray for the ubermeister


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Simple? Less complex, sure.  "Runs better?"  well, it runs a bit faster, perhaps, but archery being 'too good' and DEX is das uberstat argue not necessarily better.



Sure but is it conformant with your identified ESSENCE of D&D - if you are going to argue that don't stop now. ... the fighting classes simpley must be MAD


Archery
Perception (Wisdom)  to ranged target.
Constitution (Stamina) to steady your aim
Strength to use a Stronger Bow
Dex grace to reload quickly.

MAD MAD mad I say


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Simple? Less complex, sure.  "Runs better?"  well, it runs a bit faster, perhaps, but archery being 'too good' and DEX is das uberstat argue not necessarily better.



Perception vs reality. 

IME, people still very much run strength characters. 

Also IME, the balance “gap” is much smaller than it seems from reading forums or from over-analyzing the books. 

I do recommend making Barbarian Unarmored Defense 12+Dex+Con, or simply 13+Con, though, on a side note. 

But looking at Dex Fighter va strength fighter, is there _actually_ a meaningful power gap in favor of Dex? I would argue that there isn’t.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> ... the fighting classes simpley must be MAD



they must be downright furious.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> they must be downright furious.



How barbaric


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> 3E had all that, and yet archery was even _more_ imbalanced, because archers were the ones who could reliably stand and full attack every round. And adding insult to injury, Rapid Shot had no melee equivalent unless you were a monk.
> 
> So (setting aside 4E because class powers mattered far more than any intrinsic virtues of archery or melee), 5E is in a bit of a "two steps forward, one step back" position here, as far as I'm concerned. And as you note, it's way easier to run, so maybe that last step is just sideways.



I’d also add that pre-4e, it was extremely frustrating to have a feat tax in order to use Dex for attacking, and still not even be able to add it to damage, and I’d rather have some “imbalance” between stats than go back to that. Such a tax in 5e would be much, _much_ worse, because you get so few feats. I already despise the bland feats that just give proficiency in weapons or armor, and simply let people gain proficiencies they need to fill out a concept, instead. 

I’m not here to have to minmax my character just to keep up. I’m here to make my character concept function in the game and have fun playing them.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 26, 2019)

My preferred solution to solving issues with MAD is to make everyone more well rounded by giving boosts to more attributes when you gain ASIs rather than rewarding hyperfocus.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2019)

You know, I’d be fine with using Dex for defense, armor as deflection bonus to defense and DR, strength to gate weapon use and speed, and wisdom to aim all attacks of any kind, if the rest of the system was built to ensure that this doesn’t end up making building characters a huge PITA. 

But barring weird stuff like that, I’m happy with not requiring the strong guy pump Dex for coordination to hit successfully, or the Dex guy pump strength to have the muscle power to use their weapon without tiring quickly.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2019)

Campbell said:


> My preferred solution to solving issues with MAD is to make everyone more well rounded by giving boosts to more attributes when you gain ASIs rather than rewarding hyperfocus.



One way to get there, as well, is to use a higher point buy, but keep the 15-before-race-mod limit in place.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> 3E had all that, and yet archery was even _more_ imbalanced, because archers were the ones who could reliably stand and full attack every round. And adding insult to injury, Rapid Shot had no melee equivalent unless you were a monk.



True - but, y'know, they'd be hosed in melee... and...er.. could run out of arrows.  Same deal as casting, really, writ smaller. 



> 5E is in a bit of a "two steps forward, one step back" position here, as far as I'm concerned. And as you note, it's way easier to run, so maybe that last step is just sideways.



 The main issues appear to be DEX seamlessly replacing STR in melee, rather than falling short on damage or paying a feat tax, and ranged options, in general, suffering too little drawback in melee (disadvantage rather than AoOs for attack rolls, /nothing/ if forcing a save or the like).  5e achieves simpler (fewer, natural-language), mechanics by relying on the DM for rulings, so /simpler/ in terms of player perception or impressions given by the rules, but not easier to run.  Very /different/ to run, from 3e, though - no building monsters like PCs taking hours away from the table, for instance.



> So (setting aside 4E because class powers mattered far more than any intrinsic virtues of archery or melee)



Ranged provoked AoOs, melee could charge to close range efficiently.  No full-attack concerns, significantly.    
And, Not-D&D, of course.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 26, 2019)

A thought back to the OP...

The essence of D&D... is what you get when the Skeksis expose Tanis Half-Elven to the Dark Crystal....


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

Campbell said:


> My preferred solution to solving issues with MAD is to make everyone more well rounded by giving boosts to more attributes when you gain ASIs rather than rewarding hyperfocus.



Would tend to give you more genre-feeling heroes, who tend to be paragons good at most everything.

Another alternative would be to base certain bonuses on lower-of-two stat pairs.  So melee attacks is lower of STR mod or DEX, STR for damage, ranged attack is DEX for attack, lower of STR mod or DEX for damage.  Baroque tricks like that. Or 13A's middle-stat-of-3 gives the bonus.  
Or having virtually all stats toss in small bonuses, like RQ.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 26, 2019)

Campbell said:


> My preferred solution to solving issues with MAD is to make everyone more well rounded by giving boosts to more attributes when you gain ASIs rather than rewarding hyperfocus.



Heroic versatility has a lot of trope support arguably. Even when you look at a character like D'Artagnan who is situationally a clutz put a weapon in his hand or make it a feat of daring and tadah its entirely different. Its more like a gimic failing than a functional one


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> True - but, y'know, they'd be hosed in melee... and...er.. could run out of arrows.  Same deal as casting, really, writ smaller.
> 
> The main issues appear to be DEX seamlessly replacing STR in melee, rather than falling short on damage or paying a feat tax, and ranged options, in general, suffering too little drawback in melee (disadvantage rather than AoOs for attack rolls, /nothing/ if forcing a save or the like).  5e achieves simpler (fewer, natural-language), mechanics by relying on the DM for rulings, so /simpler/ in terms of player perception or impressions given by the rules, but not easier to run.  Very /different/ to run, from 3e, though - no building monsters like PCs taking hours away from the table, for instance.
> 
> ...



I don’t know, I’ve certainly found 5e vastly easier to run than anything other than 4e. 

Even then, it’s easier to run in some ways.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 26, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Oh come on, don’t be silly.
> 
> The “culprit”, insofar as one is needed, is simply that Dex and Strength aren’t wholly separate attributes, and they don’t map perfectly to muscle power and coordination. Nearly all Strength activities require Dexterity, and vice versa, but 5e isn’t, and shouldn’t be, concerned with the level of granularity required to model that directly.
> 
> Instead, you are coordinated enough to use a great sword effectively even with a low Dexterity score, and strong enough to use a bow even with a low Strength score. Because it’s simple, and the game runs better this way.



I don't get too worked up about historical accuracy but traditional longbows typical had draw weights of 150 lbs or more depending on who you ask.  In addition, I don't consider myself particularly dextrous but I was a pretty good shot with both firearms and archery because of time spent in my misspent youth.  But I would never go hunting with a kiddie bow that I got when I was 10.  There's just no way the arrows had enough force behind them to do significant damage.

What bugs me is that a high Dex PC can have practically everything a strength based PC has and more.  Ranged? Hands down far better.  One handed melee?  Same.  AC? Close enough that it doesn't matter much. 

At what cost?  Umm...they can't grapple which I don't remember anyone using.  Climbing sucks but there's probably going to be a workaround because you're never going to have an entire party with good strength.  As a DM I have to go out of my way to find reasons for strength to matter.

I've considered limiting damage from bows to double your strength bonus or your dex mod in my home campaign for longbows.  If you want to dump strength, use a shortbow.  I already allow reinforced bows that you can buy to add strength instead of dex to attack and damage.

I don't want to over complicate things.  I don't want to nerf dex.  I just want some balance.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t know, I’ve certainly found 5e vastly easier to run than anything other than 4e.



Sure.  Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather run 5e than 3e, for instance, in no small part because there's less chargen-like tedium on the DM side of the screen, and less guff from players.  But 5e /is/ a real challenge to run, it's just, well, for me, more a matter of emotional energy.  I have to be 'up' to run a good 5e session.  Firing on all cylinders.  IDK, hard to describe, I guess.  It takes something to take control of and responsibility for the game, the way that 5e invites me to (the way felt 1e did, too, which is no small part of it, /and/ why I like it).

While it might involve tedious prep, and I wouldn't /want/ to run 3e again, I could, even on an 'off' day, run a well-prepared 3e adventure and deliver a decent experience fairly consistently.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 26, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Instead, you are coordinated enough to use a great sword effectively even with a low Dexterity score, and strong enough to use a bow even with a low Strength score. Because it’s simple, and the game runs better this way.



So how much less simple is it to just slap a minimum strength requirement on some weapons e.g. longbow, greatsword, and a few others?

And how much less simple would it be to remove dexterity from to-hit and damage for nearly all* melee weapons?

That's right - it'd still be mighty simple. 

* - exceptions being to-hit only (NOT damage!) for a few small and-or exotic weapons e.g. rapier and whip.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Sep 26, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> What?
> 
> C'mon, Oofta. No half measures here.
> 
> ...




Sorry, my inner Sir McStabsalot just won't let me nerf rapiers because they're just so AWESOME!!!

Besides, what would all those Drizzt wannabes do without dual wielding rapiers?  Hmmm ... maybe you have a point.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> True - but, y'know, they'd be hosed in melee... and...er.. could run out of arrows.  Same deal as casting, really, writ smaller.



Although to be fair, CoDzilla was a melee build.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 26, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Although to be fair, CoDzilla was a melee build.



Druidzilla was the one I think I accidentally started making .... definitely melee. I would have expected a Cleric one to be rangy?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> So how much less simple is it to just slap a minimum strength requirement on some weapons e.g. longbow, greatsword, and a few others?
> 
> And how much less simple would it be to remove dexterity from to-hit and damage for nearly all* melee weapons?
> 
> ...




Blech.

I think you missed the “and runs better” part. People want to play Dex-first characters without being nerfed just keep Strength “safe” from being a second tier stat in the minds of optimizers.

Letting any reasonably light weapon use Dex for attack and damage is also much simpler than having a small number of “specialty” weapons (which the rapier shouldn’t be one of, it’s a standard weapon) use Dex for hit and strength for damage.

But even if we view them as equally simple, finesse as per 5e wins due to facilitating more play-styles and character concepts without creating a requirement of high system mastery to enjoy a classic and pretty basic archetype.

Edit: as for strength requirements, the answer is “noticeably”. The question then becomes, “is it noticeable enough that it interferes with just playing the game and enjoying it?” And “does the game lend itself to needing Strength on a Dex based character just to use more weapons, or will a fairly tight point buy ensure that nearly all point-buy games will see most Dex characters using the same weapons so they have stat room for con and skill-related stat bumps?” 

I’d much rather see higher int and wis and cha than enforce strength necessity on characters whose story isn’t about being strong. 

We know the 5e parkouring archer rogue is reasonably fit and probably “skinny-buff”, because they are able to run jump and climb at high speeds while shooting a longbow. Requiring a 14 strength to do all that just narrows what the character can be in secondary skills, without actually adding anything.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Although to be fair, CoDzilla was a melee build.



It was a caster build that could dominate in melee to rival an indifferently-powergamed fighter, if it felt like it, sure.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> So how much less simple is it to just slap a minimum strength requirement on some weapons e.g. longbow, greatsword, and a few others?



 I don't have a quantifiable unit we all agree on, but, less simple is more complicated.



> And how much less simple would it be to remove dexterity from to-hit and damage for nearly all* melee weapons?



"nearly" no more or less simple.  Entirely, would be a simplification.




doctorbadwolf said:


> People want to play Dex-first characters without being nerfed just keep Strength “safe” from being a second tier stat in the minds of optimizers.



I do see a definite virtue in 5e (finally) making the choice to play a big-stick bruiser or dancey swashbuckler a fairly seamless one, in melee.

It's strained, though, that the same choice doesn't work out as well when it comes to ranged.  The DEX character can be a very capable ranged combatant, with a /long/ range, good-damage weapon, quite easily, even if in no way optimized for it.  Even optimized, the STR character is going to have a much shorter range, and issues with making a lot of ranged attacks.  It wouldn't take much - 'Composite" Bows that take STR for hit & dam, for instance - to make that fairly seamless, too, though.

...but, DEX still comes out ahead for prevalence of saves, AC bonus compatible with stealth/mobility/hanging out in a peaceful town, skill basis, & initiative.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Arguably, archery (ranged options, in general) ended up 'too good' in 5e, _because_ 5e tried so hard to simplify & speed up combat.  Bring back old-school handling of cover & concealment, firing into melee, ranged attacking/casting _in_ melee, ranged weapons made-for-STR, etc... and you'd have less issue with ranged options being too good - and, more complex rules & slower combat...
> 
> ...and, well, casting, being mostly at range, _not_ being 'too good,' which is at odds with the Essence of D&D.  ;P



Really go back to 2E firing into melee rules. It’s a wonderful thing.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Really go back to 2E firing into melee rules. It’s a wonderful thing.



I recall 1e & 3e rules for that with some clarity.  Was 2e different from both of those?


----------



## Oofta (Sep 26, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Really go back to 2E firing into melee rules. It’s a wonderful thing.




For those of us who don't have a 2E book handy, and don't remember a version of the game we haven't played this century?  

Because all I remember was allies providing cover and a house rule that if you missed by the cover amount you then rolled to see if you hit your ally instead.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I recall 1e & 3e rules for that with some clarity.  Was 2e different from both of those?



Oh. I believe 1E and 2E were the same. But I am not sure at the moment. I liked it because it was foolish to try to use any ranged weapon against an enemy engaged with an ally.

Once our group tied up a thief and hanged him upside down at camp overnight for shooting the fighter with an arrow. Now my group knew each other very well, and it was a playful thing among the party members that knew each other.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 26, 2019)

Oofta said:


> For those of us who don't have a 2E book handy, and don't remember a version of the game we haven't played this century?
> 
> Because all I remember was allies providing cover and a house rule that if you missed by the cover amount you then rolled to see if you hit your ally instead.




Not on a miss

Anytime you fired into melee you had an equal
Chance to hit whoever was in melee. If you had 6
People in melee you determine randomly who the arrow may hit before the attack role was even made.

Page 99 2E PHB


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Not on a miss
> 
> Anytime you fired into melee you had an equal
> Chance to hit whoever was in melee. If you had 6
> ...



Yep, sounds like the 1e version.

I wonder if it came over from Chaimail?  Decidedly wargamey in feel, IMHO.



Oofta said:


> Because all I remember was allies providing cover and a house rule that if you missed by the cover amount you then rolled to see if you hit your ally instead.



Sounds closer to 3e.  (May have been introduced in 2e C&T? - seems like a lotta 3e's tactical/grid-dependence sins were.)


----------



## Campbell (Sep 26, 2019)

I like allies providing cover. I'm not a big fan of hitting your allies. In practice it provided too strong of a disincentive. The cover was enough.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 26, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I like allies providing cover. I'm not a big fan of hitting your allies. In practice it provided too strong of a disincentive. The cover was enough.



Sharpshooter contributes to the supremacy of dex and archery.  No cover _and_ shoot somebody 3 football fields away _and_ significantly more damage* for the win!

*_depending on a lot of factors ... it seems to dramatically increase damage at mid-to-high levels unless enemy ACs are cranked up._


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 26, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Druidzilla was the one I think I accidentally started making .... definitely melee. I would have expected a Cleric one to be rangy?



Nah. Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell + _divine power_ and/or _holy might_ turns you into an all-day melee monster.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yep, sounds like the 1e version.
> 
> I wonder if it came over from Chaimail?  Decidedly wargamey in feel, IMHO.




There were adjustments for size. But I think that is the main reason I still like 1E/2E better. It changed the combat dynamic more and I preferred melee.  

I am in no way demeaning people that like the way later editions do it.  I just enjoyed the risk for firing into melee. The tension that I don’t have a clear shot. They are moving around so much that I may hit my friend instead. 

Many DM’s house ruled that they only rolled on a miss. I even house ruled that if they were 2 size categories larger that you didn’t need to check, just aim high. Some creatures were little the broad side of a barn.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 26, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Sharpshooter contributes to the supremacy of dex and archery.  No cover _and_ shoot somebody 3 football fields away _and_ significantly more damage* for the win!
> 
> *_depending on a lot of factors ... it seems to dramatically increase damage at mid-to-high levels unless enemy ACs are cranked up._




Well I would like more round by round  options I am glad we play in a no feats game. I find it plays much better.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 26, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Well I would like more round by round  options I am glad we play in a no feats game. I find it plays much better.



No feats and no multi classing reduces power gaming.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> No feats and no multi classing reduces power gaming.



Also makes Bob a dull fighter.*






* it clearly wasn't obvious enough, but that was an allusion to stats showing that Fighter is (as always) the most popular class, and Bob is (for some reason) the most popular name for a D&D character.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Also makes Bob a dull fighter.




That's why I'm considering retiring my Barbarian and playing a war cleric. Fighters and Barbarians are still plenty strong. My Barbarian feels damn near invincible. He's just boring.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Also makes Bob a dull fighter.




Different levels of crunch for different people. Sometime I like pathfinder, sometimes I like 3d6 in order b/x or 1E/2E

Ok. I burned out in PF a long time ago. Once everyone needed hero lab and a special session to just create their characters.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 26, 2019)

So I have played some AL and I find feats do not generally make martial characters more interesting to play. They are largely passive effects. They increase character power, but other than the can I still hit it gameplay round by round decisions are not all that affected.

I am not really interested in character building as an exercise. I mostly care about gameplay at the table.


----------



## cmad1977 (Sep 26, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Also makes Bob a dull fighter.




Bob is only a dull fighter if Bob is a dull player.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 26, 2019)

Ah and we are back to the subject of essence of D&D once more.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 26, 2019)

One of the things I like about BECMI is they actually have no need for feats because there are alot of cool combat maneuvers built into the combat rules without even needing feats. There is a heck of alot more to the combat for people that take the time to read the rules on it. I actually noticed that becmi in some regard was more advanced than ad&d.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 26, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> Bob is only a dull fighter if Bob is a dull player.




Bob also realizes he can be not a dull player playing a Cleric or Psychic Warrior. Bob enjoys game again. Not like that ever happened to me. No sir.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2019)

For those of us who only played Basic/Expert, what did they add?  Because B/E D&D was extremely simplified - if very formulaic - in combat.  Basically each side pelts each other with dice until one side falls over.  There were no tactical level considerations.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 26, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Bob also realizes he can be not a dull player playing a Cleric or Psychic Warrior. Bob enjoys game again. Not like that ever happened to me. No sir.



It is traditional blaming the player of martial types because designers thought I hit it with my sword was good enough for non-casters while thinking not  having banishment, or wish spells or instant escape teleport or shape shifting for an hour was not interesting enough for mages.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 26, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> Bob is only a dull fighter if Bob is a dull player.



That's terribly insensitive.  Just because Bob likes naming characters after himself doesn't mean he's dull.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 26, 2019)

Moldvay B/X and Mentzer BECMI are essentially different games. Even the Mentzer Basic / Expert volumes made substantial changes to the game.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 27, 2019)

Campbell said:


> Moldvay B/X and Mentzer BECMI are essentially different games. Even the Mentzer Basic / Expert volumes made substantial changes to the game.



Yes. The game has some interesting evolutions. 
I particularly liked the smash, throwing weapons, disarm, and parry rules in RC. I found the morale rules very helpful for facilitating roleplayjng. And the morale rules when used really made charisma useful.  The rules for weapon mastery really opened up even more options for high level fighters. I liked the striking and wrestling rules if you had the patience to use them. It allowed some pc’s to incapacitate much higher NPC’s.  But I admit the unarmed and wrestling rules are cumbersome. But quite effective if you take the time to learn them.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 27, 2019)

But what I like is not just creating a new feat. But just expanding the combat so there are maneuvers open to do within the rules without a fear system. In my opinion a genral attack should be generally the best action to take. And other maneuvers as the situation arises. I see alot of disarm attempts against wizards with wands and staves for example.   And I see a lot of overbearing when they really want to take a powerful opponent alive.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 27, 2019)

One thing I like about COC that I do alot in d&d is integrate the players into the community. They don’t want to get caught murdering or even killing someone because of the social implications. And i
Do the same for the villains. They really don’t want to get caught.  Just realized how many urban adventures i do these days instead of dungeons.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 27, 2019)

I will add that what I like about d&d is the heroic roleplayjng where a fighter can take a dragon or giant in one on one combat. I also like how in 1E we had a 15th level fighter defeat 10 hill giants. And that was cool. The neighboring evil knights that saw it wouldn’t screw with him directly after seeing that. 

But what I learned from games like coc and rq (back in the Stone Age) was how to integrate pc’s into the community and build social implications. All those things can be done in d&d just as well in those games. I would probaly like to see this encouraged more. OA 1E did this some with their family and honor charts. Becmi did this a little bit of u got into kingdom building.  RQ and COC did it a lot earlier and more successfully. Not necessarily mechanically, but by the way they integrated the pc’s into the community. 

Okay RQ and COC can be so brutal players may avoid unnecessary combat. That helped some too. But the other goes a long way. 

I like fighters being able to kill 10 hill giants. Lol. It’s just cool.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 27, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> But what I learned from games like coc and rq (back in the Stone Age) was how to integrate pc’s into the community and build social implications. All those things can be done in d&d just as well in those games.



I started doing just that back in 1e my players characters were justiciars and ambassadors and priestesses and bodyguards of these official types 9 times out of 10 one element of removing the murder hobo jive... they start out not hobos and with established community roles. Even a few high councilors and sure rarely some apprentice who lost his master


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 27, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I started doing just that back in 1e my players characters were justiciars and ambassadors and priestesses and bodyguards of these official types 9 times out of 10 one element of removing the murder hobo jive... they start out not hobos and with established community roles. Even a few high councilors and sure rarely some apprentice who lost his master




It’s. It not like there isn’t enough room for senseless violence.  Just make them squirm when and where.  And let it cause shifting alliances.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 27, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> It’s. It not like there isn’t enough room for senseless violence.  Just make them squirm when and where.  And let it cause shifting alliances.



Sure plenty of things to do in a messed up world even if you are part of it and do not have some gold hunting motive. One of them priestesses was a prophesied one and sent on "suicide" missions by jealous peers  of course.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 30, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's terribly insensitive.  Just because Bob likes naming characters after himself doesn't mean he's dull.



Ironically my son named Robert ummm his first character was named.... yup exactly.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 1, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Perception vs reality.
> 
> IME, people still very much run strength characters.
> 
> ...




Without feats there is. Dex is Uber assuming it's sword and board.

No feats great weapons aren't all that may as well use a shield due to the fueling style.  6.5 avg damage vs 6.5 or 7 plus reroll 1s. 

 +2 AC better than plus two damage.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 1, 2019)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Nah. Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell + _divine power_ and/or _holy might_ turns you into an all-day melee monster.




It was mostly a hypothetical build. 

 Was a lot better in 3.0, required very specific stuff in 3.5 to pull it off especially before nightsticks.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 1, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I will add that what I like about d&d is the heroic roleplayjng where a fighter can take a dragon or giant in one on one combat. I also like how in 1E we had a 15th level fighter defeat 10 hill giants. And that was cool. The neighboring evil knights that saw it wouldn’t screw with him directly after seeing that.
> 
> But what I learned from games like coc and rq (back in the Stone Age) was how to integrate pc’s into the community and build social implications. All those things can be done in d&d just as well in those games. I would probaly like to see this encouraged more. OA 1E did this some with their family and honor charts. Becmi did this a little bit of u got into kingdom building.  RQ and COC did it a lot earlier and more successfully. Not necessarily mechanically, but by the way they integrated the pc’s into the community.
> 
> ...




 Our impressive one is a level 14 fighter in 2E killing a level 19 lich, Dragon and a Marilith. In 3 rounds. 

 Then polished off a avatar.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 3, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Without feats there is. Dex is Uber assuming it's sword and board.
> 
> No feats great weapons aren't all that may as well use a shield due to the fueling style.  6.5 avg damage vs 6.5 or 7 plus reroll 1s.
> 
> +2 AC better than plus two damage.



You’re really arguing that is a meaningful gap?


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 3, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You’re really arguing that is a meaningful gap?




Damage wise no. Add in skills, initiative, a major save, melee and ranged yes it is.

See a great sword fighter switch to javelins and cry.

A Dex based Archer doesn't suck using a rapier. A dual wielder with the feat can carry a single blade and put it away and draw a bow or pull out the second weapon.

The strength based characters get PAM and GWM but sharpshooter is better than gwm and XBE+SS let's ranged characters essentially melee and use -5/+10.

Spellcasters can opt out of using strength via Wis and Cha.

So strength is actually only good in narrow situations like a Paladin or rolled stat cleric builds.

Oh and at low level strength might be marginally better under point buy due to AC.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Oct 3, 2019)

Without feats? Yeah, DEX is where it's at for most builds. For the reasons listed above. The benefits you get going DEX more than make up for the relatively small downgrade in damage. I think DEX does too much really, but that's a whole different thread topic (and a topic that's been beaten to death).


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> One of the things I like about BECMI is they actually have no need for feats because there are alot of cool combat maneuvers built into the combat rules without even needing feats. There is a heck of alot more to the combat for people that take the time to read the rules on it. I actually noticed that becmi in some regard was more advanced than ad&d.




100% yes.

Fighters are much more interesting to play in Basic than magic users, to me. As a magic user you have an extremely limited number of set magical spells you can cast. But you only have a few uses, you have to have the correct spell prepared, and you are vulnerable to losing the spell if you are struck or forced to make a save before you can cast it. Against an organized enemy it is extremely difficult to get a spell off in combat.

Meanwhile for fighters, you have a large variety of weapons you can utilize (each changes the tactical nature of your game play). You also can perform many combat maneuvers as detailed in the book You can also do anything you as a player can imagine. You can attempt these maneuvers an unlimited number of times and you are not limited to having the correct feat.

One can make an argument that that a magic user can also perform any imagined maneuver. They would be correct in that argument. However they fail to take account that fighters have better hit points and better access to armor and are more likely to both be successful in these maneuvers and also more likely to survive a failed attempt.

I think the whole 'fighters are boring' claim is mainly a result of the more modern versions of the game (starting with late 2E and 3E). In these editions, fighter actions were gated behind needing the correct feats. Meanwhile, many of the balancing factors that were placed on magic-users were removed from the wizard class.

This created a feel that fighters were limited and forced to spend a limited feat selection resource which made them hyper-focus. Whereas the power floodgates were opened on the wizard class by removing the difficulties inherent in spell casting.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 3, 2019)

I think the desire for more interesting martial classes comes from a fundamental change in the way modern role playing games treat combat. In the classic game the focus was on the adventuring decisions and violent conflicts were something to be quickly resolved so you could get back to the adventuring.

Modern role playing games treat combat as an action scene, meant to be captivating in its own right. It is supposed to feel dramatic and dynamic. Round by round actions are supposed to be tense and impacting. It tells a story.

Combine these longer more dramatic, longer combats with the lifting of nearly all meaningful constraints of spell caster power. With more spell slots, spells that are easier to cast, spells that have a much higher chance to make an impact, and spell mechanics that are just plain more dynamic it had never been more fun to play a spell caster. Meanwhile martial characters got locked into place if they wanted to use all of their attacks, lost a lot of power compared to monsters, and longer combats meant you felt like you were not getting the same game play fun as players of spell casters.

For me personally something else happened. I had played other role playing games! Games like Vampire, Werewolf, Feng Shui, and Legend of the Five Rings. These games had more interesting fighter types to play. Then about half way into our run playing 3rd Edition something happened. It's name was Exalted and for all its flaws fighter types were just as interesting and dynamic to play as any other type of character. When we went back to playing Dungeons and Dragons I could not play a fighter anymore. I opted to play clerics and psychic warriors instead.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 3, 2019)

@Campbell
I agree with your assessment. Combat in the classic games was only a part of the game experience, it wasn't even really the primary focus. Those who criticize older editions for being boring in combat are missing the point. For those games, most of the mechanical weight is expressed in exploration. Hence the detailed and rich mechanical support for exploration that exists in classic D&D that is missing in more modern versions.

The focus of the game has shifted.

I also think as the game has changed, the influence of mechanics has become more prevalent. Maybe something similar to the popularity of Eurogames.

There appears to be a demand that the mechanical actions executed by a player to create a result in the game be more interesting, varied, and novel.

Hence the claims that the fighter is boring (just dice rolling) and the wizard is interesting (the menu of rules mechanics they can implement in the game from their spells).

In classic editions of D&D, the mechanic is simple and basic. How a player creates a result in the game is a function of creative and imaginative interpretation and a simple mechanic is implemented when needed. This is using your imagination to interact and interpret a shared space with a mechanic to guide these interpretations.

Modern D&D seems to favor the development of execution steps that create more tangible rules results that can be leveraged and manipulated to achieve a result. The act of doing so is the fundamental experience in the game. This is like using your imagination to build something out of Legos and unleashing it on the world.

This isn't meant to state that this is less imaginative, it is just meant to state that there is demand for more of the player's agency in the game to come from executing specific mechanics and less from interpretation.

Player agency in classic D&D comes from making choices based on information presented in a shared narrative space. Player agency in modern D&D is being able to execute and manipulate rules mechanics to achieve a desired result.

Some people prefer one over the other. Neither approach is objectively wrong or bad.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 3, 2019)

Campbell said:


> I think the desire for more interesting martial classes comes from a fundamental change in the way modern role playing games treat combat. In the classic game the focus was on the adventuring decisions and _violent conflicts were something to be quickly resolved so you could get back to the adventuring._



IDK where this vision of the past comes from.   My experience in the 80s with D&D was a bit of Basic (c1980) and a lot of AD&D.  Combat got lots of column-inches of rules & charts that applied to everyone.  Magic got a /lot/ of column-inches of spells and more spells and even more spells and items and rules and more rules and exceptions to rules.  Monsters got multiple book dedicated to them, and their stat blocks were heavily focused on combat stats.  "Exploration" got Thief special abilities, and more than a few column inches of DM advice, example gotchyas, and double talk, but really not much in actual rules or resolution systems or what I'd guess we'd call, today, "player agency" or engagement.

OK, maybe I can guess where it came from:   The players (probably mostly one or two players) spend hours describing the characters picking their way through a dungeon, probing with 10' poles and listening at doors, and whatnot.  And that is punctuated by traps, puzzles, tricks, and combats.  The only one of those that likely involved everyone at the table were the combats.  The bulk of the game was not combat, the exciting bits were not all combats - the exciting bits that engaged the whole table, though: combat.



> Modern role playing games treat combat as an action scene, meant to be captivating in its own right. It is supposed to feel dramatic and dynamic. Round by round actions are supposed to be tense and impacting. It tells a story.



I guess modern games started in the early 80s, they just didn't necessarily include every D&D group.



> With more spell slots, spells that are easier to cast, spells that have a much higher chance to make an impact, and spell mechanics that are just plain more dynamic it had never been more fun to play a spell caster. Meanwhile martial characters got locked into place if they wanted to use all of their attacks, lost a lot of power compared to monsters, and longer combats meant you felt like you were not getting the same game play fun as players of spell casters.



OK, you're clearly describing 3.x/d20, there.



> For me personally something else happened. I had played other role playing games! Games like Vampire, Werewolf, Feng Shui, and Legend of the Five Rings. These games had more interesting fighter types to play. Then about half way into our run playing 3rd Edition something happened. It's name was Exalted and for all its flaws fighter types were just as interesting and dynamic to play as any other type of character. When we went back to playing Dungeons and Dragons I could not play a fighter anymore. I opted to play clerics and psychic warriors instead.



OK. That's interesting.  I recall Exalted being held up to ridicule, and thrown out as an example of the extreme worst things an RPG could possibly devolve into.  I've never so much as glanced at it, myself.


From another thread, but more relevant here:







CapnZapp said:


> That is of no relevance, since 4e threw out the feeling of a D&D Wizard with the bathwater. It's like playing a different game.
> A 5E spellcaster still feels like a D&D spellcaster - your spells have a sometimes dramatic impact.
> And no, 5E Wizards feel nothing like 4E, while feeling very much like 3E Wizards,
> *5E is 3E done right*, especially in the area of spells and LFQW!



In the sense that 5e re-captured the Essence of D&D by restoring LFQW, with many, high-impact/versatility spells contrasted against martial beatsticks' grinding DPR, but didn't make it as extreme and obvious as 3e did, with CoDzilla &co.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 3, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> OK, maybe I can guess where it came from:   The players (probably mostly one or two players) spend hours describing the characters picking their way through a dungeon, probing with 10' poles and listening at doors, and whatnot.  And that is punctuated by traps, puzzles, tricks, and combats.



Yellow note pads with pages of procedural methods for going through doors and the like... to show your  "skill" at the game.  And NEVER using thief abilities.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 3, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> "Exploration" got Thief special abilities, and more than a few column inches of DM advice, example gotchyas, and double talk, but really not much in actual rules or resolution systems or what I'd guess we'd call, today, "player agency" or engagement.



Casters spells had things for interacting with exploration too...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 3, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Casters spells had things for interacting with exploration too...



Well, yeah, /of course/.  And, you were often exploring quite magical things.  In Search of the Unknown, for instance, featured identical rooms that teleported you, all unknowning, between them, just to mess up your precious map, and magical pools that did different things to you.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> If you assert disbelief in the way OD&D or AD&D was played due to your playing experience, you will quickly realize that your playing experience is not universal.



Yeah, I was prefacing my maunderings with the context of my personal experience /for precisely that reason/.  I only read one of the three surprisingly different versions of basic that were out in the fad years, and then dived into AD&D.  So my impression is mostly of AD&D...

There's two very different things that get discussed in going on about the olden days, and their not teased out nearly as much as they should be.  One is how people played the game, which varied widely and included how DMs changed/added/removed/ignored/misread rules, and the other is the _content of the game_ - which varied a little over time, and with the 'two-pronged approach.'

We can compare anecdotes forever, they're different for each of us.  But, the content of a given book from a given time, that's a thing we can all look at.



> .....anyway, the point is that many people did not need or use the specific combat resolution systems for the majority of play, because they weren't engaged in combat.



An interesting thing about that is that RPGs in general, and D&D in particular, had reps as 'violent' combat-oriented games, because so much of their systems were devoted to combat.  So play consisting of mostly non-combat, was also play that largely /didn't involve the content of the actual game/.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 3, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, I was prefacing my maunderings with the context of my personal experience /for precisely that reason/.  I only read one of the three surprisingly different versions of basic that were out in the fad years, and then dived into AD&D.  So my impression is mostly of AD&D...
> 
> There's two very different things that get discussed in going on about the olden days, and their not teased out nearly as much as they should be.  One is how people played the game, which varied widely and included how DMs changed/added/removed/ignored/misread rules, and the other is the _content of the game_ - which varied a little over time, and with the 'two-pronged approach.'
> 
> We can compare anecdotes forever, they're different for each of us.  But, the content of a given book from a given time, that's a thing we can all look at.



I was going to make a comment similar to this. I have had this experience.

I learned to play by myself, with the Mentzer Red Box in 83. I was 10 years old at the time. I joined with other kids who also learned it the same way in the school yard in elementary school. We moved on to AD&D, but never really used everything in those books.

Having rediscovered my love of the classic D&D editions, I've re-read those Basic rules as an adult. I found there is a vast difference between the rules as written and the game play as intended vs. the way we played it as kids.

When I rediscovered old school D&D, I delved into the rules as an adult and I also sought references and advice from those who played it originally or learned from those who have. I sought opportunities to play the game with people who were experienced with it as adults.

This effort and experience has created an appreciation for the depth of the classic game that may be missed by those who have not put in such effort.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> And that's before getting into the supplements and the best ways to advance (money!).



Greed is good and fighting evil a bad idea yes it was a very moral game. LOL


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 3, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> I was going to make a comment similar to this. I have had this experience.
> I learned to play by myself, with the Mentzer Red Box in 83. I was 10 years old at the time. I joined with other kids who also learned it the same way in the school yard in elementary school. We moved on to AD&D, but never really used everything in those books.



I always have to look up which basic set is which.  At 13 I played the Holmes, I guess - blue cover, mentioned AD&D a few times - Basic Set with my friends for a while, we did not 'get it,' and they lost interest faster than I did.  So I dived into AD&D (read cover to cover, repeatedly), and, with considerable effort to overcome innate shyness, started playing it at the local hobby shop, primarily with adults, because that's who was playing, then it was home games and conventions, and I was, for lack of a better term, mentored in how to be a DM by a remarkable young lady only 4 years my senior, who, at the time, with the technicality of minor/adult between us, seemed a huge difference. 



> When I rediscovered old school D&D, I delved into the rules as an adult and I also sought references and advice from those who played it originally or learned from those who have. I sought opportunities to play the game with people who were experienced with it as adults.
> This effort and experience has created an appreciation for the depth of the classic game that may be missed by those who have not put in such effort.



I never left the hobby, I drifted from D&D in the mid 90s, to return with 3.0, but AD&D remained my favorite ed - and burned into my little brain where a good high school education should have been.

Even similar experiences can be quite different.



lowkey13 said:


> Look, I'm not trying to be a dink (really). But there is SO MUCH OUT THERE in the old stuff that isn't combat. Really.



There is so much of anything Gygax wrote that was just... verbiage.     I mean, I think I can be long-winded and wall-of-text in a forum context, but...

...what have you got for resolving a 'social scene?'  Reaction adjustments for CHA & Race?  Exploration? A few roll 1 on a d6 this or % for that thief skill, and a lot of cool ideas on how to befuddle your players, ruin their maps, and screw with their characters...  and who does engage with the DM to resolve those scenes?  Much as in 3e or 5e today, it's one player.  In AD&D, he's even given a label the "Caller."

So why do we hear these varied impressions of D&D, that it was a wargame, all about combat, that it was exploration and combat was just something to get through quickly, that it was all about the RP and the character?  Well, the nice way to put it is every DM ran it differently, everyone's experience was different.

But, I'm starting to suspect a component of it is /which/ kind of player were you, playing which kind of character?



> "Hey, everyone, I looked at AD&D, and I determined that it's really an IKEA! Because ... there's a lot of tables."
> You're welcome. Catch me at the Poconos next week!



Most worthwhile thing you've said in a reply to me in a while, it feels like.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, there is an easy way we can deal with that.



I like it better when we're exchanging jokes, in general.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> No one was commenting about morality?
> 
> Oh, wait. LOL. Better?



All good  

But remember the best way to get awesome at fighting remained never ever fight


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Oofta (Oct 3, 2019)

My experience with most versions of D&D* is that the amount of time spent in combat varies widely by group.  I just had a game the other day where most of the day was just social and exploration based.

I remember in OD&D just doing dungeon crawls where a lot of time was spent figuring out how to kill things the most efficiently. 

It seems to be more influence by style and preferences of the group than the version of the game.  Except for the version that shall not be named, of course.

_*I'll just leave it at most versions because if I get any more specific the whole thing will get derailed again about whether or not a certain unnamed version was "real" D&D_


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I'd say that it allowed for a much more ambiguous game, and did not lend itself, necessarily, to a straight-up heroic narrative.



Release your game shortly after a hugely un-popular war and write the rules so that fighting bad guys didnt work too well probably not a conscious thing.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 3, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Release your game shortly after a hugely un-popular war and write the rules so that fighting bad guys didnt work too well probably not a conscious thing.



That's a new twist on "Fantasy Vietnam."

...y'know, it was pointed out to me by an even-older-timer that, initially, 0D&D gave pretty juicy exp for killing monsters, but that it was significantly reduced, and emphasis switched to treasure-hunting, with Greyhawk Supplement I.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 3, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's a new twist on "Fantasy Vietnam."



I hadn't considered others using the phrase weren't thinking of that too...


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Oct 3, 2019)

In a 2010 interview at Hill Cantons I was asked a question and answered it with this:

*HC:* _How do we have a more honest and provocative discussion about the older editions of D&D (and our gaming history)?_

*RJK:* A very broad question with many avenues left open for answer, so I’ll choose one. Finding what is common in all of the editions would be a starting point. Let’s see: editions, worlds, products. These are all passing ideas. The immutable survives these as the intrinsic core of the game. And the immutable part of this game in all its forms is the ability to create on all levels. By honestly seeking its core principle that remains unchanged even as the landscape it functions therein changes time and time again, this is where we find its truth, its essence, if you will. The rest of it is just dressing it out as each one of us prefers.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 4, 2019)

Rob Kuntz said:


> the immutable part of this game in all its forms is the ability to create on all levels.



Earlier in the same interview:

*



			HC:
		
Click to expand...


*


> _You are of the opinion that D&D went astray from its initial goals. What went wrong?_
> 
> *RJK: *The original game as envisioned saw the province of _personalized creation on all levels_ as the only dominant purpose of the game as first play-tested, written, and promoted in commercial form...
> ...This 2nd retconned marketing model continued to this very day and as a template for every major version of the game and, by comparison, has been emulated by many other companies then and now, including those fan-driven publishers currently publishing under the OGL. Take a close look. The majority of companies release their RPG rules and then what? Adventures. Scads of them.




So, were you saying that the essence of D&D is something D&D, itself, lost fairly early on - and by extension the myriad imitators that followed, never picked back up?


----------



## Campbell (Oct 4, 2019)

@Tony Vargas

D&D played as a war game does not really mean a focus on playing out the details of a skirmish. It's not a war game in sense that Warhammer is, but more in the sense of refereed historical war games that focus on the larger war instead of individual skirmishes. Things like reconnaissance, fog of war, logistics, hirelings, and more strategic planning like recruiting those hobgoblins who you scored a good reaction role on to take out those gnolls over there for you are key elements of play.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 4, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Release your game shortly after a hugely un-popular war and write the rules so that fighting bad guys didnt work too well probably not a conscious thing.



War finished in 75.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Oct 4, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Earlier in the same interview:
> 
> 
> 
> So, were you saying that the essence of D&D is something D&D, itself, lost fairly early on - and by extension the myriad imitators that followed, never picked back up?




Without derailing this thread into adjacent areas:  Yes.  Its essence, within the abstract, is still there as in the original form but it is not promoted due to the creating being switched out from individual to company, thus from Game/World as Creator to Game/World as Consumer (of others creations).  I explain this fully, and the impacts resulting from this shift, in_ Dave Arneson's True Genius _and have touched upon it in interviews, as noted.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> War finished in 75.



And it was already being protested as early as 1965.... and that Greyhawk supplement Tony mentioned was published in 75


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 4, 2019)

Rob Kuntz said:


> Without derailing this thread into adjacent areas:  Yes.  Its essence, within the abstract, is still there as in the original form but it is not promoted due to the creating being switched out from individual to company, thus from Game/World as Creator to Game/World as Consumer (of others creations).



Hmmm been creating my own game world for a very long time and when players design a character in modern D&D I encourage them to start with a concept and we make adjustments to the game world incorporating homelands and sometimes their characters concept as a fresh "race" or "class" then we use the  mechanics of the game to reflect that (I find 4e with its adaptable character design and reflavoring very useful for that).... but then I am not much into pre-made game world although I find certain of them like Darksun/Eberron rather inspiring. And have had characters travel to something like Darksun. 

And honestly I have seen others much younger who use D&D as mostly baseline for creativity too. I do think it's alive and well.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2019)

Oofta said:


> My experience with most versions of D&D* is that the amount of time spent in combat varies widely by group.  I just had a game the other day where most of the day was just social and exploration based.
> 
> I remember in OD&D just doing dungeon crawls where a lot of time was spent figuring out how to kill things the most efficiently.
> 
> ...



Nah, you coulda just not brought it up at all, if you actually didn’t want to make the discussion about 4e. 

Because what you’re implying about 4e is simply not true.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 8, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> I always have to look up which basic set is which.  At 13 I played the Holmes, I guess - blue cover, mentioned AD&D a few times - Basic Set with my friends for a while, we did not 'get it,' and they lost interest faster than I did.  So I dived into AD&D (read cover to cover, repeatedly), and, with considerable effort to overcome innate shyness, started playing it at the local hobby shop, primarily with adults, because that's who was playing, then it was home games and conventions, and I was, for lack of a better term, mentored in how to be a DM by a remarkable young lady only 4 years my senior, who, at the time, with the technicality of minor/adult between us, seemed a huge difference.
> 
> I never left the hobby, I drifted from D&D in the mid 90s, to return with 3.0, but AD&D remained my favorite ed - and burned into my little brain where a good high school education should have been.
> 
> Even similar experiences can be quite different.




Thanks for sharing. It is always interesting hearing how other people got into the hobby. 

I briefly left the hobby due to work ( a job that literally consumbed all of my free time) but got back into it shortly after.

My most important moments in D&D:

1. Getting the Red Box as a birthday present from my mom.
2. Playing for the first time in 5th grade and meeting my best friend as a result.
3. Getting back into the game with 3E with college friends and playing weekly.
4. Running my first real campaign (4+ years long) with 4E (after a long hiatus from the game).
5. Rediscovering the classics (via the OSR games) and coming into my own as a DM.

So, yeah, this game has been a significant part of my life. Crazy... I'm not sure very many can say that about Monopoly or Grand Theft Auto, .


----------



## Oofta (Oct 8, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nah, you coulda just not brought it up at all, if you actually didn’t want to make the discussion about 4e.
> 
> Because what you’re implying about 4e is simply not true.



My opinion, shared by many people, is not true?

Huh.  Last time I checked you don't get to tell me what my opinion is.  This is not and cannot be an objective judgement and I've never claimed otherwise.

P.S. doesn't that chip on your shoulder get a bit heavy if even the slightest bit of snark and disagreement set you off?


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 8, 2019)

My opinion is that "the world is flat" -  there are whole websites devoted to it, so it simply must be true.


----------



## cmad1977 (Oct 8, 2019)

SOMEBODY is super sensitive about 4e.


----------



## Oofta (Oct 8, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> My opinion is that "the world is flat" -  there are whole websites devoted to it, so it simply must be true.



The question of "do I like that edition" is subjective.  One objective truth about 4E is that when released it made pretty radical changes to the basic structure of the game when released.  Every class had a set of at will, encounter and daily abilities.  Those powers were very specific on what they did, a similar structure previously used primarily by spells.

Whether that made the game better, worse, or felt like the other iterations of D&D is subjective.  

But I do not care.  I have my opinion, I gave 4E more than a fair shot but ultimately decided it was not a game for me.  Had 5E not come out I would not be playing that version.

It's time to get over it because I'm not going to hide my opinion of 4E because you might get upset.  We have different opinions.  You liked the edition, after playing for a few years I did not.  It's hardly the end of the world, you're allowed to like things I don't.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 8, 2019)

Oofta said:


> The question of "do I like that edition" is subjective.



And absolutely not what you said or implied... where as "mind control" is closer to the claim


----------



## Oofta (Oct 8, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> And absolutely not what you said or implied... where as "mind control" is closer to the claim




I don't have any clue what you're saying any more.  The representation of how all classes worked was consolidated into one pattern.  That's not "mind control".  There is no anti-4E illuminati.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 8, 2019)

Oofta said:


> I don't have any clue what you're saying any more.



Quoting/Paraphrasing yourself ->"It ( the amount of time spent in combat varies widely by group ) seems to be more influence by style and preferences of the group than the version of the game. Except for the version that shall not be named, of course. "


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 8, 2019)

Pretty sure that was what *@doctorbadwolf *objected to


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 8, 2019)

Oofta said:


> The representation of how all classes worked was consolidated into one pattern.



Which also wasnt the subject referenced either, shrug. 

Nope it wasnt your like or dislike in reference and nope it wasnt class resource structures.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2019)

Oofta said:


> My opinion, shared by many people, is not true?
> 
> Huh.  Last time I checked you don't get to tell me what my opinion is.  This is not and cannot be an objective judgement and I've never claimed otherwise.
> 
> P.S. doesn't that chip on your shoulder get a bit heavy if even the slightest bit of snark and disagreement set you off?



Lol “set you off”? Don’t be melodramatic. 

Anyway, you suggested that 4e doesn’t change/play differently based on preference. That is objectively false. You know it’s false because you know that others played and continue to play 4e very differently from your own experience with it. 

So, you unnecessarily brought it up, just to snark for no reason? That’s definitely a good way to behave.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 8, 2019)

To me sounds like someone is claiming 4e takes over peoples minds and they cannot spend whole sessions exploring or using skills to solve problems ... where as interestingly enough it was the first edition which had solid tools to help enable that kind of adventuring in cooperative team effort and providing experience point gain based on the challenges faced. The first edition that encouraged DMs to allow character skill use as able to address the big problems as much as say a wizards spell and enabled it at many other levels.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 9, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> To me sounds like someone is claiming 4e takes over peoples minds and they cannot spend whole sessions exploring or using skills to solve problems ... where as interestingly enough it was the first edition which had solid tools to help enable that kind of adventuring in cooperative team effort and providing experience point gain based on the challenges faced. The first edition that encouraged DMs to allow character skill use as able to address the big problems as much as say a wizards spell and enabled it at many other levels.



I'd say this is incorrect.

The first edition to provide the experience you describe is probably OD&D or Basic / Expert.

It achieved this state well before 4E came out. It does so by way of its extremely detailed exploration procedures. These procedures put a lot of agency in the hands of the players. The choices you need to make in exploration are meaningful and impactful in ways not provided by any other game.

4E was not so great at out of combat situations (well no worse than any other edition). I found skill challenges to be awkward to utilize. I appreciated the effort to quantify and qualify the out of combat situation... but skill challenges were the wrong solution.

4E attempted to handle out of combat situations using an abstract skill challenge system... whereas B/X did the same by providing tangible and objective rules procedures. I prefered the B/X approach because they were understandable and relatable from a player perspective. Skill challenges were just arbitrary to me.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 9, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> B/X accomplishes the same goal by challenging player skill. It is the choices that the player makes that decides success or failure in any given endeavour.



Player social skill at tweaking the DMS knobs?

Because without a clear system of tactical differences etc there isnt a player skill. (except read the DM).


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 9, 2019)

Player skill like the guessing game of what the DM will like next...


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 9, 2019)

Or was it player skill at reading from a sheet of step by step actions for entering through a door (avoiding the Thief skills as much as possible). Cause I saw that. Admittedly most of this was  AD&D it might not be what you are thinking of.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 9, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Player social skill at tweaking the DMS knobs?
> 
> Because without a clear system of tactical differences etc there isnt a player skill. (except read the DM).



Nope.

I can explain if you would like. I am talking about tangible, objective and procedural elements to the exploration game.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 9, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Or was it player skill at reading from a sheet of step by step actions for entering through a door (avoiding the Thief skills as much as possible). Cause I saw that. Admittedly most of this was  AD&D it might not be what you are thinking of.



Fair enough. There may be a disconnect here. I am most well versed in B/X. I played AD&D when I was young. We mostly played AD&D as B/X but with the cool classes and sometimes weapon vs AC and speed factor added in.

If there were elements of AD&D that you personally experienced that I didn't share then I can only submit to your experiences. 

I'm talking about the game as written and the procedural elements in B/X dungeon and wilderness exploration rules and how they create an objective reality that players can manipulate and interact with.

I tried skill challenges when I ran 4E and I never felt comfortable running them. They felt awkward and I felt they were a little contrived. I was never able to run one in a way that was satisfactory. Honestly could just be me so maybe I was a little over wrought over this.

For that, I apologize.

I just feel the procedures in B/X achieve the idea of the player interaction with exploration and player teamwork in a more tangible way.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 9, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> I just feel the procedures in B/X achieve the idea of the player interaction with exploration and player teamwork in a more tangible way.



My responses are all over the board and all are in detail ignorant of the B/X version.

Player teamwork? Classically always seemed like a spell caster going blink the party is now fully escaped from the scenario and basking at home or some other extreme effect because I pushed the win button.  That is often a feature of spells in early edition and they brought it back in 5e. Of course only casters get those buttons or extreme benefits,  because flank teamwork.  But non caster abilities...nope cannot do it.

When we discuss character skills vs player "skill" as I said without very clear systematised effects it becomes playing the DM not the game which is what I seen in AD&D - that said I suppose its possible the same kind of clarity could be done that is done for combat ... i am not thinking it has been.

I do not have the nature skills (or atleast incredibly few) of my character I am not a fine singer nor expert swimmer and the procedural elements I seen brought int to AD&D came off eventually as memorizing or reciting from this laundry or shopping list to me I do not see any of that as functionally playing a role other than the role of "me", it is good when you can have things which help create the illusion of connectivity between my "game choices" and "game world effects", for instance am I direct or deceptive.. or analytic or just shooting from my gut am I taking a lot of risk to gain advantage later or now am I exploiting something now - and similar general choices and with actual methodical means, that might be one way of letting me influence the details of something neither I nor the DM really do not know.

Are you going to ask the player how his character swims which stroke for use in a storm and decide his character is going to drown because he didnt pick a side stroke attempting to get to that island, which btw takes very little energy? No that doesnt make too much sense.

And while me trying to guess the things the DM sees as important is never avoidable it happens in every version of the game (including those skill challenges) I think its better to reduce than encourage too much. I am utterly dependent on what the dm OR system provides with regards to what I see and even what the character can understand as important I can be given resources but when it gets down to it my game choices really just need to be symbolic of real choices of the characters in part because we cannot really know the details without being the character. Excess pretence that is the player being "tested" is just excessive pretense to me.  AND its usually presented with a very haughty we are better than you attitude - not to mention gygaxian adversarialism... ooh you forgot to listen at the door this time shame on you die or you listened one too many times die from ear mites.  

There is a certain amount of proxying of game for character success too, but unless that is regulated in interesting ways the higher abstraction can avoid tedium of laundry list behaviors.

A skill challenge is a structure for DM tracking progress towards a difficult to achieve goal and it encouraged DMs to make certain that some single spell (or even single skill) wasnt being allowed overwhelming benefits in the big picture, like a teleport trivializing what might be an interesting set of choices and skill applications.  It is indeed mostly a back end element of the game a tool for DMs but it also in general encouraged thinking about how those character skills might be leveraged multiple ways while allowing them to be significant.  I actually didnt start 4e till after they had ironed out some core elements of the mechanical kinks in skill challenges.

It tied advancement of the characters to challenging of the characters (with yeah that does your skill application make sense to us mixed it)  and served as a basis for advancing characters (giving out experience points) for something other than greed or killing its how difficult is the adversary (in this case not a being). 2e actually implied with a grab bag of experience sub systems some sort of way to give experience for this non-combat stuff but to me it really wasn't really very clear and often seemingly utterly arbitrary *(you saved the princess here is some XP... how many shrug... some.)  Oh and earlier than that you saved the princess this is the gold reward..and the XP to make sure that is what you do, but make it a barmaid you saved and meh. 

I do not know the edition you are talking about and i have actually heard some positives but I am not familiar with a procedural approach that ends with positive results instead of tedium.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 10, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> My responses are all over the board and all are in detail ignorant of the B/X version.




You presented a lot to unpack. So I'll take them in order. I apologize for the LONG post.




> Player teamwork? Classically always seemed like a spell caster going blink the party is now fully escaped from the scenario and basking at home or some other extreme effect because I pushed the win button.  That is often a feature of spells in early edition and they brought it back in 5e. Of course only casters get those buttons or extreme benefits,  because flank teamwork.  But non caster abilities...nope cannot do it.





There are very few situations where a spell caster in B/X can blink the party home in an instant. You are thinking spells like teleport (which are both high level and also somewhat risky… it is possible to fail a teleport and end up lost miles from where you intended to go).

The closest spell I can think of that is accessible at low levels and acts as a win button would be Sleep. It is true; this spell can negate an entire encounter. But there are significant trade offs…

A MU (Magic User) is likely     only going to have one casting of the spell. A 2nd level MU could have 2,     but they would have to memorize 2 copies of the spell and forgo the use of     other potentially useful spells. MU's get very limited spells per day.
Sleep is only effective on     weaker creatures, at the point where a MU is powerful enough to afford     multiple castings of the spell the threats they will face will likely be     immune.
Casting spells needs to be     declared before initiative. If the MU loses initiative and takes damage,     the spell fails and is lost. The act of casting in combat is inherently     risky.

All of these things put the MU on par balance wise with the rest of the party. The MU can negate an encounter, once. They get the spotlight in this case, but once that is done, they are relegated to supporting roles in future encounters.



> When we discuss character skills vs player "skill" as I said without very clear systematised effects it becomes playing the DM not the game which is what I seen in AD&D - that said I suppose its possible the same kind of clarity could be done that is done for combat ... i am not thinking it has been.




I'm not quite sure what you mean by playing the DM. Are you talking about trying to manipulate or trick the DM?

There are many clear elements in B/X where player skill at the game directly impacts the success of the session that don't require manipulation.

Time management. Making skilled choices in deciding actions in the dungeon weighed against time it takes. Making good judgment on whether an activity should be attempted… weighing against risks such as depletion of light sources and wandering monsters.
Encounter management. Choosing when to engage in combat and when to evade or attempt talking. Making judgments on the value of sacrificing treasure or food to avoid an unwanted encounter.
Spell management. Making judgements on the best time to utilize limited resources like spells or wands.
These three items alone provide systematic game play that requires player skill and the skill of the player in this directly effects whether they are successful.  There is zero playing the DM involved here.



> I do not have the nature skills (or atleast incredibly few) of my character I am not a fine singer nor expert swimmer and the procedural elements I seen brought int to AD&D came off eventually as memorizing or reciting from this laundry or shopping list to me I do not see any of that as functionally playing a role other than the role of "me", it is good when you can have things which help create the illusion of connectivity between my "game choices" and "game world effects", for instance am I direct or deceptive.. or analytic or just shooting from my gut am I taking a lot of risk to gain advantage later or now am I exploiting something now - and similar general choices and with actual methodical means, that might be one way of letting me influence the details of something neither I nor the DM really do not know.




None of these are necessary. Your character is your avatar / playing piece in the game, not you, yourself. Player skill has nothing to do with this. The skill comes from making the choices as a player to use the abilities of your character. If this sounds very similar to the approach that 4E takes, it is because it is similar. Its just the mechanism is different.



> Are you going to ask the player how his character swims which stroke for use in a storm and decide his character is going to drown because he didnt pick a side stroke attempting to get to that island, which btw takes very little energy? No that doesnt make too much sense.



No of course not. But if their character is a fighter and/or came from nautical background then its likely they'll have the skills to make it to the shore. Instead of a laundry list of skills or a massive suite of powers, I can work with the player to reach a reasonable judgement about the capabilities of a character.




> And while me trying to guess the things the DM sees as important is never avoidable it happens in every version of the game (including those skill challenges) I think its better to reduce than encourage too much. I am utterly dependent on what the dm OR system provides with regards to what I see and even what the character can understand as important I can be given resources but when it gets down to it my game choices really just need to be symbolic of real choices of the characters in part because we cannot really know the details without being the character.



I agree that players are indeed dependent on the DM. I disagree on the approach to solution.

D&D is a game. Like any other game worth playing, it requires a certain amount of skill… both as a player and as a DM. People can be bad at D&D, they can lack skill. But like any other game, the more effort you put into the game the more skill you develop. At least for me, a significant part of any game is not just the experience of playing the game but the accomplishment of becoming better at it.

For me personally, instead of striving to reduce the influence of the DM, effort should be put into helping DM's improve their skill.

To be frank, if a DM is forcing you to guess at what they see as important, then they are not a skilled DM.

They should be providing clear choices and they should be clear about the consequences of your choices. A skilled DM will ask the player what their intention is and explain the risks and consequences in a manner that allow the player to make an informed choice.



> Excess pretence that is the player being "tested" is just excessive pretense to me.  AND its usually presented with a very haughty we are better than you attitude - not to mention gygaxian adversarialism... ooh you forgot to listen at the door this time shame on you die or you listened one too many times die from ear mites.




I'm not trying to make claims that I am better at anyone else.

To be honest the statements you make about the 'door situation' are just as perplexing and off base as statements about 4E being 'just a video game'. 

No one who wants to run an old school game in good conscious and with honesty does that.

You are describing poor DM'ing or flat out a**hole behavior. It's not a game system problem. 




> There is a certain amount of proxying of game for character success too, but unless that is regulated in interesting ways the higher abstraction can avoid tedium of laundry list behaviors.




I'm not sure I understand this comment. I would welcome clarification if you would be interested.



> A skill challenge is a structure for DM tracking progress towards a difficult to achieve goal and it encouraged DMs to make certain that some single spell (or even single skill) wasnt being allowed overwhelming benefits in the big picture, like a teleport trivializing what might be an interesting set of choices and skill applications.  It is indeed mostly a back end element of the game a tool for DMs but it also in general encouraged thinking about how those character skills might be leveraged multiple ways while allowing them to be significant.  I actually didnt start 4e till after they had ironed out some core elements of the mechanical kinks in skill challenges.



I am familiar with skill challenges. I've run 4E for over 5 years… so I understand the mechanic. I understand the primary vs. secondary skill and the complexity ratings.

I was never able to run skill challenge as its own encounter in a satisfying way.

I got better use out of them as a part of an encounter. For example: the party has to complete a skill challenge to deactivate an eldritch machine while its guardians attack them.




> It tied advancement of the characters to challenging of the characters (with yeah that does your skill application make sense to us mixed it)  and served as a basis for advancing characters (giving out experience points) for something other than greed or killing its how difficult is the adversary (in this case not a being). 2e actually implied with a grab bag of experience sub systems some sort of way to give experience for this non-combat stuff but to me it really wasn't really very clear and often seemingly utterly arbitrary *(you saved the princess here is some XP... how many shrug... some.)  Oh and earlier than that you saved the princess this is the gold reward..and the XP to make sure that is what you do, but make it a barmaid you saved and meh.



Sure. You are talking about reward systems here and campaign tone.

Personally, I am a fan of XP for gold (as presented in B/X). I see XP for gold as an objective advancement tied to challenging the players. The choices and actions taken by the players result in the acquisition of treasure. Good choices lead to more treasure, poor choices don't.

But there some middle ground here. Players are not purely rational actors.

Just because you get experience for gold, doesn't mean that players will rob every living thing they come across and not save barmaids. In my experience running B/X for a decade, the game doesn't really turn everyone into murderous larcenous psychopaths.

Of course it does create a more cavalier approach to heroism. Characters aren't heroes they are adventurers.

If you want a campaign of heroes you don't use XP for gold.



> I do not know the edition you are talking about and i have actually heard some positives but I am not familiar with a procedural approach that ends with positive results instead of tedium.




The game I am most familiar with is B/X.

I enjoy the procedural elements of the game, but I preface this in that they tend to be better suited to a dungeon delve / adventuring tone as opposed to a heroic tone.

But what I am talking about is the interactions between Turn based dungeon / wilderness exploration, wandering monsters, random reaction rolls, light source depletion over time. There is a lot of interesting game developments that happen just with the random procedural engine.

Some, examples…

Rolling an orc encounter with a friendly reaction result. Why are they friendly? Maybe they are being hunted by some even more powerful creature… maybe they will negotiate for help from the party.

Rolling a brigand encounter with No. Appearing 1. Why is one lone brigand wandering the dungeon? Perhaps he was the last survivor of his adventuring party. Perhaps he's wounded. Will the party help him? What can they learn from him?

A stuck door that is not able to be forced open. Does the party hack it open with axes? It will take time and the noise will call for possible encounters. Should they continue to explore, intead, and maybe find a way around it?

These are all examples of encounters that happen that are besides the set piece room encounters. Events that require some improvisation and willingness to let the session go in unexpected directions. To me they are like improvisational prompts that challenge me as a DM to read the 'tea leaves' and piece together something from some random events.

The game isn't fully known even to me. As a DM, I am playing along with the players and discovering the world with them. Sometimes a random encounter and the procedural element shapes the entire evening of play.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> There are very few situations where a spell caster in B/X can blink the party home in an instant. You are thinking spells like teleport (which are both high level and also somewhat risky… it is possible to fail a teleport and end up lost miles from where you intended to go).
> 
> The closest spell I can think of that is accessible at low levels and acts as a win button would be Sleep. It is true; this spell can negate an entire encounter.



5e teleport... is an example of such and going home is indeed fail safe.
But yes sleep was winning the spell lotto in ADnD too. AND it doesn't matter low or high level non-casters do not get that degree of impact at any level. You do get that?

I disliked random goo with a passion and found it uninspiring. (and anything bad DMing might do yes I know the door example was that - a random could do better or should I say worse - on a roll of 5 or 6 you get an ear mite killing you if you cannot get to a high level cleric within 48 hours (i think)... oh wait this is 2 weeks from generic town)

IF I wanted however I could recast that scene In 4e. Now you might get the ear mite trap 2 weeks journey out but there would be established ameliorating circumstances that made success possible = (note even in this circumstance this could still be trivialized by a caster for instance that party had a caster who knew teleport ritual or remove affliction - boring and not so worthy of story however one little scenario difference and we have skill challenge possibilities like if they do not have all the ingredients or maybe there was some sort of interdimensional shortcut of unknown destination which the ritualist might bend to make the teleport work with fewer ingredients, and require various skills to get there faster, they might be making nature and dungeoneering skill uses to gather the ingredients for that adjusted ritual fast enough (endurance checks strewn throughout for speed) or they might even use another skill check to think of a location about where the ritual could be cast with fewer ingredients (it could have just been a player idea creating a new ingredient in the story - perhaps relating to that magical rift the seen earlier now it has a function) they might be interrupted in the process by monsters (because it would make good story not because of random encounter charts) the historian in the party might remember that there was a high level priest who could help near another secluded monastery which is less time to get to and so on and much of that player driven ideas exploiting character abilities.

This is an intense scenario so the stakes are high and you need a lot of possible routes towards a success in my opinion.

The above is probably more than a bit incoherent and i didnt spend any time thinking of it (...but sometimes on the fly skill challenges turn out very good) AND in my experience the players Ideas are one huge ingredient beyond any planning you make.

EDIT The best skill challenges are things where progress is easily visualized like the chase scene and the likes.  So death by parasite is less so but you can use the victims condition to track it. Additionally even the victim could have his endurance resisting the disease to help stages with delirium etc determining progress. ETC, Other characters making successes speed the process yes all can be abstractly inter connected, so he has to in effect make fewer checks. (The victim might be the one best at one of the skills that would help but have to overcome delirium temporarily to contribute)
In 4e the time isnt exact hours it might be a disease track.

Note how knowing the 5e teleport pretty much totally prevents the scenario AND many other similar ones entirely.

And undermines many chase scenes unless you are doing the chasing.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> Personally, I am a fan of XP for gold (as presented in B/X). I see XP for gold as an objective advancement tied to challenging the players.



Why it could be just as challenging rescuing that peasant girl as the princess. ie even in your paradigm can be incredibly challenged and logically get no gold.  It was entirely about setting a tone of greed motivation AND yes it wasnt the story any of my players or myself wanted to play.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> But what I am talking about is the interactions between Turn based dungeon / wilderness exploration, wandering monsters, random reaction rolls, light source depletion over time. There is a lot of interesting game developments that happen just with the random procedural engine
> Some, examples…



The questions rising from random encounters like those arent even intriguing to me AND that is a huge problem its the wrong kind of story dungeon clearing sheesh with characters having the wrong kind of motivations and so on. It was obvious that there was a game implied in that morasse that I wanted and the hit point mechanism alone showed it was possible Not to mention discussions by Gygax about how a random arrow from a mook couldn't kill Conan and so on.  It was that potential for larger than life that made it better than RuneQuest. Not the pedestrian pest killing on a random timer.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 10, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Why it could be just as challenging rescuing that peasant girl as the princess. ie even in your paradigm can be incredibly challenged and logically get no gold.  It was entirely about setting a tone of greed motivation AND yes it wasnt the story any of my players or myself wanted to play.



That is actually an inaccurate statement.

In B/X, the rules for Giving out Experience are on page B22:


> Experience points (abbreviated XP, as ep
> stands for electrum pieces) are given for non-magical treasure and
> for defeating monsters. For every 1 gp value of non-magical
> treasure the characters recover, the DM should give 1 XP to the
> ...




Note the award is for 1 gp value of non-magical treasure the characters _recover_. The reward gold would not grant experience.

I posit two scenarios

1. A barmaid was abducted by goblins. Her father, a local farmer offers 50gp (the entirety of his savings) to return her safely.

2. A princess was abducted by goblins. Her father, the king of the land, offers 20,000gp (a fraction of his royal coffers) to return her safely.

The goblin abductors, in both scenarios, are exactly the same in composition and loot that they possess.

In a game with XP for killing monsters: 3rd edition, 4th edition, 5th edition. The party would receive the same experience for choosing to rescue the barmaid as they would for choosing to rescue the princess. The only difference is the gold rewards. The players have the _choice _to be motivated by heroism to save the barmaid or by greed to save the princess.

In a game with Xp for gold: B/X, OD&D, AD&D. The party would receive the same experience for choosing to rescue the barmaid as they would for choosing to rescue the princess. The only difference is the gold rewards. The players have the _choice _to be motivated by heroism to save the barmaid or by greed to save the princess.

In essessene the games are exactly the same.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 10, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> 5e teleport... is an example of such and going home is indeed fail safe.
> But yes sleep was winning the spell lotto in ADnD too. AND it doesn't matter low or high level non-casters do not get that degree of impact at any level. You do get that?



It is an impactful spell that can turn the tide of one maybe two encounters. There will be other encounters where the fighter tears through the enemy and single handedly wins a fight, or when the thief Moves Silently and backstabs and instant kills a creature. There will be situations where the thief will shine and where the fighter and cleric will shine. 

Balance isn't uniform in B/X. It isn't about everyone being equal in every situation, it is about each character having a situation where they excel and the classes take turns excelling in their areas in contribution to the overall group's success.



> IF I wanted however I could recast that scene In 4e. Now you might get the ear mite trap 2 weeks journey out but there would be established ameliorating circumstances that made success possible = (note even in this circumstance this could still be trivialized by a caster for instance that party had a caster who knew teleport ritual or remove affliction - boring and not so worthy of story however one little scenario difference and we have skill challenge possibilities like if they do not have all the ingredients or maybe there was some sort of interdimensional shortcut of unknown destination which the ritualist might bend to make the teleport work with fewer ingredients, and require various skills to get there faster, they might be making nature and dungeoneering skill uses to gather the ingredients for that adjusted ritual fast enough (endurance checks strewn throughout for speed) or they might even use another skill check to think of a location about where the ritual could be cast with fewer ingredients (it could have just been a player idea creating a new ingredient in the story - perhaps relating to that magical rift the seen earlier now it has a function) they might be interrupted in the process by monsters (because it would make good story not because of random encounter charts) the historian in the party might remember that there was a high level priest who could help near another secluded monastery which is less time to get to and so on and much of that player driven ideas exploiting character abilities.
> 
> This is an intense scenario so the stakes are high and you need a lot of possible routes towards a success in my opinion.
> 
> ...



That's a really interesting scenario. I like it.

I understand how you can leverage the skill challenge framework for this. You are creating an adventure/scenario for how teleportation works in your world.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 10, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> The questions rising from random encounters like those arent even intriguing to me AND that is a huge problem its the wrong kind of story dungeon clearing sheesh with characters having the wrong kind of motivations and so on. It was obvious that there was a game implied in that morasse that I wanted and the hit point mechanism alone showed it was possible Not to mention discussions by Gygax about how a random arrow from a mook couldn't kill Conan and so on.  It was that potential for larger than life that made it better than RuneQuest. Not the pedestrian pest killing on a random timer.



You're welcome to your opinion and I wouldn't expect everyone to be interested in the same things I am. 

I find those interactions and the stories and situations and role-playing that develop from open ended and spontaneous gameplay to be what I consider the essence of the game. 

I just find heroic save the world quests to be uninteresting. I prefer running and playing in open sandbox worlds where there are multiple possibilities and adventure is driven by the player and their choices as opposed to some quest.

If I were running that kind of game, though, I wouldn't use XP for Gold. I use XP for Gold because it best suits the style of game I want to run.

As far as motivation goes. For me it has nothing to do with greed. The motivation is to seek adventure and overcome threats... wherein the reward is the treasure acquired.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> It is an impactful spell that can turn the tide of one maybe two encounters.



The average number of combats in a day out there in the wild is 2 based on WOTC own polls.  Now sure it wouldnt be for the trivialities of 2 orcs in a room.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> I just find heroic save the world quests to be uninteresting. I prefer running and playing in open sandbox worlds where there are multiple possibilities and adventure is driven by the player and their choices as opposed to some quest.



When I mentioned that improvised sometimes are the best on skill challenges I didnt follow through and say my adventure paradigm is based on character goals it was why I have hardly ever bought modules. 

Some examples I have had from players, Free the Slaves, Reintroduce my Recluse People to the World at Large, I did have one who was being sent on "suicide missions" to get rid of her by her Organization but get this the idea for the organization and why she was questing came from the player.  Shrug.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 10, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> ... where as interestingly enough it was the first edition which had solid tools to help enable that kind of adventuring in cooperative team effort and providing experience point gain based on the challenges faced. The first edition that encouraged DMs to allow character skill use as able to address the big problems as much as say a wizards spell and enabled it at many other levels.



 3e certainly presented skills that, sufficiently optimized, could address problems like spells could. Some of 'em, anyway.  Diplomancers being the most over the top example.
But,  yes, challenges engaging the whole party, resolved taking character skills into account, and yielding corresponding exp for the challenge, not, say treasure gained or foes overcome, sure, 4e was alone in that.


Monayuris said:


> I'd say this is incorrect.
> The first edition to provide the experience you describe is probably OD&D or Basic / Expert.



 0e didn't even have character skills, per se until the Thief. Let alone for all characters. Exp was for looting and/or killing, not overcoming challenges in other ways that did not involve material gain.



> . It does so by way of its extremely detailed exploration procedures. These procedures put a lot of agency in the hands of the players



 Thats the famed Gygaxian Skilled Play, sure. Not related to what Garthanos was talking about in the bit  quoted, above.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 10, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> When I mentioned that improvised sometimes are the best on skill challenges I didnt follow through and say my adventure paradigm is based on character goals it was why I have hardly ever bought modules.
> 
> Some examples I have had from players, Free the Slaves, Reintroduce my Recluse People to the World at Large, I did have one who was being sent on "suicide missions" to get rid of her by her Organization but get this the idea for the organization and why she was questing came from the player.  Shrug.



Thats cool. I apologize if my post made an incorrect assumption about your gaming.

My experiences with those kinds of adventures have always been poor. I played in a lot of those style campaigns and as a player and I always felt lost and lacked agency. Sounds like your approach is more of my style.

Personally I don't agree with your statements that classic games promote greed and bad motivations and your characterizations of classic D&D game play simply don't match my own experiences.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> . wherein the reward is the treasure acquired.



So why double up... on gold its already in story a valuable resource which you can gain followers or many other things. Why make it experience when it means not getting experience sometimes when the character really did accomplish a lot? Like that skill challenge which allowed them to save their ally I gave. In 1e if they figured out how to get him back the only experience they would get is????  In 4e they would be getting experience for overcoming the challenge (OK they did get a live ally if they succeed)


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

You see if in an adventure you to rob a trinket ... say you were counting coup on some adversary (political perhaps) you might get zero experience points in 1e or Oe for a very interesting adventure.

And all because Gygax thought Conan/Grey Mouser and such were the only way to play.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> You are creating an adventure/scenario for how teleportation works in your world.



The default teleport in 4e has material components for it (having things in the environment interact with that is not some huge jump its kind of a reason to have an Arcana skill) ...  I am sort of against the Residuum thing because it removes an element of strategic choice and makes it more likely the heros will just have the ingredients they need a solution to that is to give discounts on ritual specific components... its much cheaper to acquire than residuum and the residuum you get out of a disenchant is relatively less than the input. Plus making the components gatherable is also cheaper in general. They are subtle house rules that accomplish my ends but less extreme than anything I ever considered in AD&D


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 10, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> So why double up... on gold its already in story a valuable resource which you can gain followers or many other things. Why make it experience when it means not getting experience sometimes when the character really did accomplish a lot? Like that skill challenge which allowed them to save their ally I gave. In 1e if they figured out how to get him back the only experience they would get is????  In 4e they would be getting experience for overcoming the challenge (OK they did get a live ally if they succeed)



Because treasure is an objective value that can be used as a gauge for the value of the challenge faced. Treasure in classic D&D is allocated based on the threat that is expected to be faced. The deeper levels of the dungeon feature greater threats and greater rewards. The lair of a dragon will contain greater treasure the a hole with some goblins in it.

This allows players to tweak the risk/reward dial by deciding how much risk to face. Do they delve deeper and face more risk at the possibility of greater reward. Do they stay in the lower levels and play it safe, but recover paltry trinkets.

Treasure for XP is tangible and objective. If I find 2000 gold that is 2000 xp. It removes a lot of the issues with milestone style leveling where you have to guess how much saving the princess is worth. It also makes it really easy to figure out things like wealth by level... if my players encounter a 4th level baroness in her demanse, I can pretty easily figure out how what resources she has (men-at-arms, servants, arcanists, etc). The sum value of her domain is roughly equal to how much XP it takes to get to 4th level.

This makes it a lot easier to world-build on the fly if this comes up in the middle of the game.

I run adventure games. The focus of my D&D games are on exploration of the unknown places in the world. 

There is a world and there are places to be explored and adventure to be had. In the example you provided... I would consider that a failed expedition. The party attempted to delve somewhere but got laid up by some threat and had to find a way to escape. They failed to recover treasure, so they wouldn't get xp. It happens... sometimes you go in and end up with nothing. It's part of the game.

It sounds like this is probably not your style and that is fine. I'm not expecting you to agree with me. This approach is probably not appropriate for a political intrigue game or such. I wouldn't use XP for gold if I were to run such a game.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 10, 2019)

Heh, I am soooo glad that back in the day, the people I played with were never so pedantic as to read that paragraph about treasure "recovered" and presume that meant that reward treasure wasn't part of xp.  

We certainly never read it that way.  You did the deed, you got rewarded for it, you got xp for that reward because, well, you "recovered" the treasure by doing the deed.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> It sounds like this is probably not your style and that is fine. I'm not expecting you to agree with me. This approach is probably not appropriate for a political intrigue game or such. I wouldn't use XP for gold if I were to run such a game.



Story rewards alah 2e was abstraction entirely arbitrary how much you get for saving that princess or bar made  experience points garnered around skill challenged are based on actual difficulties faced.

The 4e way would work fine for the political intrigue game or the not political one... either way.

For me if they fail one thing and it leads them to overcome a different challenge they can get experience for that too their characters were learning and making choices new ones because a twist of story takes them some place else.

Their character counting coup was not only accomplishing a political goal but getting experience based on the difficulty of the process.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 10, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heh, I am soooo glad that back in the day, the people I played with were never so pedantic as to read that paragraph about treasure "recovered" and presume that meant that reward treasure wasn't part of xp.
> 
> We certainly never read it that way.  You did the deed, you got rewarded for it, you got xp for that reward because, well, you "recovered" the treasure by doing the deed.




For my games, experience is supposed to be a measure of the challenges faced by the party. 

When you look at treasure types, the more powerful monsters typically have more valuable treasure types. Likewise, the dungeon stocking rules place stronger monsters on lower levels and more treasure as a result.

If you have two scenarios where the challenge is the same, then the reward money does not reflect the challenge faced. So I wouldn't count that as experience.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> Treasure in classic D&D is allocated based on the threat that is expected to be faced.



I call that adding in a middle man which may not even be an accurate one as we know them zombies do not have much gold nor does the village but stopping the hoard is both a challenge and worthwhile. (and really should result in significant experience)

Nope we arent going to agree


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 10, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> Story rewards alah 2e was abstraction entirely arbitrary how much you get for saving that princess or bar made  experience points garnered around skill challenged are based on actual difficulties faced.
> 
> The 4e way would work fine for the political intrigue game or the not political one... either way.
> 
> ...



In general, I prefer objective and tangible reward systems over abstract and arbitrary. 

4E skill challenges are another mechanism for providing objective and tangible rewards. I know that a X complexity skill challenge will yield Y experience.

For the coup situation... I would probably grant experience points based on the wealth value of the domain that is being overthrown. It would be more difficult to overthrow a king than it would be to do such to a borderland barony.

This has the side effect of making the experience award tangible and objective to the players.  A group of politically opportunistic players seeking to upset the status-quo can make an accurate assessment of the value of a given domain, and as a result make an informed decision with regard to which polity they wish to overthrow.


----------



## Monayuris (Oct 10, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> I call that adding in a middle man which may not even be an accurate one as we know them zombies do not have much gold nor does the village but stopping the hoard is both a challenge and worthwhile. (and really should result in significant experience)
> 
> Nope we arent going to agree and you are going to accuse me of rejecting the essence of D&D because that is what these threads are about.



Oh.
It isn't my intention to accuse of rejecting the essence of D&D. 

My intention was more to address what I felt was a mischaracterization of my play style. I tried to keep it to the perspective of my own personal experiences and approach, but if I failed to do so and implied more than I should have, I apologize.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> If you have two scenarios where the challenge is the same, then the reward money does not reflect the challenge faced. So I wouldn't count that as experience.



How about this old solution to that... give them Karma in a sort of virtual gold fashion. It can decrease the cost of things you buy and other interesting things.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> My intention was more to address what I felt was a mischaracterization of my play style.



That's cool no problem.  You only jumped to doing it to mine once.  I felt the implications of gold reward did make greed the dominant motivation and it was enumerated many times by Gygax and co that was actually the goal in a sense to get characters to act like Conan and Grey Mouser and so on.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 10, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heh, I am soooo glad that back in the day, the people I played with were never so pedantic as to read that paragraph about treasure "recovered" and presume that meant that reward treasure wasn't part of xp.



Couldn't  "recovered" also imply taken or lost, first.  So the monster has to steal your gold, first, then you get exp for _recovering_ it, right?


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 10, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Couldn't "recovered" also imply taken or lost, first. So the monster has to steal your gold, first, then you get exp for _recovering_ it, right?



Or maybe recovered from the aristocracy wh is keeping those bar maids from being a source of experience

Sorry had to phrase it that way


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 11, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> The average number of combats in a day out there in the wild is 2 based on WOTC own polls.  Now sure it wouldnt be for the trivialities of 2 orcs in a room.



My own experience tells me that (other than 1st level) the higher level a party gets the fewer combats per day it has; largely I think because the foes higher-level parties tend to face often proportionally drain more resources out of the party per battle.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 11, 2019)

Garthanos said:


> You see if in an adventure you to rob a trinket ... say you were counting coup on some adversary (political perhaps) you might get zero experience points in 1e or Oe for a very interesting adventure.



This doesn't entirely parse but I think you're trying to say that in a system where xp can come from treasure and-or combat there'll be some adventure types that stand to produce little to no xp for the characters - do I have that right?

If yes, I posit this might not always be a bad thing (for example, it slows down advancement for those as wants it slower); and if it is a bad thing the DM can always find another means of granting some xp to the party be it by a 'mission bonus' or some random-but-not-random magic effect or whatever.

And I think 1e has a system whereby some xp can be earned for good and-or in-alignment roleplay...I say 'I think' as even though I've run a 1e variant for 35 years I've never used that system and probably only read its write-up in the DMG once or twice.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 11, 2019)

Monayuris said:


> For my games, experience is supposed to be a measure of the challenges faced by the party.
> 
> When you look at treasure types, the more powerful monsters typically have more valuable treasure types. Likewise, the dungeon stocking rules place stronger monsters on lower levels and more treasure as a result.



I don't use xp-for-gp but even if I did I still wouldn't tie treasure and challenge level that tightly together.

Sometimes a weak group of monsters has a great treasure (and often don't know what they have!).  Other times a spectacularly powerful monster might have no treasure at all.  Other times yet a monster's treasure might be tens if not hundreds of miles from where said monster is encountered by the PCs - classic examples are dragons (who keep their treasure in their lairs) and raiders or pirates (who keep their non-combat-aiding treasure at home base).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 11, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> My own experience tells me that (other than 1st level) the higher level a party gets the fewer combats per day it has; largely I think because the foes higher-level parties tend to face often proportionally drain more resources out of the party per battle.



Or because such foes are literally fewer and further between.


Lanefan said:


> And I think 1e has a system whereby some xp can be earned for good and-or in-alignment roleplay...I say 'I think' as even though I've run a 1e variant for 35 years I've never used that system and probably only read its write-up in the DMG once or twice.



I used a % bonus to earned exp system for RP.  I don't recall where I saw it.

I also gave 1/2 exp for avoiding or escaping a monster... the first time... then half of that...etc...
...the balance when you finally got around to killing it.


----------

